MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SEPTEMBER 30 AND OCTOBER 2, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:01 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.
Stutsman: Informal meeting for the Johnson County Board of Supervisors for September 30, 1997, review of the formal minutes for September 25. I haven't seen a copy of those. Did those come up, does anybody know? Well the reason I'm interested is that there was a mistake I made on the tape so I wanted to see if it reflected in those formal minutes. I reviewed the tape last night and I said something about a grant from the City and that grant for that program that we wrote the support letter for was from the State and not the City so I need to clarify that. Other than that I don't know, I haven't seen it so...
?: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: Well we'll just check them over and look them over for Thursday and then put that on for Thursday then. Business from the County Auditor, fiscal year 1997 REAP Certification. Do you know anything about that, Casie?
Recording Secretary Casie Parkins: No, I don't.
Stutsman: Do you want to call Tom or Lynnette? I don't know what that involves. Does anybody?
Bolkcom: I assume it's for the REAP funding that we need to certify with the State that we're taxing at a certain level in order to maintain our eligibility for refunds.
Stutsman: Do you want to call Lynette?
Board of Supervisors Employee Karen Lienau: Right now? Sure.
Stutsman: Yes. Then have her come up.
Lacina: I would think that should have been done when we certified the budget in March, but maybe not, maybe they have a different mechanism.
Jordahl: It looks like they do.
Lacina: You're right, that's what they're trying to do.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: EVALUATION OF FORMAL NIGHT MEETINGS
Stutsman: Yes, I think. OK, let's move on to discussion regarding evaluation of formal night meetings. When we started this, we agreed on a 6 month trial period and then we would re-evaluate and see where we were at on this. So the 6 months is now up and we need to decide what we want to do for duration. Input from any Board members?
Jordahl: Well I'm certainly glad that the Board agreed to do this, to have the evening meetings and give the public a chance to demonstrate by coming that they were interested in coming. It was particularly appropriate to do it with the meetings where we were handling zonings, because those are the cases where there tends to be the greatest interest. Clearly people have attended and without doing a statistical survey of the people attending, it's statistically likely that the great majority of them did not have to take time off from work to attend the meeting because it was in the evening. So that's, as far as statistics that's I think all we got. The people came, there were substantial numbers and the majority of people in the population work a daytime job, so it makes certain sense to me to continue it for those reasons.
Duffy: I'll really don't agree with that Jonathan because the plattings and zonings people show up anyway and in this place there weren't too many places to sit when we had it in the day time. Look what happened after they left, it got awful lonesome up here, a couple of the press stayed around because the rest of them left, but we're getting into the winter seasons now and the time change will be next month, it will get dark at 5:00, and I don't like my night meetings that well, especially for the rural people because there's deer population, tremendous deer population, ice and snow and all that. Besides, I think they should be home with their family. I just don't see where we gain anything.
Stutsman: Any other comments? Maybe just to review we have agreed to do one night meeting a month and that's the 2nd Thursday and that coincides with our zoning hearings and those meetings are held at 5:30. There has been good attendance because of the interest in zonings and plattings and things. Rick, do you have any comments? Is that why you're here to...
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Oh, yes.
Stutsman: OK, all right.
Dvorak: I somewhat agree with Charlie. I have heard some people comment about driving at night in the wintertime and just comments on that, nobody's been discussing we shouldn't do it, it's just there are some concerns about that. Other than that, the people we've worked with, I've heard no negative comments, actually I've heard no comments either way. No positive, no negatives. The only problem I have is consistency of the 2nd Thursday. As we know that creates some (inaudible) problems. So, if there's some way to resolve that, our staff has no problem with doing night meetings.
Bolkcom: What's your point on that Rick, that we stay firm to the 2nd Thursday and not move that around?
Dvorak: I'd like to.
Bolkcom: Is that what you're saying?
Dvorak: Well you're aware of some criticism we've got.
Bolkcom: I hear that.
Dvorak: As a trial period, generally I think it worked OK, that was the only concern I had. If you want to set the 2nd Thursday, it would be nice to have it the 2nd Thursday.
Stutsman: I would agree completely with what you're saying. I think every time we start making adjustments, no matter how much we try to publicize it and let everybody know, confusion just happens, it's just invariable. There were a couple instances where it was some major problems and I think we had to make some concessions based on the fact that people just counted on it being the 2nd Thursday and then it was changed.
Dvorak: Your staff... We set our vacations and we set our time away, we base everything off that 2nd Thursday and change that because of conflicts with other things, it's really created some problems for us and for the public. So the only comment that I have positive or negative is that if it is going to be the 2nd Thursday, I'd like to leave it the 2nd Thursday.
Lacina: From my observations before we didn't really have that many complaints other than the fact that people just wanted us to make a change, it has caused problems, it has required you guys to take comp time so that, yes, you're there in the evening, but you're not there the next day when the office opens and obviously you can't work day and night. As far as attendance, attendance has been miserable. As Charlie says when we get to the work of the County at the end of the meeting, last time I think Mr. Carsner was the only one that stayed. So after the people have their hearing, they leave. So I think that attendance has been bad. It also is at additional costs to the individuals to have to have their attorneys here at night. In regards, since we have the night meetings for zoning, then by having day meetings for the Board of Supervisors, that gives people the opportunity, if they can't hit one, they can't hit the other. So now we have night meeting, night meeting. So for that purpose, I guess I don't support the continuation of it. I think we would be more open and accessible to the public if we staggered it. Had the zoning meeting at night and the Supervisors meeting during the day. That's just my observation.
Stutsman: Any other...
Bolkcom: I think, obviously we've all been in the same room on those Thursday nights the last month and some people think it's been a miserable failure. I happen to think it's been a terrific success. It's the story about making county government more accessible to folks, making us more accessible. I appreciate the Zoning Commission meeting at night, I'm not sure that people would stand for the Zoning Commission meeting during the day, because people do business at night, they're usually working during the day. The same rationale holds true. We ought to be available at night to hear these questions and not make people take their own vacation time to be here. I think it's just that we're not meeting every night of the month in terms of all our meetings, we're still conducting the vast majority of the County's business during times when most people can't come. We don't evaluate this meeting today based on how many members of the public are here, we generally have a couple people, but if you look around the room we've got 3 members of the public, 3 members of our staff, and 3 members of the press, which is a pretty typical day time meeting for us. So we should evaluate our day time meetings the same way we evaluate our night meetings. People come to these meetings because they have business with us. The vast majority of the business in terms of having a full house is zonings. Making that happen at night I think is beneficial to the families and the individuals that come here to do business with us. I'd like to see us extend it for a... Move into the future and make the commitment to a year's worth more of night meetings. Then the other thing I'd say is that we should probably try and do a better job of advertising that in fact, I agree sticking to the 2nd Thursday we should absolutely try and do that. But advertise more widely that we are meeting at night on the 2nd Thursday so that people can kind of get it in their minds that's where we are and if they want to come talk to us, they can do it at that time.
Stutsman: How would you advertise more widely? I thought we had pretty...
Bolkcom: We have, I think we have been, but there's even been, there's been confusion among our own staff, there's been confusion among members of the public, Maybe not as widely, more regularly. We've had meetings over the last 6 months that our staff wasn't even aware that we were meeting on a given Thursday evening. So I think it's been very successful. It shows that we're open to folks coming in and I think that's a good thing to project.
Duffy: I think we should compare apples to apples and cut this out that we don't have many people here today, of course, but if we would have the zoning/platting today, this place would be packed. I can't say it's been successful. How about Friday mornings? The day after, then look what happens?
Bolkcom: What do you mean?
Duffy: Well I don't see a couple Supervisors up here, especially you, Joe, that one of you said you'd like to sleep in late and...
Bolkcom: I'm here plenty, Charlie. I don't get your point.
Duffy: But still, I don't think it has been successful. I don't think there's been any more people here at night meetings than have been in the day time.
Bolkcom: The office is open from 8 to 4 every day and people spend plenty of time here all those hours, including afternoon hours.
Stutsman: I guess I'm interested in continuing. For the reason of options. I see people here in the morning that I don't see here at night and I see people here at night who I don't see in the morning. So I think it gives people a choice. So if they can't make a morning meeting, then they can come to a night meeting of the Board of Supervisors. I've heard positive feedback from people, a number of people, as I have left the meeting at night saying thank you for having them at night, I was able to come, it was much more convenient for me because it was at night. I understand it may cost some more money for some of the applicants because of having lawyers be here at night, but that's part of just what happens I think if we want to try and be more accessible to the public, that's one of the things that goes along with it. I appreciate Rick and your honest feedback, I think you've tried hard to make it work and I appreciate what you've done because you're the ones it impacts. I don't have a problem with you not being there on Friday morning if you work late the night before and I think the public understands that. We do have a small staff.
Dvorak: Either R.J. or myself are always in the next morning at 8:00, maybe 8:30, depending on how late the night is, but the office is covered by one or both. Now R.J.'s on flex hours during the summer, you're aware of that. In the wintertime he'll go back to regular hours. That may be why you don't see him on Fridays, but I'm always there on Friday mornings. We don't...I don't want the public to think that we sleep in every Friday morning after a meeting, that's not true. We do take time off, but we don't do it the next morning.
Lacina: I guess my focus is based on the customer and the people that come in to avail themselves to the service. As Sally says, it's more expensive, those that wish to just come in an observe, like a movie or whatever, I'm not as concerned about them as I am the customer that's coming in and taking care... Serving the public, the needs of service, so that's where I'm coming from. But, it sounds like there's 3 for it so let's move on.
Bolkcom: I don't know that it's... The idea that it costs people more to have their lawyers here at night, I don't know if anybody substantiated that or, I've never heard that before, a lawyer, you pay so much an hour for that help and if you look at any other political body in this town that people bring lawyers to represent them, they're meeting at night. This is not like a new thing we're doing here.
Stutsman: Well do we want to set a timeframe for continuing it for the rest of the year? Look at it again or do we want to make this a regular...
Lacina: We probably want to do a proposal for Thursday and vote on it and just what you said, the consensus is that it extend for the year?
Jordahl: Well since we're not voting today, I would propose that we make it permanent. Rick is saying a regular 2nd Thursday of the month is important for people to plan their schedules around, be able to predict things. If we say, well gee, we'll try this to the end of the year, it gives a sense of impermanence and unpredictability of not knowing when we're going to be having these meetings. If we wanted to change to a different time of meeting in the future, we could always put that on the agenda and vote for it, but I would suggest we make it a permanent change at this point and then if people want to re-evaluate it in the future, then certainly put it on the agenda and we can do it.
Lacina: But your organizational meeting in January where the Auditor runs the meeting, basically you set up for the year how you're going to run it, so you can do that, but in effect you're going to void it when you have your meeting in January so...
Jordahl: We'll revisit it anyway.
Lacina: Whatever you want to do.
Stutsman: Do we need a formal action on this?
Lacina: I think it probably would be wise, just to... Because as we stated... At the beginning of the year we said we weren't going to do it and then we moved into we were going to do it so that could be part of the confusion if it's on the record as having yes or no, then the public is aware. So it probably would be wise to have it...
Stutsman: Karen, we'll put this on for Thursday then for action. Rick, did you have...
Dvorak: One thing I'd like to try to do, it's something to do with the Zoning Commission, it's not really relevant to the night meeting but it is in fact that we do want to try and get, especially to the applicants who have to have attorneys here. They're usually the plattings, more so than the rezonings. So one thing I'm going to work with Carol, because as I said we did with the Zoning Commission is we bunch them up. In other words, if there's a zoning application and a platting that's along with that, I'm going to work with Carol to try and do that at the same time. So I would do my presentation...
Lacina: That would help.
Stutsman: Yes.
Dvorak: You would act on it, R.J. would do his. Instead of waiting all the way to the end to have the plats. If the Board is OK with that idea, I would like to do that.
Stutsman: That sounds real good.
Dvorak: That would even help get the attorneys out of here sooner. That's one of the things that I've heard complaints about, but that's something we're going to try to do for them. Also, pushing the most controversial ones back as worked fairly well, unless you folks have heard some complaints about that.
Stutsman: No, I haven't heard any at all. I think people are OK if we just tell them, this is what the agenda is going to be like, then they can adjust their schedules accordingly. It's when they don't have any idea. They come in here at 5:30 and they're sitting here until 8 then, then they have a problem.
Lacina: Good ideas.
Jordahl: I didn't follow what you just said, Rick, bear with me here. You want to put... You're saying if an application had both a zoning and a platting up the same night you'd put them together or are you talking about, somehow putting all the plattings up front or...
Dvorak: No, we would just do the zoning. Normally the zoning has to be approved prior to the platting.
Jordahl: Right.
Dvorak: So I would do the staff report for the zoning and R.J. would right away do the staff report for the platting. Instead of waiting until the end like we do now. In other words, I do all the zonings first, (inaudible), R.J. does all the plats. We'll combine the 2 that are together.
Jordahl: For a single applicant.
Dvorak: Yes.
Bolkcom: Makes sense.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Lacina: Because a lot of the points are germane and we don't have double discussion on each one.
Dvorak: Exactly. Staff reports are almost identical and service specific items.
Jordahl: Well I wonder if maybe it wouldn't make sense to, just as you were speaking. If people primarily have to have attorneys here for plattings perhaps... Well of course the public interest is probably more in the zonings than the plattings, so that would make more sense to have that up front.
Dvorak: It's something I would like to play with if it's OK with the Board.
Stutsman: Yes, I think that sounds like a great idea. We could just see how it works and if we run into problems then we could always re-adjust. R.J., did you have a comment?
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore: Well, I came in a little late and I apologize, maybe Rick has already addressed this or maybe he hasn't, but it's almost embarrassing to address it, but you've added 12 night meetings for me a year since you hired it, and I'm wondering about compensation. I agreed when you hired me, I had 3 regularly scheduled night meetings and now you've added 12 more a year for me.
Stutsman: R.J., I think you need to talk to Rick about that, because Rick is your direct supervisor.
Lacina: But we blocked the pay increases to mid-level management and so Rick can recommend that and it comes to us and we say no.
Bolkcom: No we haven't.
Stutsman: No, we gave...
Bolkcom: No we haven't, we gave R.J. a raise a couple months, 3, 4 months ago.
Lacina: Well, OK.
Moore: And since you've done that you've added these. Then we have the other things like, the reason I mention this is because you're having a study done now, I think, and I just want to be sure that would be part, that you've added those for us, for Rick and I because then you would have the ones like the Land Use Plan. We've got one coming up again Wednesday.
Lacina: I should clarify that, it wasn't yours; we've had requests from your office that we've not acted on for increases.
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: Not all of them.
Stutsman: Am I wrong in the...
Bolkcom: No I think...
Stutsman: ...way this should be handled? I think you have a legitimate concern, but I think you need to go through Rick and then Rick would come to us with that. We're not your direct supervisor. So I don't think that's...
Moore: You set the policies though for how I get wage increases.
Stutsman: And the policies then go through Rick and then Rick needs to deal with his staff in implementing those policies. If it's appropriate for comp time, I don't think that's our decision as how we compensate you. That's between you and your supervisor how you are compensated for those night meetings. I'm glad you made us aware of it, so that when Rick comes to us with a pay raise or change in compensation policy or something, whatever he wants to do.
Moore: Well I was just thinking more along the lines of the wage study that you're doing.
Stutsman: OK.
Moore: That would be included there. Because I think that's going to impact whoever's doing that survey for you on how they view us.
Jordahl: Well here again, you'll have input on that. There will be a process of reviewing your job description and you'll be involved in doing that. So that's your input. Again through appropriate departmental channels.
Lacina: So for a point of clarification. You're night meetings now include the Board of Adjustment night meetings, Planning and Zoning night meetings, our Supervisors night meetings, and then the night meetings that you have for coordination with any of the city councils, Shueyville or Iowa City for special requests.
Moore: Those you can't control. That's part of what we do.
Dvorak: Then the Comp Plan.
Lacina: Oh yes, Comp Plan meetings.
Duffy: So Rick, you also go to a lot of night meetings, right?
Dvorak: (Inaudible).
Duffy: How come we've talked about your proposed salary increase, but evidently there wasn't 3 votes to do it, which kind of surprises me.
Stutsman: Well I think the reason we put Rick off is that I wanted to have a salary study done, so that we could treat everybody fairly and that we would know where we're at on it. I think if, and I'm not denying that Rick needs a pay increase, but I think we need to do it in the whole scheme of things and not just singling one department head and not looking at all of them.
Duffy: Well it was done in the past for other departments.
Stutsman: I guess I wasn't here then, so I didn't know.
Duffy: Yes you were.
Stutsman: When?
Lacina: Well we're moving forward with it.
Bolkcom: So, I've got a question just about the number of hours worked. So I'm clear about this. R.J. how many hours do you work a week now that we compensate you for? Is it 40, 37 1/2, what's your...
Moore: 37 1/2.
Bolkcom: 37 1/2. So are you saying that because of night meetings you're working more than 37 1/2 or...
Moore: I work a lot more than that anyway.
Bolkcom: And how is comp time handled. How is comp time handled then? You get comp time hour for hour, OK, and Rick, do you get comp time hour for hour? How does that work?
Dvorak: Technically I do, I don't usually have time to take it, but we have a policy the Board established a few years ago that if we don't use it... We're not to exceed 40 hours at any point in time, by July 1st if you exceed that you lose it.
Bolkcom: Not accumulate more than 40 hours of comp time. That's the same for R.J.?
Dvorak: I have no problem with it.
Bolkcom: I just wanted to get clear on that.
Moore: I wasn't complaining, because I was aware of the wage, that being Rick's turned in our stuff yesterday so I assume that you're new policy for night meetings included that.
Stutsman: Will be reflected in that, right.
Jordahl: I'm a little confused about this whole comp time question.
Stutsman: Well I'll tell you what... This is an evaluation of formal night meetings so I don't think we need to, should get into...
Jordahl: Let's put that on the agenda some time.
Bolkcom: Well comp time probably needs to be a conversation when you have a policy across the Board.
Stutsman: Any other comments about the formal night meetings? OK, thank you.
Lacina: Thanks for your help.
Deputy Auditor Lynette Hultman: FY '97 REAP certification
Stutsman: Lynette? Discussion about fiscal year '97 REAP certification.
Deputy Auditor Lynnette Hultman: One of the forms our office fills out after the completion of every fiscal year is a certification form to qualify for the REAP funding. Your REAP eligibility is determined by your previous years support of conservation purposes and that requires a 22 cent levy support of conservation purposes. What goes onto that, what qualifies for the 22 cent support is the tax levy for the Conservation Department and then also the annual transfer of previous year of revenues collected by the Conservation Department. I filled out the form for FY97 which would be for FY98 qualification. It came up to be 21.61 cents which is short of the 22 cent support. The reason for that is for the first time since I can remember since I've been here, conservation didn't expend their expenditure budget. They had $14,000 unexpended. Usually they're within a few hundred dollars of their budget.
Lacina: Lynnette would you pull that mic over a little bit.
Hultman: Oh, sorry. So that's the reason mainly for the falling short of the 22 cent levy. Just a little background information. In FY97, we did receive $27,000 of REAP funds from the State. The current balance in the REAP fund is $293,000. The amount that it would take to bring it up to the 22 cent levy would be $11,100 and I just wanted to bring it before the Board because it's your decision to make. The couple options we have, the first option is just to do nothing and the unexpended funds would just remain in the general fund balance. They could be spent however the Board sees fit. Then we would not qualify for the REAP funds, to receive REAP funds for FY98. So that's the first option. The 2nd option is if you want to qualify for the REAP funding, since all of our financial reports are prepared on an accrual basis, we could do an accrual entry. Essentially a payable from the General Fund into the Conservation Trust Fund. That would bring up your support for the conservation purposes up to the 22 cent.
Lacina: So we'd encumber those funds basically.
Hultman: Yes, you would just...
Lacina: Transfer it into a separate account.
Hultman: Yes, you'd make a due to Conservation Trust Fund, an accrual entry for that $11,100. The thing there I guess just to point out to you is that you'd be transferring money from the General Fund, which you could use for anything and you'd be transferring that to a fund where there would be strings attached. You can't use Conservation Trust Fund for anything, there are specific purposes for that. But then you would also get the REAP funds. So that is a decision that you guys have to consider.
Stutsman: When does the decision have to be made by?
Hultman: Well I was going to just put on a transfer resolution on Thursday and then you guys could kind of think about it and if you guys want to do it Thursday you could just adopt the resolution, if you don't want to do it, you just wouldn't adopt the resolution.
Lacina: Now we did budget for the expenditures which would keep in compliance. The problem then is they just haven't utilized that expenditure.
Hultman: Correct.
Lacina: OK, have we made a contact with Rod to inform him of that. Is he aware that we've got that $11,000 that's not.
Hultman: I guess I haven't really talked to him specifically about that, but I would assume he would know that he didn't spend his full budget.
Lacina: OK. I think we probably should make a call to him to see if this is the right action for the encumbrance.
Stutsman: Well that's what I'm wondering too.
Lacina: If it is...
Hultman: He's usually in support of qualifying for the REAP funding.
Lacina: What did we budget for the transfer, was it $27,000 last year for the...
Hultman: I was thinking it was like $20,000.
Lacina: Was it 20? Because I know we were walking a fine line.
Hultman: And you actually did transfer more than that, because there were actual revenues more than that. So you did, you already transferred their full revenues that they did collect.
Lacina: Part of the dilemma is that if we transfer into the fund, as it's said it's encumbered, he can't use it for operational expense, given they're working on the education center...
Hultman: Yes, go into that trust fund.
Lacina: He may, and you can't use it then for that purpose can you. Or is that...
Hultman: The Conservation Trust Fund I believe he is using...
Lacina: He can use it...
Hultman: Yes.
Lacina: I would think the thing to do would be first give him a phone call and say we've got this problem, we did levy for it, we've got that $11,000 unencumbered. Our suggestion is we do the transfer if the Board's in agreement with this unless he has some other plan. In which case that would take care of it.
Stutsman: I wonder if they shouldn't be a part of this discussion?
Jordahl: Yes.
Lacina: Or a phone call to Rod.
Bolkcom: You can just call them and find out I think he'll be clear.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: I think it's absolutely necessary that we transfer this money. If we don't, we are not going to be eligible for REAP funding. That's really the question. If we got $27,000 in REAP, we'd be crazy not to try and get 27 more next year or 30 or 50. We just simply won't qualify unless we transfer the $11,100.
Lacina: Now it appears the REAP funding which has been somewhat decreasing may reach the point where we let it go, but at this point I think Joe is right. The procedural question is I think we need to put it on for Thursday for the transfer, but again we need to check with Rod so that all of a sudden he doesn't just come in and say oh, I had a specific use for that 11, it's spent. We're almost 4 months into the year. He's got a substantial amount of time...
Bolkcom: Let's just carryover from the 11, that's just money that went to the General Fund.
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: I'm sure they can use this money in the Conservation Trust Fund for... They've got a lot of projects going on. They are (inaudible) on those.
Stutsman: So the $14,000 that he did spend last year went into the General Fund. So basically we're just taking that $11,000 of that 14 and transferring.
Bolkcom: Basically.
Stutsman: OK.
Duffy: Lynnette, I've been checking on it, because I'm on the REAP Committee. It surprised me that we have $293,000. It thought $240,000 of that was ear marked for the County.
Hultman: They do have a budget this year to expend a lot of that.
Duffy: I thought that 240,000.
Hultman: I think that's right, Charlie, but it hasn't been spent yet.
Duffy: So we're really playing around with big bucks. I think I'd get that...
Stutsman: Do you think it would be a good...
Duffy: $11,000 fast because we're liable to... But that's what I thought and last time I checked, there was $240,000 that helps with the environment center.
Stutsman: I wonder if we shouldn't have Rod and the Board come in and explain what they're doing with the Conservation Center to the whole Board.
Jordahl: Yes, I think...
Duffy: Be on the right...
Lacina: I think probably if we made a phone call, I don't know if it would be necessarily...
Stutsman: I'm talking just generally. Like Charlie says this fund is $240,000 now. I guess I'd like to know what they're planning to do with that.
Bolkcom: Sure.
Lacina: Well they did, do you remember their plan that they came in and they had it all laid out because we said we weren't going to make any more transfers? We can, I don't know if it's really productive because what they're going to do is explain to us that part of that is allocated for the underground wiring system and infrastructure to help traffic back to the educational center. I don't know if we don't just pick up the phone and talk to him rather than have them all come in and go through the whole thing again, but whatever the Board wishes.
Stutsman: Yes...
Jordahl: I'm just trying to understand how in the context of spending as much money as we are on the Conservation Education Center that we can be 10, 15 thousand dollars short of spending. I'm having a little bit of trouble with that. The idea of encumbering is a bit big to me. I'm not an accountant. How is it that we can be spending all this money on the Conservation Education Center and not have spent enough or not have allocated enough? Can you make that simple?
Lacina: Part of it's State regulations. In order to be eligible. We're dealing with a set of guidelines from the State to keep us eligible for the REAP funding. On the other side of it, we don't want to just tell Rod, run out there and spend money. He's doing it very prudently. The 2 are not quite meshing. We need to show that there is an allocation for this money, we just can't let it float in the general fund or else it will divert back. As Lynnette said, since this isn't specifically for that purpose, we can't just let it go back into... Well I suppose we could.
Bolkcom: Sure we could.
Lacina: We'd be in violation. I don't know...
Bolkcom: Sure we could. We have a choice whether we fund at this 22 cent per thousand. The State says a County has to have at least that great of commitment to conservation programs or you don't qualify for REAP.
Lacina: I'm assuming that we're going to meet that.
Bolkcom: Yes, definitely, we should.
Lacina: So if we are, then this has got to be the number.
Jordahl: But it sounds like it's last year that we're out of compliance, right? I mean the money rolled over from last year. It's not this year we're not spending enough because we don't know what we've spent this year. That's what's confusing me, because we're still spending, but we're talking about the levy for this year.
Hultman: Each year is separate.
Bolkcom: Aren't we?
Jordahl: We're talking about this...
Hultman: We're talking about FY97 last year.
Jordahl: Oh, 97.
Lacina: We're in FY98.
Bolkcom: We certified a budget in 98 that meets the 22 cents. Providing...
Jordahl: We don't have a repeat of what happened in 97.
Bolkcom: That's right, in terms of the Education Center, that is money that if once that gets going and they are looking at hiring and architect right now. Those moneys aren't coming out of their general operating budget. I assume they're going to use trust fund money, this pool of money to begin to pay those costs. They haven't begun to accumulate a lot of costs for the Environmental Education Center because they're not building it yet.
Jordahl: But this does I think to me, if I'm understanding this raise the question of how our level of funding for FY98 relates to the level of taxation we're doing in 98 for our conservation and the trust fund. If they expend more money out of the trust fund then we will again be in the situation at the end of the year of not having taxed enough because the money wasn't spent out of current operating funds, it was spent entirely out of the trust fund and we could again have to transfer money at the end of FY98 to do the same thing we're doing now. Is that the correct picture?
Bolkcom: I don't think so, I don't agree with that.
Lacina: I think Jonathan needs to call Rod. Knowing Rod, Rod's got this laid out, he just needs to...
Stutsman: Yes, Jonathan maybe you and I just need to meet with Rod, if there's not interest from the rest of the Board in having him come in.
Bolkcom: I'm interested in him coming in, I mean they're hiring an architect to get going on this project. We as a whole body I know we've all talked to them out there and met with them but as a whole body we've not been in the same room and heard essentially kind of an update on what's going on. They're getting ready to hire an architect. I assume that means the next step is building, a building at some cost. I don't have any problem with him coming in.
Jordahl: It's the public's business I guess is part of it. The idea of having Rod come in is not whether I can get the information by calling him personally, but rather that I think it's nice to have a public discussion of this just to clarify it for the press, for anybody who cares to attend. It's just the kind of thing I'd like to do here.
Stutsman: Well why don't we go ahead and then put this REAP certification and resolution on for Thursday? Then at some future time we'll schedule Rod to come in and just give us an update. You don't need to know that, Karen...
Hultman: Well I can give Rod a call too and just let him know this transfer resolution we discussed it, just to kind of let him know.
Stutsman: OK, that sounds good.
Hultman: That part of it.
Duffy: Congratulations for catching this, this could be a little serious.
Bolkcom: Thanks Lynnette.