MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
STRATEGIC PLANNING WORK SESSION
DECEMBER 18, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:06 p.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.
Tim Shields suggested the Board finalize the goals they desired to obtain. He stated that he was reviewing the goals the Board members had discussed and he mentioned there were a few goals that needed to be clarified.
The first goal discussed involved the implementation of an information technology improvement plan. Shields stated that the Board had felt positive about this goal and felt like it was on track and moving ahead, but was not finished. One aspect that he wanted to clarify was the possibility of implementing a support process. Bolkcom said the Computer Technology Committee (formerly the What/When Committee) will now meet as needed. The Board has implemented a new purchasing procedure. The GIS and Document Management subcommittees continue to meet. Jordahl added that a training subcommittee may be needed. Shields felt the Board was satisfied this goal is moving forward and there may be follow through on training and support. Bolkcom stated there will continue to be decisions to be made, but a sufficient structure was in place to address any problems that will possibly arise. Jordahl said there is a 5 year plan into which some elements still need to be fitted.
Shields said that the Board was going to need some detail under their broad strategic planning goals in order to successfully communicate those goals to the department heads. The second goal Shields wished to discuss was space needs. He reviewed the conclusions that the Board had reached in the last meeting which involved the initiation of a Space Needs Task Force. The Board agreed that it was a priority for them to use the task force to address the space needs issue and resolve many of the space needs issues within the next year. Stutsman stated that the Board had hired a consultant and already set up a committee to address the space needs issue. The first meeting of the committee would be in January. Jordahl felt that a timetable should be set for the process.
Shields stated that another issue that needed further discussion from the Board was their economic development goal which involved developing an economic development strategy. Also he reminded the Board that this goal was linked to the Comprehensive Plan. Duffy and Lacina discussed the Economic Development Committee which they had begun to establish, saying the Iowa City School District, a number of cities, and the business community will be represented. Jordahl felt that the issue of economic development should be a subset of the Comprehensive Plan, rather than something that should proceed separately. Shields reminded Jordahl that was not what the Board had agreed to last June. Stutsman stated she felt they were 2 separate issues. Bolkcom expressed the concern that economic development goals might already be addressed by other committees that had already been established, such as the Chamber of Commerce and ICAD. He stressed the heavy workload of the Board and urged them not to engage in any action which might duplicate efforts that were already going on. Duffy emphasized the importance of this issue. Lacina emphasized that prior to the establishment of any economic development goals, the economic development needs of the County would have to be addressed.
Jordahl said that he felt economic development was linked to the Comprehensive Plan because of the land use connection. He asked how economic development would be promoted without addressing where to put it. Lacina and Duffy both felt that the committee would address this issue. Lacina said before determining where to site an industry a determination should be made if it is something the community wants. Bolkcom felt the Comprehensive Plan would supersede the work of any committee. Jordahl felt that the committee should exist within a framework of the Comprehensive Plan. Lacina suggested continuing the work of the committee because there are many elements of economic development that do not involve construction of new facilities. The majority of the Board felt that the economic development needs should continue to be examined without having to be linked to the Comprehensive Plan. Jordahl asked how the Board viewed the relationship between the Economic Development Committee and the Comprehensive Plan. Duffy stated that he was on the State Economic Development Board and their goals encompassed a lot more than building buildings. He stated that he didn't understand how economic development would be completely incorporated within a comprehensive land use plan. Lacina said that he wasn't prepared to answer questions regarding the committee, because the committee hadn't even had the first meeting.
Bolkcom expressed concern about how the Chamber of Commerce and ICAD would react to a separate Supervisors' Economic Development Committee. Shields asked what outcome Lacina would be looking for from this committee in the future. Lacina said that he hadn't yet determined that; he wanted to talk to other committee members. He thought they might focus on things that would enhance the community. Jordahl felt that their was an interface between economic development and social welfare and stressed that that issue should be an important component in any economic development plan. Lacina and Jordahl felt that the Computer Needs Committee would provide a good model for the structure and establishment of the Economic Development Committee. Lacina stated that this group of people wouldn't be empowered to do anything except submit a document to the Board for their rejection or approval.
Lacina didn't feel that the Board had expressed a desire to have the economic development plan exist as a subset of the Comprehensive Plan. Jordahl disagreed and pointed to the goals that the Board had stated in July. Stutsman stated that she felt that they hadn't spelled out the specifics of the goals. Bolkcom asked for a diverse group to make up this committee. Lacina asked for direction, if they have the go ahead to sit down with some people and identify some needs. Stutsman stated that she didn't see any problem with moving ahead, since the committee was just in the early stages.
Shields suggested that the Board continue with what Lacina had suggested with the stipulation that other Board members also contribute to the process by suggesting some people that he may contact. Lacina agreed and said that the Board should give them some specific areas to look at where the Board felt that they needed representation. Labor and Human Services were mentioned as being groups that should be represented. Bolkcom expressed the concern that the Board hadn't outlined what role the committee would play in the economic development process. Shield asked what the Board felt the committee would contribute to the overall economic development goal. Lacina emphasized that the first step in the process would be data collection and need identification. Lacina felt that the focus would rest more on the personal economic needs of the citizens within the County, rather than on land use needs.
Shields suggested that the purpose of the group was simply to identify needs, rather than to develop specific strategies. Bolkcom felt that the process should start with an assessment of the needs that other economic development groups had previously identified that were not being addressed. Lacina felt that this would limit the Board's options to only the needs that those organizations had chosen to address and many organization's needs which may have been neglected. The majority of the board felt that this committee would be a study committee, rather than an advisory committee. Shields stated that the Board needed to be very clear about the purpose of the committee if they were going to be an advisory group. Duffy reiterated that he felt it was a study committee. Bolkcom felt that their was some disagreement amongst the Board on the direction this issue would take, since it was not interfacing with the Comprehensive Plan, which was a stipulation that the Board had previously agreed upon.
Bolkcom suggested that Lacina and Duffy should submit the names of the people that they felt should be on the committee, with this list being subject to the Board's approval. Lacina, Stutsman and Duffy disagreed. Jordahl felt that if each Board member had a say as to who would be appointed to the committee it would be more representative of every area that each Board member was interested in addressing. Lacina felt these needs should be generated by the community, rather than the Board members' perceptions of the needs of the community. Shields suggested that the Board should have some input regarding representation within the committee. Lacina agreed that the Board should mention groups that they thought should be involved and he would go out and recruit them. However, he stressed that he didn't want too many people serving on the committee. Bolkcom reiterated that he felt all Board members should be involved. Shields emphasized that the main purpose of the committee was only needs analysis.
Bolkcom stated that he was fine with the study, as long as the purpose of the committee would not be subject to change. Stutsman felt that Lacina and Duffy should bring the names of the members that they felt should comprise the committee and the Board would review the list and make any additions that they felt were necessary. The Board members went on to suggest who they felt should be involved in the committee. Their suggestions included each community within Johnson County, the schools, ICAD, labor, Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, the Chamber, a representative from the Cedar Rapids region, ICAD rural development, ECCOG, transportation, Kirkwood, JTP and the University of Iowa. Jordahl expressed the concern that Johnson County may initiate projects on the fringe area of cities and then these cities would take over the project once it became successful. Lacina stated that these programs would still be addressing problems, regardless of what entity got credit for it. Jordahl wanted to see the cost issues addressed.
Shields reiterated the fact that this committee was only a study group and they would not be authorized to develop a plan. Jordahl suggested that the group should study the appropriate role of Johnson County in economic development, rather than to study the entire issue as a whole because it may already be being studied by other bodies which would result in a duplication of effort. He asked the Board if they felt this issue should be addressed prior to a committee's assessment of the issue. Bolkcom stated that other entities might feel that the Board was interfering with a function that they were already performing. Shields suggested that the role the County could play in the issue of economic development should be included in the need analysis to be conducted by the study committee. The Board agreed. Jordahl felt the committee should study ways in which the County could support the efforts of the other economic development entities. Shields agreed that the County's role should be augmentation. Shields asked the Board when they would develop a specific strategy for the accomplishment of the economic development goal. He stated that the Board should clarify the County's goals in the realm of economic development within the next 18 months.
Shields felt the Board should next address their fiscal planning goal. He reviewed the issue that they had already agreed upon, which was to develop a budget process modification plan. The issue that the Board had not yet resolved was the pace at which the plan would be developed. The refinement of the budget process was included in this goal. Jordahl noted this was not one of the higher goals of the elected officials and department heads. Lacina felt that the Board should try to start to implement this goal by the year 2000. Bolkcom suggested having a series of meetings with the elected officials and department heads so the Board could explain what they wanted. He pointed out that he felt the Board hadn't articulated exactly what they hoped to gain from performance based budgeting. Stutsman agreed, but stated that she felt that was the purpose behind hiring a consultant. Shields asked the Board what they wanted to accomplish in the implementation of performance based budgeting. Board members stated that they wanted better information, better analysis of the budget, communication with the public and the departments, and a user friendly system that would better enable taxpayers to understand where tax dollars were being spent. Jordahl stated that there was a need for the County to write a mission statement and each department to establish 4 or 5 areas that were there primary service goals; and then establish a relationship between the resources allocated to the department and the services they provide to meet these 4 or 5 primary goals. Lacina stated this is cost-benefit analysis and it was added this would increase accountability and support the Board's-decision making processes regarding the budgets of the different departments.
The Board stated that the main things they wanted to avoid in the process of the implementation of performance based budgeting were failure, alienation, anarchy, rebellion, excessive spending, and an erosion of the cooperative environment within the County. In addition, a minimal amount of paperwork was desired. Lacina stated that they didn't want to collect a lot of data and then use it ineffectively; the worst thing would be to add an additional workload without seeing a benefit. He also felt it should come from grassroots up rather than top-down to initiate the program. Bolkcom agreed and pointed out that this approach should not start with a consultant. Jordahl pointed out that it had already started to happen on its own in many departments, citing the Sheriff, Ambulance, and Auditor. Lacina added Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities. Jordahl and Stutsman felt the role of a consultant would be to guide the process and keep it on track. Bolkcom again questioned the need for a consultant if the process was already beginning to take place on its own. Stutsman, Lacina and Jordahl were in agreement that consistency and coordination would be main functions of the consultant. Bolkcom stated that they needed a system that the department heads found was a useful tool for the functions that they performed. He felt that there support was essential for the success of the program.
Shields suggested the system would also serve an administrative function rather than an annual exercise for the Board and the department heads. He stated that this process should help department heads make decisions on a weekly basis. Bolkcom stated that commitment from the department heads was essential. Shields asked the Board how they were planning to get this commitment. Bolkcom suggested again that this process should come from the bottom up by engaging the department heads in a process of deciding how the Board should implement performance based budgeting. Stutsman agreed, but stated she wanted a consultant to do that grass roots process. Bolkcom felt people are stand-offish with consultants and there won't be quality interaction. Stutsman expressed the need for a consultant in order to have one person who would be knowledgeable enough in the process to monitor it and take the lead on it. Bolkcom felt that the Board needed to internally decide what they wanted from performance based budget before they communicate their goals to the department heads, rather this communication were to take place through a consultant or anyone else.
Bolkcom suggested that the Board should take a little more time to better understand exactly what they expected the department heads to do through performance based budgeting. Stutsman said neither Linn County nor Scott County implemented performance based budgeting without bringing in a new employee or a consultant. Bolkcom stated that he was not totally against a consultant, but he felt that the Board had to first articulate a little bit better what they hoped to gain from the process before they hired a consultant to help implement it. He felt there may be a role for a consultant at some point, but not at the beginning of the process before a large amount of cooperation had been gained from the department heads. Jordahl agreed that personal contact with the department heads was important. He also pointed out that data collection would have to begin by July 1, 1998 if performance based budgeting was going to be totally integrated into the FY 2000 budget.
Lacina stated that information would flow from 2 directions, from the department heads to the Board and vice versa. He felt that a consultant may be able to take the politics out of the process, because a neutral professional would be brought in to ask the department heads for numbers that they felt were meaningful measures that would help them operate more efficiently. Lacina reiterated that the 2000 budget cycle was still a target in his mind. Bolkcom stated that the department heads had expressed the opinion that they felt the process was moving too fast. Lacina felt that the sooner the process was implemented, the better. Shields suggested that the Board could use the consultant to observe and study the upcoming budget process. He pointed out that the biggest mistake that the Board could make would be to take another organization's procedure and try to implement in their own organization, which would have many differences. He said that they would not be implementing the process immediately with the hiring of a consultant, they would merely be preparing for the process. Bolkcom feared that engaging a consultant in the process would immediately send up red flags to the department heads.
Jordahl mentioned County Auditor Tom Slockett and the eagerness he expressed to the Board to study the issue of performance based budgeting and be an in-house consultant for performance based budgeting. Lacina said that one problem with this proposal might be that an elected official might resent another elected official overseeing his or her own department's budget. Lacina felt that a consultant should observe the budget process beginning the 2nd of January and give a report to the Board by July or August of 1998.
Jordahl said they needed to start collecting data July 1 of 1998 to have meaningful numbers for the 2000 budget. Lacina said that end of March the consultant could give a report at a department head meeting. Stutsman said that means a consultant will need to be hired within two weeks. Jordahl agreed that it was an aggressive schedule. Stutsman thought the budget person would be hired first, then the consultant and start working in March or April and get it together by October when department heads begin putting budgets together. Lacina agreed. Jordahl concurred, but Duffy said he wanted to see how budgets come in before he has an opinion. He also thinks that computers will simplify the process. Jordahl said he thinks the State will require the counties to do it. Shield summarized that the action step was a modification of the goal--at least 3 Board members agreed to begin in March or April, part of the process includes using a consultant. Jordahl said if a budget person comes in in January who knows performance based budgeting, it could go faster. Bolkcom expressed concern about a totally new person coming in and telling department heads what to do with their budgets. Shields said that the Board has a good starting point, it just needs to be more explicit. Lacina suggested that each department head write down what he or she would like to see with the budget. Jordahl mentioned that it would not be a complete switch to performance-based budgeting- it would be a developmental process. Shields reiterated the amendment to the process was an element of some Board definition of the goal in dialogue with department heads and elected officials.
Recessed at 2:55 p.m.; reconvened at 3:05 p.m.
Shields asked how the committee was going. Bolkcom said that the committee is meeting and generating ideas, brainstorming.
Jordahl said there is a good plan to start with, there is a need to look at how the county has changed, and go from there to update it instead of writing whole new plan. He said there is existing plan, statistical information, public input process, and policy conclusions which should go into the process of updating the plan. Duffy didn't want to discuss this; he wanted to do it in a meeting in the Board Room. Shields said the Board needs to focus on process. Bolkcom wants to hire someone to help finish the plan. He thought maybe a citizen's committee might be helpful, but that may take too long. Bolkcom also recommended the Board go through the old and proposed plan, highlighting what they like and don't like, and compare their notes. He also recommended drafting a vision statement. Stutsman wants to keep it going and have plan in place by spring, and she does not support hiring a consultant now, maybe in two years to review it. Stutsman agreed that the Board could create a hybrid from the existing and proposed plan. Jordahl said this method could be time-consuming. Stutsman disagreed, said the Board is more focused now on what they want to accomplish. Jordahl and Lacina do not like the idea of letting a vote of 3 Supervisors carry provisions in the plan. Jordahl would like to see a broader consensus and Lacina added it should be a public process. Bolkcom said that it seems like there is enough support on the Board to stick with the old plan. Lacina felt this is a slap in the face of the Planning and Zoning Commission because the Board asked them develop a new plan. Jordahl agreed that the Planning and Zoning Commission worked a long time; he wants to mend relations with the Planning and Zoning Commission and not completely reject any of the work they have done. Duffy does not see that he has a problem in his relationship with the Planning and Zoning Commission or staff. He pointed out the low number of participants from the public during the process of developing the proposed plan. He wondered what was wrong with what they are doing now, keeping the best land for agriculture. Shields said that they have to dispose of the issue one way or the other. Stutsman said that then they should take it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and public hearing again. Lacina did not like the idea of individual Supervisors reviewing the existing and proposed documents in order to determine what provisions they agree on; it should be in a public meeting. He said if they hear each other's views, they may find compromises they can all support. Duffy has problems with existing plan because agriculture was underrepresented on the drafting committee. Shields says the process has resulted in a draft plan that only one Board member is willing to support. Jordahl said a citizen's committee would be risky because it could really stand old plan on its head, but the spirit of a citizen's committee is right because it involves the public. Bolkcom said it would be too time-consuming. Lacina was for starting a citizens' committee. Bolkcom opposed starting over; it would delay the process. Jordahl thinks a citizens' committee could start take into account the work done so far. Shields said one option is to have Board come up with a resolution to their differences and then bring to public, and the other option is to in essence start over using data that's already there. Jordahl said another option is to take existing plan and use information from public meetings to change the existing plan, but that may not be desirable because it would be seen as a slap at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bolkcom said it is the Board's responsibility to approve the plan and the plan should represent what they want in it. Lacina expressed concern that when the Planning and Zoning Commission sends recommendations to the Board, the Board not be constantly reversing them, that the plan be something they all buy into.
Shields summarized the 3 options before them:
(1) stay with the existing plan
(2) a Board-driven resolution of the conflicts in this issue
(3) reinitiate (continue) the process- public driven
There was not a clear consensus on which option or options should be followed. Bolkcom said this plan should be higher priority than reorganizing the budget process. Jordahl said there may be elements of each option the Board may follow. Shields says the Board needs to come to closure.
Shields asked the Board if they could each have reviewed the existing and proposed plans prior to the next strategic planning meeting in January. Duffy felt that the process of updating the plan was being done too fast. Bolkcom stated the non-statistical portions of the plans are not too lengthy to get through. Jordahl stated that he would like the proposed plan separated from the statistics. He felt that the Planning and Zoning staff should develop these into 2 separate documents. Shields reviewed that the Board wished to initiate an individual Board members review of both documents and collate all of the individual responses. He said that the goal was to start with what all of the Board agreed upon and suggested that they then identify the areas where there are minor splits (some maybes) and areas where they lack consensus. The majority of the Board agreed to take the 2 documents from the Planning and Zoning staff as condensed, have each member individually review them and then mark which aspects that they agree or disagree with. Duffy refused to mark which aspects of the document that he agreed or disagreed with because he stated that he wanted public input.
Bolkcom and Jordahl agreed that the Board may need some help in putting the new version together. The Board also set the deadline of getting the document finished by the 26th of January when they meet again with Shields. Duffy stated that he felt the Board was moving much too quickly. He felt public input was essential. Shields responded to Duffy's concern by saying that the process was not about adopting a plan, but making sure what areas that the Board members agreed upon and what areas they disagreed upon; then the Board would address these areas before the public. Stutsman agreed that this process would just involve the formation of a draft that the public could respond to. Shields suggested that an alternative would be to go through the document line by line and the majority of the Board agreed that was not the manner in which they wanted to proceed.
Shields suggested that they move the discussion to what the Board felt their capacity was as a Board. Bolkcom stated that they were overwhelmed. He asked what the Board was going to lighten up on for next year, so they weren't so busy. He expressed concern over the Board's ability to manage all of the issues that they had begun to address. He cited the example of starting the new HR (Human Resource) position. Lacina stated that he would work with the HR person and the County Attorney. Bolkcom suggested a weekly meeting of the Board with the HR person. Lacina felt this would be a waste of time. Stutsman disagreed, saying that this was a new position therefore she felt that this person would need a lot of communication with the Board to make sure that the person was on track. She felt the person should be directed to one or 2 Board members. Lacina suggested that each Board member should sit down and draft a few points that they were concerned with. He stated that he was concerned about the legal side. Administrative Assistant Carol Peters suggested that the Board should confer with the County Attorney on the HR position. Peters said she may also have some useful input regarding the new position. Shield then mentioned the budget person position and stated that these 2 new positions would help with the Board's workload.
Shields stated that the bigger issue that the Board needed to address was whether the Board could continue to focus on such an abundant number of priorities simultaneously. He pointed out that space needs seemed to be the only priority that was the Board seemed to be lacking discretion on, and it was on the way, so it seemed to him that they were handling all of their responsibilities effectively. Lacina stated that he felt they were doing good work. Shields suggested that the Board should talk further about their feelings about the Board's performance. Bolkcom suggested that members participation of boards and commissions should be equally spread out in 98. Lacina stated that he would be glad to take any of his old boards back. The Board agreed that their allocation to boards and commissions should be made on December 30th. Bolkcom questioned whether they should decide the commissions and boards after the new Vice-Chair and Chair of the Board were decided. Lacina suggested that each Board member should give Peters a list of the boards and commissions that they serve on, the time schedule, and if Board members would like to go off of a board or on to a board they should indicate this to Peters.
Shields felt that the department head role clarity issue still needed to be addressed by the Board and the delineation between the role of department heads and other elected officials. Bolkcom and Stutsman stated that they felt this issue had already worked itself out since they started meeting separately with the elected officials. Jordahl stated that he wanted Shields advice on departmental strategic planning in the next meeting. Lacina proposed that they should negotiate another contract with Shields for 1998 and write a letter of recommendation to the Board of Regents regarding his excellent performance.
Adjourned at 4:07 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on January 14, 1998 at 1:30 p.m.