Duffy: Sally, having quite a bit of experience on this being on the Governors Association, Water Committee I'm quite familiar with Wisconsin, because Tony Earl who used to be governor when I was on that committee, he was governor of Wisconsin, and Wisconsin, some of the state... and I think it still a place like... if a person agreed to have in their septic tank pumped every 3 years and needed and inspected that, here comes about $6500 provided by the state for a new septic system. Is this state going to do that?
Stutsman: Charlie we need to keep our comments related to this study...
Duffy: No ... He mentioned Wisconsin, but there's (inaudible).
Stutsman: Are there any other comments or questions about... from the consultants concerning this impact study? Any clarification you need?
?: Well I think Mr. Jordahl preempted my question we call these fiscal impact analyses is our generic in house term for them. We find that the school costs one of the larger and well identified costs. So I was interested in how much dialogue had gone forth between you and the various school districts we'll be analyzing when we come to that phase of it. Now I'm just asking for information.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Moore: Well I think at this time that's been kind of limited. But I believe as we move forward with our own proposed Land Use Plan that the Supervisors might, and correct me here, put a committee together of citizens throughout the county to deal with our Land Use Plan and I believe will surely have a representative from the school board...
Stutsman: Sure
Moore: ... but now we don't have dialogue going with an number of the school boards throughout the county but at this point that's been very limited.
Duffy: That's a good question. It's about 60 percent of the rural taxes goes towards schools.
?: Someplace between 60 and 75 percent in our district
Stutsman: No
Duffy: 60 about 58 to 60...
Lacina: : Assessors would be a good resource as far as total property valuations and about 51 percent of our assessable base is off the rolls because of the University and other governmental entities, and so, but there a good resource to look at.
Stutsman: Any other questions? Clarification?
Lacina: Jerry.
Jerry ?: I have 2 questions. One relates first to land use planning process that is currently under way, and you made reference that part of this study may utilized in that document or in helping finalize the Land Use Plan. I guess my question then relates with regards to your time schedule in the Land Use Plan, I would gather there are some elements of that Land Use Plan that is currently being done that may have some bearing or some possible impact on the kinds of numbers that we make generate with respect to this particular study where the land use itself may drive and provide direction with regards to some of the cost it may extend from the study itself. So consequently then would it not be possible to try to participate to some extent as you go through the land use planning process that's underway now so that those, should we be the ones that are doing it would have a better feel and a better sense then of some of the issues and concerns that folks in the County might possibly have and how that might ultimately then relate to the delivery of services by the County.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Jerry ?: Because when I look at the budget you have quite a number of services that you spend money on and if one takes the social ... the mental health, the social services and the physical health, and add those 3 together, that is a substantial part of the annual expenditures at the county level.
Jordahl: Uh-huh. It may be that some of that information is already been digested to some extent by the people who head those departments though where they're responsible for a type of reporting that goes to the state for example that would have... be fairly easy to correlate, population increase with increase in cost. I think. It would have to necessarily have go through all those lines in the budget and decipher that yourselves. I think.
Jerry ?: Sure
Stutsman: Rick, did you have you have a comment on that?
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak: Well, I think part of what you Jerry asked for and I'm not sure, kind of a long way, but I think initially you're asking time frame. As of last evening the Zoning Commission reviewed the comments the Board made they chose at that time to have the chair send a letter back to the Board that they do now support the idea of a study group.
Stutsman: OK
Dvorak: They do recommend that they have at least one representative on that study committee and they also did indicate, they didn't feel real comfortable on going outside to hire a very expensive consultant to assist in that process.
Stutsman: Uh-huh
Dvorak: So therefore the... they realize there's a lot of conversation about that fact. They do realize that is your decision to make. They just didn't feel comfortable in going out and spending $60,000 or $70,000 in tax money to do it. They felt it don't need to be all redone. So the ball will be back in your court probably within in the next few days.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. Thank you.
Jordahl: Before I responded to the idea of the human services, you were raising some other questions though about the ongoing planning process and how that might impact the study, the kind of response you would give to the cost of various options and so forth. I think that's a very interesting and strong question. I mean the notions that have been brought forward in the draft comprehensive plan that has been, was approved, by the Zoning Commission some months ago, you know all them would various implications for costs. I think what we are looking at primarily is the trends that we have had, which I think are discernible, then a recommendation about the viability of continuing trends and the viability of maybe alternatives to those trends. Those alternatives may not be limited to the alternatives that were presented in the draft comprehensive plan, but may include them. So I think that information is power. It makes sense to look at what was proposed but I think it also makes sense to look at other alternatives with which you may be familiar.
Jerry ?: OK, very good. Thank you.
Stutsman: Any other comments, questions?
Moore: I guess I'd just say one last thing, I believe Rick has talked to a number of Board members about this, we did send out and they are here, students from the graduate program. As part of the graduate program their required to do what's called field problems class in the spring that they graduate. They've been offered to compete with the private sector in presenting a proposal but to safeguard the county's relationship the program and to help them out, we have guaranteed them that regardless, if you go outside, if you don't choose them , that we will then do this as a field problems project for their class, so they can graduate. So if you would like more experienced private consultants that's fine and you won't hurt their feeling, because we needed to lock them in and the program is very interested in keeping a relationship with the county with our internship program that we utilize Cole through, and Rick and I felt that relationship is very important to us they provide a lot of help and service to us. So we wanted them to know in January they wouldn't be dumped without a field project.
Stutsman: Uh-huh. I think this will be a good learning experience for them to go through the entire process. So that's always good. Any , Joe did you have.
Bolkcom: Yes just one thing, jumping back up to the service cost question to be clear about that. Now when people move out into the country they want, we need to send out Health Department people to make sure they put their septic tank in the right place and the well, and...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: they use the library, we pay for that and as we assess these costs I think we want to focus, we want to make sure those are included and the Planning and Zoning staff when they go out and give a building permit there's a cost to the County to do that. Those would be examples, I think, of fairly direct costs that ought to be able to be pinned down.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: In addition to the others that are listed.
Stutsman: There also.
Bolkcom: And there might be others. I'm not , that isn't total inclusive. But...
Duffy: That isn't free though.
Bolkcom: No there's some fees...
Duffy: There's costs
Bolkcom: Fees pay for some things.
Duffy: Now, are you suggesting then that we don't pay for the rural libraries for the...
Stutsman: No, he just...
Bolkcom: Not at all I'm just saying when we have...
Duffy: Well some, we ought to look into what other counties do when it pertains to libraries.
Bolkcom: We know that our County library costs are going up, because more people are moving into the rural places and using libraries
Duffy: No, we are footing the bill, Joe for the libraries. That's...
Bolkcom: The cost of County government is going up by having more people use the libraries. Something we want people to do.
Duffy: More people use the libraries.
Bolkcom: That's right.
Duffy: That's right
Bolkcom: But it's also a function of having more people living out in the rural areas.
Duffy: No, I'm afraid that ...
Bolkcom: anyway it's a cost.
Duffy: It's a function that we pay the cost and some counties you pay for your own in a small (inaudible).
Stutsman: We're going to have to move on.
Bolkcom: You're right.
Stutsman: We still got a number of things on the agenda. So if that takes care everything. I want to, where do you put...
Moore: We'll touch base with you here in the next day or so Sally and make sure we've got the priorities right (inaudible) to proceed with...
Stutsman: Very good.
Moore: Wait for the proposals to come back January 9th
Stutsman: Uh-huh. I want to say that I really appreciate the interest of the consultants that did come this morning. So we will be looking for those proposals. And thank you...
Moore: Thank you for you time
Stutsman: ...RJ and Cole and Rick for your help
Bolkcom: Thank you.
DISCUSSION: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Stutsman: Moving on to business from the Board of Supervisors. Discussion regarding various boards and commissions. We have part of our information in our packet, the people who have asked to be resubmitted, and Carol you got some additional information
Peters: I have given each of you a new copy...
Stutsman: OK
Peters: ...of the information. That's what happens when you try to rush the timeline, so (inaudible) those have all been adjusted. So.
Stutsman: OK, so we should be going from the packet you gave us this morning.
Peters: That is correct.
Stutsman: and that gives us more information as to how long people have served terms. Should we just move through starting with Board of Health and discuss.
Lacina: We have be criticized in the past in terms of not putting on the most qualified people, but I thought looking at the resumes that Mr. Donham and Miss Taylor looked very qualified. And I guess I kind of am leaning toward Mr. Donham.
Stutsman: I, this is one of these if... it's almost...
Lacina: Very good.
Stutsman: very difficult, well it is difficult because you can almost throw a dart at any one of these individuals would be and excellent representative on the Board of Health. I guess I would support what your saying about Pauline or Kelley I guess I'm leaning towards Kelley, because of his background in dealing with rural health issues and I think that is an important thing for us to look at with the Board of Health. So, I guess I would be supportive of Kelley, and certainly encourage Pauline to apply again.
Lacina: Yes they were all pretty good.
Stutsman: All of them to apply again.
Bolkcom: I can't find mine.
Stutsman: Your packet
Lacina: Should be in the front top
Jordahl: (Inaudible)
Lacina: There you go, what you have in your hand. Isn't that it?
Bolkcom: Am I looking at it?
Jordahl: Here look at this one.
Bolkcom: Sorry, I do have the new one I didn't see the top one maybe it's the old packet.
Stutsman: Any other comments
Peters: Why don't I get you another one.
Bolkcom: No, that's all right.
Peters: Oh, OK.
Jordahl: It's just that, Kelley Donham has been associated with research in the area of impact of large scale hog confinement operations and that would be particularly interesting to have him on the Board of Health for that reason.
Lacina: So Compensation Commission?
Stutsman: OK, so we have...
Bolkcom: Where we at on this? I'm not...
Stutsman: Oh I guess I...
Bolkcom: I don't have it in front of me, so I didn't get the names of the people who were interested.
Stutsman: Pauline Taylor and Kelley, and I guess Diane Joslyn, who was appointed to fill out a term is interested in serving again, so I guess I would support appointing her for another term
Jordahl: Uh-huh
Stutsman: She brings a good perspective to the Board as far as dealing with wells and water issues. She's a professional...
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: ...well driller, I guess you would say so.
Jordahl: Well it's environmental study drilling that they do that is an important part of monitoring what's going on...
Stutsman: And I guess when we look at a balance of the people to serve on the Board, you know, we do need a woman on there, so.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: Charlie
Duffy: Well, I appreciate the fact that here's one more, that we have several applicants and their all qualified. Kelly Donham is a very... has good qualifications and Mike Townsend, well they're all good.
Stutsman: They are all good Charlie
Duffy: I am going to say the Pauline Taylor is one of the best, she's...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Duffy: ...a very fine young lady that would do us a good job. But, I have no trouble I guess with Kelly Donham.
Stutsman: So, it's sounds like everybody is interested in Kelley. Appointment of, well it sounds like between Diane and Pauline, are there any ...
Bolkcom: I'd be in support of Diane just, because some much of what we do is environmental health and water quality issues. She's very good on that.
Jordahl: I agree.
Stutsman: So it sounds like we have 3 votes for Diane.
Jordahl: He ...
Stutsman: Lets move on the Compensation Commission.
Jordahl: If I could just ask a sort of philosophical question about this, the question of reappointment of people it's been raised to me as a question, do we have general philosophy or principal of reappointing people if they wish to be reappointed and absent some particular miscarriage of their office in some way. Is that accurate or is that open to question?
Stutsman: I wonder if we, there is no set policy about reappointment
Duffy: No.
Stutsman: I think it's just how the Board feels.
Peters: Several of the past Boards, now remember a span of over 25 years, so, when a person has come up for there 3rd appointment on a board or commission that lasts for 3 to 5 years, depending, and you have a lot, not a lot, you have several really well qualified people in mind, for the board or commission ...
Duffy: It's tough.
Peters: In the past they have visited with the person that has been on the commission or board and said, you know, this is our opportunity to get you know more people from the county, involved in county in county business. You know
Jordahl: Uh-huh
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Peters: county activities, you know, but that on case by case basis.
Jordahl: Uh-huh
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Peters: There is nothing in writing, and there's no pat policy
Jordahl: OK
Lacina: And some commissions like Compensation we've had trouble in the past just filling them.
Stutsman: Oh-boy.
Bolkcom: Yes
Peters: And the thing is somebody could serve 15 terms in the Compensation Commission, you know, that's only 15 years.
Stutsman: Uh-huh
Jordahl: Uh-huh
Peters: Where with a committee or board that has a, it's a 5 year appointment,
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Peters: You know, reappointment constitutes 15 years.
Jordahl: Yes. OK, well I just wanted to ask that...
Bolkcom: It's a good question.
Jordahl: ...because someone raised it with me, and I wanted to find out what the general sense of it was.
Stutsman: Compensation Commission, basically are we appointing everybody that agreed to
Lacina: Mr. Fink won't be going back on but...
Stutsman: to serve again?
Lacina: I guess we don't have a choice do we Carol, as far as additional ones for city property...
Duffy: No.
Lacina: ...or county. So, we have 2 going off, and one new applicant and what classification would...
Duffy: He's a realtor.
Lacina: ...fall under. Could he be real estate, Mr. Fisher?
Stutsman: Realtor. Yes.
Duffy: Realtor.
Lacina: OK. So, he would replace Phyllis Doane perhaps?
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: All right. So we still need one for Town Property?
Stutsman: Is that right?
Peters: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: OK. So we need to recruit one more for Town Property?
Jordahl: Yes.
Peters: The other thing that you can do is if you have people under other occupations, those people kind of serve as the springboard...
Stutsman: OK
Peters: ...if you can't get somebody for a particular category, we can rearrange those people.
Stutsman: Does the Board want to rearrange those people under other or do we want to go out for another add or do some recruiting. This is probably one of the more difficult ones to get people to serve on, not that it's a difficult job, it's just .
Peters: Filling with categories.
Stutsman: Yes. It's a real challenge and it takes a lot of time. I guess based on the fact that it does take a lot of time, I would suggest that we just move somebody from other occupations over to fill in that slot under the owner of city and town properties.
Lacina: It's a good idea.
Duffy: Yes.
Stutsman: Is that all right with the Board?
Bolkcom: Uh-huh that's fine with me.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: OK, Conservation Board, lets see we have one person who has served one term and wants to reapply and that's Tom Hoff, and 2 new applications Christine Rohret and Russ Milane.
Lacina: : I guess on this I will support Mr. Hoff. He has been involved in the education center, but the others, Christine looked good and so did Russ.
Stutsman: Well,
Duffy: This is a very difficult one.
Stutsman: It is.
Bolkcom: It is a hard one.
Stutsman: This is a hard one. Because Tom has done and excellent job and he is in the middle of a project as far as getting the Education Center...
Lacina: Uh-huh
Stutsman: ...place. Chris has excellent qualifications as far as bringing educational component to the Conservation Board. She's a teacher in the Iowa City school system; has been very involved in environmental education, and we do not have a woman on that board
Jordahl: Uh-huh. That makes it kind of an interesting question. It could be said of Mr. Hoff that, it would be an understatement to say that he's a strong leader,...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Jordahl: ...one of the strongest individuals I've run into since serving on the Board of Supervisors. Having served only one term here, there are projects under way, and yet there are no women on the board. So, it's a very interesting question. I think, it'd be...
Stutsman: Well this...
Jordahl: It be clear we'd add a woman if we had an open seat. I give you no question about that, but at this point he's asking to reapply. We don't have an open seat so it's much more sticky question.
Lacina: Can I ask this, I think she would be a great liaison between the school district and the Conservation. Could we place here on ex-officio now and that way she could get up to speed and once that Education Center is built or if an opening does appear, she could step into it?
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: And maybe it's not a good idea, I just throw it out as an option. I would like to keep her involved.
Stutsman: I, yes. I guess we could ask Chris how she feels about that.
Jordahl: What is the prospect of a seat opening, do we have any kind of crystal ball about that?
Stutsman: Well, each...
Bolkcom: Well, we
Stutsman: Is it each year, we have one each year
Bolkcom: One each year. Yes, Jerry Starbuck is up next year.
Jordahl: Well, I mean, yes there's one that comes up for appointment, but do we have any sense of people wanting to go off the Board?
Stutsman: No.
Bolkcom: I don't know now.
Lacina: I don't know that.
Bolkcom: This is, you know Tom's done a superb job.
Stutsman: Yes.
Duffy: He does.
Bolkcom: But as folks recall, last year we didn't have any women apply for this and we kind of paused a little bit and said should be redo it, should be re-advertise, and we decided no. We had applicants so we went on ahead and now here we are and what I guess Steve, to follow up on you question or your comment. What would it mean to be ex-officio, if we were to pursue that? Chris would, she would get the agendas.
Lacina: Yes.
Bolkcom: How would
Lacina: Participate in discussions no voting, but I would think all the other rights, as far as commenting on programs plans, helping design. The only thing that would probably would be lacking would be voting rights.
Stutsman: Right.
Lacina: I don't know how they would, and maybe she doesn't want to do it.
Stutsman: That would be a question for Chris to answer, if she will.
Duffy: Now understand, I know she's a woman, but she has excellent qualifications and we have look at that.
Jordahl: Good point Charlie.
Bolkcom: I think there, I think there could be, Tom is superb I think they could be equally qualified actually.
Duffy: I don't want to say that we have appointed her because she is a woman.
Bolkcom: Not at all. She's eminently qualified.
Stutsman: (Inaudible) gender balance, Charlie, on that Board.
Bolkcom: We don't have gender balance, not even close.
Duffy: Maybe that's a good idea Steve, until... because there are a lot of things going on out there at this time. I was just out there a week ago.
Lacina: You could also do the reverse.
Stutsman: Oh, put Tom on as ex-officio. Oh, there's...
Jordahl: Tom's been serving as the President of that organization, it hardly seems appropriate to take a president and make him ex-officio.
Bolkcom: Right.
Stutsman: Or not to reappoint him too.
Jordahl: Yes, right
Stutsman: If you put it that way.
Jordahl: If he'd done something wrong, you know, then you could say well, OK, time for you to get out of here, but I don't think you can point to something that he's done wrong.
Stutsman: No.
Bolkcom: Not at all.
Duffy: Do you think you Christine and see if...
Stutsman: Well, I could if that's what the Board wants to do or if the Board wants to take a straw poll on who you want to appoint.
Duffy: Oh this is a tough decision.
Stutsman: It is.
Duffy: I think Steve you made a good statement saying that she should be, someplace there should be a place for her if we go for Tom.
Lacina: Thank you.
Stutsman: So what does the Board want to do?
Jordahl: Well, let's approach Christine about this idea about being ex-officio and perhaps in some sense an official or unofficial, however we can do that, liaison to the school district and...
Stutsman: OK. I will contact her and see.
Jordahl: ...see how that works
Lacina: I think she's good.
Jordahl: And hope that perhaps an opening appears, so that she might become a regular member of Board.
Stutsman: I hope an opening doesn't appear, I don't know we want to say that.
Jordahl: Let me retract.
Bolkcom: It raises a question I think that we need to address and that is what our policy generally is about affirmative action on these, about having balance on these boards, because I could easily see a scenario next year we're in the same position...
Stutsman: Yes we are.
Bolkcom: with someone who's done a good job we just don't have and opening for qualified women candidates because we got this person, and you hate to take people off it, all things being equal. They're doing a good job.
Stutsman: I think it's unfortunate that we got into this situation where no women did apply last year or I think...
Bolkcom: Is there an overriding value to try and deal with this, is having balance...
Stutsman: Our first priority.
Bolkcom: Right. How high a priority it is , is it, I mean, I think either of these people will continue to do good work as members of the Conservation Board. I don't think we'll slip at all.
Jordahl: I think there's an overriding consideration though of are we going to take somebody off.
Bolkcom: Right
Jordahl: I mean, it's not like we get 2 applicants for a job, we got a current office whose also the president of that Board and another well qualified applicant, who may be equally qualified or perhaps who, you know, is better qualified, but, and I don't know that. I don't know how to assess their relative qualifications. With, I think there's an additional factor of incumbency.
Bolkcom: I don't disagree.
Stutsman: I guess I'm going to support Chris and maybe ask Tom to reapply next year, when openings come up again and (inaudible) Oh boy, no matter what we say we just back ourselves into a corner, because then I'm thinking, I wonder, what if a woman applies next year? Then we're committing ourselves to appointing another woman.
Duffy: Well don't you think you should contact Christine first and see if she would be... We've done this before, on other committees, Sally.
Stutsman: Perhaps that's so, but if she says no then were right back to the discussion
Duffy: Yes, well we'll know when we have to vote on Thursday.
Stutsman: Yes, I guess we'll know if we have another option or not. Is that OK with everybody to do that?
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Lacina: : That's fine.
Stutsman: Or do you want to make a decision today? OK.. Historical Preservation. We have, we need to appoint 3 members we have 2 people that have reapplied, Richard Fishel and Joan Morgan, and we have 3 new applicants: Alice Kurtz, Kenneth Donnelly, and Eldon Fouchek.
Lacina: Is Kenneth, Harold's son? I think he'd be outstanding, I had an opportunity to meet him probably a year ago.
Peters: Yes, he's really interesting.
Lacina: Very personable and...
Duffy: Who's that?
Lacina: Kenneth Donnelly. Harold Donnelly, the Supervisor's son.
Stutsman: I'm going to go on your recommendation. I have not contacted any of these people I guess time slipped away from this so...
Lacina: And he would know some of the history of Iowa City, I mean his dad was obviously a very big player in Johnson County. I think he'd be a real good one on this.
Stutsman: Does any.
Duffy: Joan Morgan then.
Stutsman: Alice Kurtz and Eldon Fouchek
Lacina: For Historic Preservation.
Stutsman: And I think we, I guess I'm assuming we agreed to reappoint the 2 people who have reapplied.
Lacina: Yes, Yes.
Duffy: (Inaudible)
Stutsman: So, we're looking at just one new member. I think Kathy Penningroth gave an endorsement for reappointment of the 2 new people.
Peters: And they've only been on for 7 months.
Stutsman: Oh that's good. So how do people feel about...
Bolkcom: I'm fine with that.
Stutsman: Kenneth Donnelly?
Jordahl: Uh-huh
Stutsman: Then we'll go ahead and put him on for Thursday. Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission, Gretchen Grimm was the only one that applied, so we will appoint her. The Senior Center Commission, we need to appoint one member and Katherine Wallace...
Lacina: She's been excellent.
Duffy: Yes she has.
Stutsman: And she has been excellent, and Gretchen has been excellent to, she's very interested in the Iowa City Riverfront Commission, so we'll go ahead with those 2.
Duffy: Right.
Stutsman: Social Welfare Board/Cluster Board, we've had a number of people who do not want to reapply. Rhonda Shouse and Barb Smith and Mary Bluminstein do not want to reapply. Bob Welsh and Susan Wasson would like to be reappointed and we have a new applicant Art Vincent.
Lacina: I would really support him.
Jordahl: Uh-huh, me to
Bolkcom: Me too.
Stutsman: OK, I would support Bob Welsh and Susan Wasson.
Lacina: and the others.
Jordahl: I have a question about this. It says you need to appoint 5 members and we've got 3 here we're appointing. I assume as we haven't filled some of theses vacancies mid-term this year that we will be encouraging people to go ahead and continue to apply if they're interested, so we might want...
Stutsman: Right.
Jordahl: ... to say something about that.
Stutsman: We will open this up again.
Peters: Do you want another press release set out or do you want to actively one on one recruit?
Duffy: I think we should recruit.
Peters: I think sometimes you have better response if you actually visit with them yourselves.
Lacina: Do we have some applicants from last year that we could pull up some applications and review?
Stutsman: You put them on don't you Carol?
Peters: I need... no.
Stutsman: Oh, I was thinking that...
Lacina: No
Stutsman: Oh, OK.
Lacina: That might give us a clue of somebody (inaudible).
Stutsman: All right, that's a good idea, but why don't we, we need 2, so... and we do have to keep in mind political affiliation on this one.
Duffy: Yes. That's...
Lacina: And one for Compensation Board?
Jordahl: Have we done that here?
Stutsman: Art is Independent.
Duffy: We don't know.
Stutsman: I asked him and he is ...
Peters: I always with check with (inaudible)
Bolkcom: Bob's a D.
Jordahl: And Susan? We have a balance here, what...
Peters: Yes.
Jordahl: Is she an R?
Peters: Uh-huh
Jordahl: We have that balance. OK
Bolkcom: We're in perfect balance.
Stutsman: All right, so we will have a homework assignment for members, please start recruiting for Cluster Board. OK, Zoning Board of Adjustment. We need one new member, 2 have applied Steven Radosevich has reapplied and we have a new applicant Gary Werle.
Peters: Which one was it?
Stutsman: Zoning Board of Adjustment
Lacina: We went over Zoning that's right.
Bolkcom: I'd support Steven again. He's done a pretty good job. I know he put some, bunch of time in on that cell tower issue they were working, struggling with.
Lacina: OK, that sounds good.
Stutsman: But he served 2 terms and I guess we have a new applicant I'm always, how long are these terms?
Peters: 5 years.
Lacina: 5 years.
Stutsman: 5 years.
Jordahl: 5years.
Stutsman: I guess for that reason I would support Gary.
Bolkcom: Has Steve been on both for 10 years.
Peters: Yes.
Bolkcom: Yes, thank you.
Duffy: Another tough one.
Stutsman: Well, whatever the Board wants to do I'm a firm believer in getting new people involved whenever we can. I think somebody who has served 2 terms, and I think, because we have a new applicant, I would like to see him.
Jordahl: What's the status on the utility towers issue with regard to the Board of Adjustment have they sort of handled that or are the in the middle of handling it.
Bolkcom: It's still to be decided.
Lacina: With the 911 legislation that's coming down as far as being able to locate cell phones within a small number of feet if they ever empower that. That will be a big issue, as far as a gridwork system in the county. That's probably going to cause some problems. But I'm not saying that Gary couldn't deal with it just as well as Mr. Radosevich.
Stutsman: So, how does the Board want to handle this appointment to the Zoning Board of Adjustment? Joe you supported Steve, I supported Gary. How do you think Charlie? Steve?
Duffy: I don't know. I would like to think about this. We don't have to do this until Thursday anyway.
Jordahl: Right.
Stutsman: Right. But we should have a slate ready by Thursday.
Lacina: I guess Mr. Radosevich, because he's had some experience.
Stutsman: OK, and how about you Jonathan do you have any...
Jordahl: I guess because the tower siting issue, I'm leaning toward sticking with the expertise that we have.
Stutsman: OK, there's 3 votes there, so we'll reappoint Stephen. Zoning Commission next one up,
Lacina: I think Randy is outstanding.
Stutsman: OK, and I had a letter from the Zoning Commission. Would you want me to read this or just pass it?
Lacina: They just said to pass it on.
Stutsman: OK, in support of Randy. I would support appointing Randy. We have 2 new applicants, Gary Werle and Eldon Fouchek . Randy is fulfilling an unexpired term, and so I guess I would support him for reappointment.
Lacina: Oh, and the one, see we would need somebody from the ag community? So Mr. Werle probably is not, for the Zoning,
Stutsman: Oh, OK.
Lacina: We need what 3?
? Uh-huh
Lacina: So Randy can fill that.
Stutsman: All right so if Randy seems to.
Jordahl: I don't, we need a person from the agricultural community here, so that's a slot that Randy is filling?
Stutsman: Right, Eldon I think is.
Lacina: Well, unincorporated
Peters: (Inaudible) they both reside in the unincorporated area of Johnson County.
Jordahl: So it's no ag, it's unincorporated that we're looking for, and both the Werle and Fouchek are similarly qualified for that. I don't know either of the applicants, other than Mr. Lackender, well enough to make that kind of call
Duffy: I think he's done a good job though in filling out a term.
Stutsman: I think we got 3 votes for...
Jordahl: Uh-huh well, there's incumbency as I said earlier as a factor so he's asking to be reappointed.
Stutsman: Any other comments about Zoning. If not,
we'll go ahead and put Randy on for reappointment on
Thursday. Johnson County/Iowa City Airport Zoning Board of
Adjustment, Kae Wild has agreed to be reappointed. So we will
appoint Kae. Any other comments about Zoning or Boards and
Commissions. Moving on to Budget Process.
Stutsman: Joe, you want to pick this up?
Bolkcom: Yes, we're going to get going on this I assume pretty quick here next month. I know there some vacation planned. I guess we need to begin to talk about when this, when we're going to kick into it. I would like to suggest that we try and utilize the our best expertise in the County as we do the budget this year and Steve brought it up earlier and I support this. He didn't really get a chance to elaborate, but I would like to see a process go down where the departments come in and present to us and immediately when begin then the chalkboard and writing stuff down that we ask for assistance from the Auditor's Office, so that we move along. I know there are a lot of times we have questions about things and we debate what the answers are and sometimes we know and sometime we think we know, sometimes we don't know. Then it's a week later and we're still talking about the same thing. I think we could have a more stream lined process if we had assistance from the Auditor's Office and talked to Tom and Lynnette about how that might be able to happen. But essentially have a process were the department heads come in we gather all the information, when we begin to deliberate invite them up and provide assistance. So that's basically the idea.
Lacina: I think it's a great idea.
Jordahl: I want to ask how that compares to the idea that was brought forward by Mr. Kelly this morning about having a process of digesting the information as it comes from the departments and looking forward toward what performance measures for that department might be. As those issues come up in the process of digesting these budgets. Not necessarily that Mr. Kelly would be the one doing that. When you talk about having the Auditor's assistance, perhaps we have the Auditor sitting here and performing the same kind of a function.
Bolkcom: We said we weren't doing performance based budgeting.
Stutsman: Yes, Jonathan I think...
Bolkcom: I'm not prepared to do that...
Stutsman: And I don't think any of us are. You know, I think we need to just proceed...
Bolkcom: We need to learn the budget.
Stutsman: with this budget process as we have in the past. You know the timing is just not right and we need to proceed and get this budget taken care of and then with the idea for the next years we'll begin the performance based budgeting process
Jordahl: Perhaps I wasn't clear about what I meant there, I mean, I don't necessary mean that the Auditor or a consultant anyone would open a debate about what the performance measures are going to be. But rather that we would begin, we would consciously begin moving during this budget process toward performance based budgeting and that might be a process that is more lighthearted and low key and less specific than one that would be aggressive, where we talk about a 3 month time table of getting performance measures in place. I think I'm just asking that we begin to move in that direction.
Stutsman: Uh-huh
Bolkcom: We are.
Jordahl: That we not take this opportunity to do nothing.
Stutsman: Well how would you... Yes, and I think it's going to complicate this budget process if we start incorporating performance based budgeting. I think people are going to get real confused...
Jordahl: I don't mean in terms of the approval of this budget. I mean in terms of prospectively looking at...
Stutsman: Sure.
Jordahl: ...what the next years process is going to look like.
Bolkcom: The way I think about it is every member of the Board should as we go through these budgets ask themselves what information aren't you getting that you want.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: Were going to define a process, we need to try and help our departments heads understand what it is that's missing that's going to make it all crystal clear for us. OK, and I think we can all do that.
Jordahl: But we can also confer with the department head about this type of information would make this easier for us if...
Bolkcom: Sure, Sure
Jordahl: What do these numbers mean.
Bolkcom: Sure, Sure although we'll grill every department head that comes in about what they want and what they need. That will be the process of doing the budget.
Stutsman: The budget is coming up, that you know, we're short of staff, I think we have no choice, but to involve the Auditor's Office as much as we can and more so than what we've done in the past.
Lacina: Time will be a factor.
Bolkcom: Well, yes
Lacina: Just roughly trying to sit down and figure out some dates that we have to keep in mind. We have to certify by March 15th. That means it has to be in there. In order for us to do that we probably need to have a vote on that by the 12th of March to send it in. So that puts our latest date for public hearing, because I don't think we want to hear, have the public hearing and immediately vote, the perception will be that we didn't take input. I think that's going to roll up back to the 5th. OK, then if we go back and I asked Lynnette roughly how long it will take to do the 3 week public notice and do all the things in the press. She said we need to tentatively be done with the budget by February the 6th to send it down to her to reformat for the State for the...
Stutsman: Oh, your kidding.
Lacina: ...service area breakdown, to meet all the filing requirement and make the change. That means if the 1st week in January, if we're no able to meet and discuss budgets for a number of reasons, we have 20 days. We have 3 week in January and 1 week in February.
Stutsman: Well, I'm going to be gone the 1st week in February.
Lacina: So, what this means is that...
Bolkcom: So am I.
Stutsman: Oh, and Joe is too.
Lacina: In the 1st week of January or February?
Stutsman: February, both Joe and I will be gone.
Bolkcom: Sally and I are actually going to be gone the same week.
Lacina: So what we really need to do, we need to wrap it up by the end of January.
Stutsman: We need to do it those 3 weeks in January.
Lacina: Right.
Stutsman: From January 12th to the 30th.
Lacina: So January will be pretty hectic, because we have to have all the departments come in, make the presentations, move quickly make the adjustments; I've already asked Lynnette to generate anticipated budget amendments, which will take money out of next year's. So if you think of anything like that lets get it out. On Jonathan idea, I really don't think time-wise we have any time this year.
Stutsman: Yes.
Lacina: Those are some dates that...
Stutsman: Well, I'm glad you did that...
Lacina: If I'm wrong...
Bolkcom: It's not like it's not on everybody's mind, but it's coming. We are already getting budgets from people that have stuff that we want on how to understand their budget.
Stutsman: Yes
Bolkcom: We're evolving it, it's not like...
Stutsman: I'm just afraid if we start talking about it in-depth, then it's just going to confuse everybody. Are we going to limit to 20 minute presentation by all the department heads and elected officials as we've done in the past?
Bolkcom: That's pretty short.
Peters: I was going to say I need to get with somebody to get these people scheduled.
Stutsman: Yes.
Peters: You know I really didn't have this on my calendar to work on this and so we...
Stutsman: Can Misty or...
Peters: The other thing I need to know...
Bolkcom: Destiny.
Stutsman: Destiny.
Peters: Are you going to be meeting the week of January 5th?
Stutsman: Jonathan will not be here. Is anyone else not going to be here?
Lacina: I'm here.
Duffy: I'll probably be here.
Stutsman: I think we need to meet January 5th.
Bolkcom: When will they meet?
Stutsman: You mean on the budget Carol or just informal/formal?
Peters: I mean the budget.
Stutsman: Right. We all want to be here during the budget presentations?
Bolkcom: I think so.
Stutsman: Isn't that pretty much agreed on?
Peters: OK so you want them scheduled between the 12th of January and 30th of January.
Stutsman: Right.
Duffy: We're getting pretty late.
Stutsman: Well, actually Carol, I think they're going to have to all be scheduled the week of the 12th.
Bolkcom: Can we start in December?
Duffy: Good idea.
Lacina: As soon as Lynnette's done, we might get in a couple, as long as we can remember...
Bolkcom: A couple days worth.
Stutsman: How about that week. Is anyone going to be gone that week between Christmas and New Years?
Lacina: So we could have Disaster Services and some of the ...
Stutsman: And checking which department heads are going to be here too. It might be based on whose going to be here.
Bolkcom: Get a few out of the way
Stutsman: Should we try to schedule them maybe some for the 29th and the 30th?
Bolkcom: Yes
Lacina: Sure. See if somebody can do it. That might push them.
Bolkcom: If we didn't meet on the 30th we could, we'll probably have to meet on the 30th.
Stutsman: Are we going to meet the week of the 29th for...?
Lacina: The 29th of ...
Stutsman: ...or, and we need to talk about the week of the 23rd. Have we ever set that up Carol? What our meetings schedule will be during the holidays?
Peters: You know I was thinking of that last night, and I need to...
Stutsman: At 2 in the morning right?
Peters: You got it, you know... I won't go into that, but Joe you'd be interested. For some reason I think we did do the 23rd, but then again I just wouldn't swear to it. OK, I'll check on that right after the meeting.
Stutsman: OK, so are we talking about doing some budget hearing on the 29th and the 30th?
Peters: Are you going to meet?
Stutsman: Are we going to meet on the 30th for Board meeting, informal and formal? Are we going...
Duffy: On the 29th.
Peters: As far as I know.
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: Haven't heard anything different.
Stutsman: Because I think Joe, you had talked about maybe not meeting that week for the Board meeting just have...
Bolkcom: Well, if we didn't meet, we could certainly devote all, a bunch more time to budget stuff. I mean we could meet, but not just have... or meet and just do budget.
Lacina: Let's check with the Auditor and see how soon they can be ready and if they can go for it, we'll go for it. If they can't obviously we're...
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: All right.
Duffy: The 29th at 6:00 we have a meeting with the Administrative Unit up at Pat Whites' office.
Stutsman: We won't schedule these after 4:00.
Duffy: No that's me, I have to be there.
Lacina: So you and Carol will sit down and try to schedule with the department heads for meetings.
Stutsman: All right.
Peters: How long do you want the presentations? You know there are a lot of departments that are in and out, but there are some departments that you know they have a lot going on in their area that probably need more than 20 minutes.
Bolkcom: Maybe ask them.
Stutsman: That's a good idea. How's 20 minutes? Not more than 30?
Lacina: Yes.
Bolkcom: Yes.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: Because we'll need some breaks in there as well.
Stutsman: All right. Any thing else with the budget process?
Lacina: It's going to be fast and furious.
Stutsman: Boy, I guess.
Peters: In fairness to you, I still haven't gotten my memo done up; keep doing other memos, but I myself will be gone in January for a week.
Stutsman: OK. When Carol?
Peters: The plane takes off January 9th at 7:00 in the morning.
Stutsman: All right. So you'll be gone that 2nd week...
Bolkcom: So you'll be back by the 12th?
Peters: Beg you pardon?
Stutsman: Wrong. I was in jest going to suggest, lets keep our weekends open in January, but just kidding.
Bolkcom: Thank you.
Peters: Anybody want to go to San (Inaudible) with me...
Bolkcom: I'd love to, yes
Duffy: Going to the bowl game Sally?
Stutsman: I think we better forget about anybody going to ISAC University in January.
Lacina: Oh Gee. But we do have a Supervisors meeting in there the 18th and 19th of which...
Stutsman: Must be a different date. That's Sunday and Monday.
Lacina: Is the 18th and 19th ...
Bolkcom: We have interviews in like 50 minutes or so.
Stutsman: Oh, OK
Bolkcom: We need to try and finish today.
Stutsman: All right.
Lacina: We'll also do a memo on the weeks were going to be out of office right.
Peters: The other thing I need to know, I didn't quite fully understand the process that you're using and how it differs from years previous and I'm assuming Sally can fill me in on that.
Stutsman: OK, all right. Or maybe Joe can too, I don't know. Legislative issues, I think we're not going to spend any time with that. I think we've all gotten our information together to give to the legislators. Right Carol? So, we'll just...
Peters: I've got some.
Stutsman: All right
Peters: I don't have everybody's.
Stutsman: As far as setting up that meeting, am I to assume that I will at least take a lead to get it rolling...
Lacina: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: ...as Chair of the Board.
Bolkcom: You bet.
Stutsman: I was thinking that the Board of Supervisors called the meeting. So we'll do that.
Peters: (inaudible) to set it up.
Stutsman: Right, the legislators will sit up here and
the department heads and elected officials will be in the
audience.