Bolkcom: OK, they are nice maps

Stutsman: Well, it is a nice information but it is...

EideBailly and Company LLP Representative Andy Traeger: The more number you get the more confusing it gets.

Stutsman: Yes, yes, the more expensive it gets too I'm afraid.

Bolkcom: Well, go ahead. Good morning.

Traeger: Good morning. My name is Andy Traeger I am a partner with EideBailly and Company. Excuse me, EideBailly LLP. It is previously with Charles Bailly and Company. Effective May 1st Charles Bailly and Company PLLP had merged with Eide (inaudible) PLLP to form about the 24th largest CPA firm in the country.

Bolkcom: Wow.

Stutsman: Another merger, huh?

Traeger: So we are much larger now. I thought I'd better straighten that out (inaudible). So everything is in the name of Charles Bailly.

Bolkcom: That is fine.

Stutsman: You still go by Charles Bailly?

Bolkcom: No, it's EideBailey.

Traeger: No we go by EideBailly.

Jordahl: So how do you spell Eide?

Traeger: Eide is E-i-d-e.

Stutsman: Ei...

Traeger: Eide. Bailly is still the same Bailly LLP.

Bolkcom: You lost a P.

Jordahl: Yes.

Traeger: Yes, we did.

Jordahl: What does the P stand for? The first one?

Traeger: The first P was for professional . We were organized on the State of Minnesota and one of the requirements that they kept had to be professional limited liability partnership and now we are under the laws of North Dakota. We are here of course to present the audit report providing you with some additional information like we have in the past and I brought with me today Dave Cahill, who is a manager with our firm and he will take you through the audit report. Hopefully you all have a copy of that, does everyone have a copy?

Jordahl: I think so.

Bolkcom: Good morning

EideBailly and Company LLP Manager Dave Cahill: Good morning. Thank you for having us here. I am going to be very brief, because we don't want to get into too many of these number in here, but if you do have any questions feel free to ask. I am just going to kind of go through the format of reports, similar to what we have done in the past. I believe, from last year I see pretty much the same familiar faces, so you have all seen these before in the past. I guess basically what I will do is I'll just start, pages 2 and 3 is our Independent Auditors' Report. This basically states we have done the audit according to generally accept auditing standards, Chapter 11 of the Code of Iowa, and standards applicable to financial audit in containing government auditing standards. So we have done the audit in accordance with state and federal requirements. The most important part of this Independent Auditors' Report is the third paragraph on page 2, which basically is an unqualified opinion, which means the statements are presented in materially fair and that everything is in accordance with generally excepted auditing practices. So basically that is the Auditors' Report. Once you get beyond the Auditors' Report, the next few pages are the combined financial statements, kind of the general overview of the County as a whole, not very detailed, but gives everything on a combining basis. One thing I do want to mention is in the combined statements, if you are trying to compare these back to 1996, one thing that was required by the State Auditor's Office is your entire Mental Health area was part of the general fund in the past. So that is now is required to be a separate special revenue fund. So if you are trying to compare the general fund from ‘96 to '97, you are going to see large changes in that the general fund, the fund balance is down, the revenues are down, but the expenditures are down. All of those types of items appear as a separate special revenue fund within the report. After the combining statements you get into the notes to the financial statements which detail anything within those combining statements that really needs to be spelled out in a little bit more detail in a narrative form or table form. Beyond that, then you will get into the supplemental information, which then does go into a little greater detail breaking down the individual funds, breaking down the general fund revenues and expenditures into much more detail than what they are up (inaudible). This is where you will see, within that combining statement for the special revenue funds, you will see the new fund for the mental health where everything is detailed out for that fund individually.. Beyond that you will just see various schedules of revenues, expenditures fund balances, completed contracts, things like that. Like I mentioned, I don't want to get into any of the numbers here, because there is so much in here, we could be here for a long, long time. So I am assuming if you haven't look at it, you will look at this and probably have already. Beyond that we get into the areas that are required by Government Auditing Standards and Circular A-133, which is required for any state and local governments that are receiving financial Federal assistance. I imagine Andy will touch on that a little bit. Also back in there you will find a schedule of findings and question costs, any recommendation that we have regarding internal controls and things like that, the really important ones we consider to be reportable conditions are touched on in there. We do touch on segregation of duties within the Treasurer's Office that the County needs to be mindful that there are certain areas where things are being done by the same person that it may be more beneficial from a control standpoint to separate out those duties but that is not always easy to do. So that recommendation is in there, we have also issued a separate management letter with some other recommendations that are not quite up to that area of what you consider to be reportable conditions, but they are areas that can be looked at that we feel can be improved on to help the overall bookkeeping and accounting area of the County. Unless anyone has any questions on any of the statements themselves, I will turn it over to Andy for his portion here.

Traeger: As Dave had mentioned, the Johnson County audit was done in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, which deals with the Federal money that the County receives directly from various Federal agencies, along with money passed through the State of Iowa which is also Federal money. This year was OMB Circular A-133, which superseded OMB Circular A-128. The differences between those 2 circulars mainly is the methodology used to determine the amount of work that we do in any one area for the Federal programs. The Federal program area is a very, very important part of the audit and it is an area that we do spend a considerable amount of time on. The methodology used this year to determine what a major program is is different than the past. The major program is what tells us that is a specific Federal program or group of programs where we are going to concentrate most of our work. Now it is based mainly on risk based approach, where in the past it was really based on dollar amounts. The amount of the expenditures was really what the key was, where you had expenditures that were greater than $300,000, that program or group of programs would be considered a major program and you would do most of your work in that area. Well, the thing about that is a lot of those programs that are that large, usually there is pretty good control set up at the county or city level and a lot of times there were not many problems with those areas. Now they look at it from a risk based approach where we look at 3, 4 or 5 different items, such as an overview of what the controls are in that particular area, what kind of problems have we found in the past in that area, over the last 2 years. We identify those things and make the determination if that is a major program or not. So that is one of the major differences between those 2 circulars. I think another one is the report is not nearly as cumbersome or as confusing, believe it or not, as it has been in the past. The areas we are really talking about in the report starts talks at page 51 and continues through just about the end. If you remember from prior years' reports, you‘ve got a lot of different reports on internal controls, a lot of different reports on compliance. There may be 6, 7, or more letters in the back and now we have basically 2 of those letters. The report on page 53 is a Compliance and an Internal Control Report in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. The report that starts on 55 and goes through 56 is a report that is similar to that, but that deals with Circular A-133 and that is also on various compliance issues and internal controls. The Schedules of Findings and Question Costs on page 57 I think reads a lot smoother than it used too. It is basically made up of 4 parts, part one being a summary of the Independent Auditors' results. There are some specific items outlined in the Circular that we must address. Item G talks about the major programs, just to identify those so you know where we spend most of our work in federal program area. Part 2 has to do with the general purpose financial statement findings, which is on page 57 and continues on page 58. Also on 58 is part 3, the Findings and Question Costs for the Federal awards and Part 4 is other findings relating to required statutory reporting, which is required by Chapter 11 of the Code of Iowa. It may seem as I am rambling through all this, that yes, it is still confusing, but I don't think it is nearly as confusing as it has been in the past. The other items to discuss briefly would be the management level we have also provided you with, which is going to encompass some of the lesser, it's not really deemed a reportable condition, but just smaller items we may want to discuss that we have provided you with. There is one item there, it is item 3, it has to do with grant accounting. This is kind of a standard comment or recommendation that we have made to other counties in the state and also some municipalities as well. I think it especially holds true for Johnson County. We think it is probably a good idea if you at least would address or consider looking at having somebody being a Grant Coordinator. Somebody centrally located, possibly in the County Auditor's Office. I think some of the other counties are going to go ahead with that, I am not saying this is a full-time position, but especially with Johnson County, you‘ve got a tremendous number of grants. They are not all large dollar amounts, but there is a lot of them to keep track of . You know everybody in their own little area knows about these grants, but nobody really that I am aware of county-wide knows what is going on in all the different departments. It is very easy for us as well as Auditors to come in and miss some of those as well, to try and pick all those up is very, very difficult too. So you may want to consider a position of that nature too.

Stutsman: When you talk about a Grants Coordinator, what would their responsibilities be?

Traeger: Well, that's really up to the County. You can carry that as far as you want from a dollar standpoint, keeping track of the revenues and expenditures, to also the compliance side of it too. Are the various County departments aware of all the different compliance issues that apply to that particular grant? You have a lot of different grants all over the place. That means you have a lot of those people trying to be familiar with the different laws and regulations that apply to not just this particular grant, but maybe other grants in other departments as well. So you've got people trying to learn the different compliance issues, one department also over here in another department where you have one person that is aware of these different grants and aware of the different compliance issues, they can educate that area and help coordinate that to make sure that program is being run properly.

Jordahl: We've had that discussion in the past and looking at one person that might help to cultivate grants for the County, who's job it would be full-time to look for money. Having heard anecdotally that these people tend to pay for themselves by the money that they bring in. It wouldn't be wrong to do that. An answer that has come back saying that might not be a good idea or not be necessary is that the departments, the Health Department in particular, that operates with a lot of grant money does monitor it's own grants. Now I say that on the basis of affirmations that I have heard, not on the basis of any independent knowledge of me looking at how they monitor grants, but that they know about what they're doing in the Health Department. They know what grants they have and they know what the requirements of those grants were. Now for a person to sit in the Auditor's Office to know all of that, would require a pretty steep learning curve to find out about the Health Department. What's wrong with that argument?

Traeger: I don't think that's true.

Stutsman: No.

Traeger: I don't work in the Health Department, but I know all the laws and regulations that apply to them. I mean that information is provided to us from OMB and other Federal agencies as auditors and as really kind of as an internal auditor as well.

Stutsman: I think you're confusing the program...

Traeger: Right. The program, they know how the program runs, but I don't know if they totally understand all the compliance issues.

Jordahl: Yes. I don't think I'm confusing it, I'm asking a question. The answer seems to be that we're not talking about... when we're talking about compliance, we're not talking about is the program operating in some form of compliance with regard to stated activities? We're talking about- are you filling out the reports by the right date that have to be handed in to OMB?

Traeger: Right. Are you including information? All the information that's supposed to be supplied.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Traeger: It's hard for me to comment specifically, because there are so many different types of grants out there. The other thing is this is a changing world. These grants tend to change. Like you mentioned earlier, maybe there's more money out there. I know in working with different counties, I see a lot of similarities on the money that comes in and gets expended, but I also know that there are certain counties that get different types of Federal grants as well. But I don't see it being run through Johnson County. So there's possibly some additional money out there. I'm not saying there definitely is, but I see some differences there too.

Bolkcom: All right. Any other questions? Tom, I don't know if you have any thought. There's a number of recommendations in here. I don't know to what degree we've begun to implement those. There's a couple with the Senior Dining Program. Are there things that you'd like to point out to the Board as well?

County Auditor Tom Slockett: Nothing in particular at this time.

Bolkcom: OK.

Slockett: I think you received a copy of the memo that we sent to the Treasurer regarding the recommendation.

Bolkcom: That recommendation. Do you know if that's been implemented?

Slockett: No. I haven't heard anything Cletus.

Bolkcom: OK.

Slockett: But you should be aware of it, in case you receive communication about it.

Bolkcom: OK.

Traeger: See and that particular reportable condition, affects not only the General Purpose Financial Statements, but also affects the Federal program area as well. Federal revenues come into that, which is an automatic. I guess that's an area that we hope gets addressed and gets cleaned up.

Bolkcom: OK.

Traeger: Hopefully by the end of this fiscal year.

Bolkcom: OK, Tom what kind of follow up do we need to do on that?

Slockett: Well, I think just to be in communication.

Bolkcom: OK.

Slockett: Express the Board's concern for doing something about it. One thing that Andy and Dave probably don't know is that our Treasurer is retiring at the end of this term and there will be a new Treasurer. Sometimes it's a little hard to get people to change; it's not their primary focus, is changing things, when they are getting ready to retire. But I think Cletus, we can talk to Cletus, but hopefully he'll do something about it.

Bolkcom: January 1.

Slockett: This has been a long standing recommendation and...

Bolkcom: This one has been?

Slockett: Yes. And it's been a long standing lack of response to it.

Traeger: We deal with problems with segregation of duties quite a bit. With smaller cities, let's say, and even some of the larger cities, but in this particular case, it seems like it could be addressed and you could get most of the problem taken care of. Where a lot of the other ones are smaller and there's a limited number of personnel, so you can only segregate so much.

Bolkcom: Right. OK.

Traeger: I also have something else that I'd like to pass out to you that I've given to you in the past. It's selective financial information that you've always wanted and we've always been able to deliver.

Bolkcom: Great.

Traeger: It's comparing information for the 4 counties.

Stutsman: Oh, great.

Traeger: I can leave this...

Duffy: Really appreciate this and I've got the other ones. In fact I've got a 1996 here and then I can compare. This is a good document here.

Traeger: Yes, it's beneficial for a Board to get something like that. It gives you a little better overview I think and plus not only the County itself, but in comparison with other counties, of course we give you dollar information here, percentages per capita, which I think may be (inaudible) information which is right towards the end, may be even the best thing for you. Because all the counties are a little bit different, they're all a little bit different sizes. Hopefully that will provide you with some good information.

Bolkcom: Great book.

Stutsman: Good fireside reading. Great.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Bolkcom: All right. Any further questions? I think we also have another item up this morning, and that's talking about bids for next year. Is that right? Audit proposal? Dave and Andy, thank you very much, we appreciate your work.

Cahill: Thank you.

Traeger: We've got...

Cahill: We realize we just handed that out now, so if you do have any questions on some of these, feel free to contact us.

Bolkcom: Great.

Jordahl: Joe, regarding the Senior Dining Program in the letter that was received separately from the book, talks about adopting an accrual method of accounting, reporting reimbursable expenditures to Heritage and so forth. I don't know if you and Tom have talked about that. I know we're in negotiation with Heritage about our contract for the coming year. Perhaps if not now, soon, some discussion about that would be appropriate. What difference would this make?

Bolkcom: It seems to me it's mostly internal stuff and would not really have an impact on the contract. That's the way I'm thinking of it, but I might be wrong about that.

Traeger: I think in, if I remember right, in my discussions with a person at Kirkwood, is that right? That's who does the paperwork. They were really kind, they thought the County really was using the accrual method as far as accounting for the different expenditures and reporting to them. As I did more and more work on this, trying to tie the numbers back and forth, I really couldn't figure why these things always, cash-wise, always tied right out. As it turned out, where the cash method was used by the County. I think the main difference there could be where if you do have the accrual method, you may be able to get more money from the program. I don't know for sure. Because the concern was, if you get to the end of the year, if you spend more money than what the grant is, the fear was that they would not reimburse you for the total amount. But after talking with them at Kirkwood, they thought there was a very good chance that there would be an amendment to the contract made and they would cover those expenditures. If there were any excess expenditures. So if they're going to amend the contract, that means that you get basically more money than what you originally anticipated. That was the first part of that comment. I think the other part of that had to deal with the money that's collected and set aside and then paid to Kirkwood, has really kind of kept off to the side. I found that kind of a lack of some controls by doing it that way. I thought it should either be run through the County Treasurer or actually since that's really their money, they should have a separate account set up in their name, so it goes right into their account immediately.

Bolkcom: All right. Tom do know if that's happened?

Slockett: No.

Bolkcom: You don't know, or it hasn't?

Slockett: I don't know.

Bolkcom: OK. We'll check on both those things. We're going to meeting with Heritage next week, next Friday, to talk about the contract, and we could visit with him about both of these issues.

Jordahl: There might be a window here into the salary question, adjusting salaries in response to the salary survey, if we had expenditures that were due to an adopted salary schedule that would change during the year.

Bolkcom: I think we've got that covered.

Jordahl: OK.

Bolkcom: Anything else? Tom?

Slockett: I was looking at the next agenda item. Maybe Andy and Dave would be willing to stick around in case you had any questions.

Bolkcom: That would be just fine.

Lacina: I don't know that you will, but...

Bolkcom: That would be just fine. Thank you.

Traeger: You're welcome.

Cahill: Thank you.

Stutsman: I have a 12 o'clock. Do you know how much longer we're going to be?

Bolkcom: We're going to take this item and then we're going to recess. Because we cannot operate when we don't have members of the Board here. Tom, do you want to come up? Rosemary?

Slockett: This is just a routine, issuing of an RFP for our annual audit. It's kind of unusual that 2 responses came in at exactly the same amount. We sent out, how many do you recall that we send out?

Deputy Auditor Rosemary Stratton: Let's see here, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 were sent; 2 were received.

Slockett:.7 were sent, and 2 were received, the State Auditors and now Eide Bailly, and they were exactly the same amount. One of the... We asked for some additional information in this RFP. One for assistance with the setting up the cash count procedure by the Auditor's Office, because we want to do it in an orderly way and we want to reassure the departments that professional procedures are being used. We just thought that having our auditing entity, whether it's the State Auditor or a private auditor, would be reassuring to the departments as we institute it. We also... I had some discussions with the Chair and the County Attorney and we think it would be a good idea if we took a look at all the agencies we fund. For some of them, it may not be practical that they have independent audits of their organization, if it's not a very large organization. But in that instance, it might be advisable, at the time we decide to fund them or contract with them, to issue a questionnaire to them about the way they keep their accounts and so forth. To give an assurance of the quality of their accounting and internal controls and that sort of thing. So we asked the auditors to help us develop that questionnaire and to determine if there is a cut-off point, whereby they might recommend that we ask for independent audits to occur. Also, this actually arose from a conversation with the County Attorney. He thought it would be an excellent idea to have the option of having our annual audit include one or 2 of these agencies each year, so we could get a feel for how they're conducting their financial affairs. We did include that as an option, that we wanted the people to respond to in the RFPs, and both the State Auditor and Eide Bailly did respond to that. Of course, as we knew, it's very difficult to predict what they might charge us because the sizes of the agencies and the complexity varies so markedly. So they both gave dollar per hour ranges. The problem with that is, those don't necessarily reflect the costs. For example, the State Auditor bid exactly the same price for the annual audit as Bailly, but the dollar per hour charges for Bailly's are significantly higher, even though the actual dollars spent on the audit were equivalent. 670 hours for Bailly and 660 for the State. The methodologies they use for testing and the type of personnel they allocate, that mix actually determines the costs, so you can't really tell from the hourly cost. But the important thing to me was that they agreed that they would be willing to do that. What would happen is, at the time of the audit or before, we'll have to decide if we want to have one or 2 of these agencies audited. Then we'll negotiate a fee with them at that time, when they can get some more information about what the agency is and what amount of time it might require them to do the audit and the level of expertise.

Bolkcom: All right.

Stutsman: We don't have time today. I have some questions about this and proceeding along with it and...

Slockett: Well, we don't have to do it, it's just an option.

Stutsman: It might be a duplication, because... I'll just talk to you later about it. I had some discussion with Linda Severson at Johnson County Council of Governments. But I think most of these agencies do audits, and if I hear you correctly, are you saying that we would go in and do an audit of them, the agencies?

Slockett: If we chose to we could. This was...

Stutsman: I don't know if the County wants to get into that, but...

Slockett: I recommend that you talk to the County Attorney.

Bolkcom: Do we get the audits from groups? I mean I know we (inaudible)...

Stutsman: Linda does, through Johnson County Council of Governments, but I'm thinking of those we've found through the block grants. I don't know what agencies you're talking about. You know, if that's just those agencies, but...

Slockett: I'm talking about generally all of them in... I think it might be a good idea if they have audits already for us to ask them to...

Stutsman: Exactly.

Slockett:...file the reports with us and so forth.

Stutsman: Linda last year was talking about the County setting up a contract and she just didn't have time to finish that up. But that may be something that...

Slockett: Linda's also working on it. I think these 2... Yes, I'm aware of that and I don't think these things are duplicative. I think we both have some of the same concerns and we're just working on addressing...

Stutsman: Exactly, and it's not that I don't think it's a good idea. I think we need to coordinate it, to make sure that we're not duplicating.

Bolkcom: That makes sense.

Slockett: I agree.

Bolkcom: Because we're paying, in probably some of those cases County funds actually help pay for those audits. If they're happening at the agency level.

Slockett: Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to do one that is already audited.

Stutsman: Right.

Bolkcom: OK.

Slockett: Unless we have specific concerns.

Stutsman: Right. Right.

Bolkcom: Tom, when do we need to act on... Do you have a recommendation for us? And when do we need to act on those bids?

Slockett: We have enjoyed the relationship that we have with Bailly and particularly with Dave and Andy and the staff. We've found them very helpful. I think it's good to use a firm for a number of years. There is some debate now in accounting circles about whether it's a good idea to switch auditors from time to time. The side of the debate that says it's a good idea thinks it's good after two 5 year contracts, so they think it's a good idea to do it after 10 years. We've had 3 years with Bailly at this point. So there are a lot of advantages in the knowledge and experience that arises in the audit process from both sides. At this point we are very happy with them. I can think of no particular reason why we should change, so we would recommend sticking with Bailly.

Bolkcom: Can we put that on for Thursday?

Slockett: That's on for Thursday.

Bolkcom: I'm comfortable with that? Are the members of the Board OK with that?

Stutsman: Sounds good.

Jordahl: Especially if we're not going to pursue auditing the non-profits, then the cost is the same.

Stutsman: We're not going... I think that needs to be up for question.

Bolkcom: That question is still out. We don't need to decide that today. It's a good thing to continue to investigate.

Slockett: No, I think we should discuss it some more.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: I agree.

Slockett: Absolutely, I think we should...

Stutsman: And I'm interested...

Slockett: This is not an attempt to step on Linda's toes.

Stutsman: No, no. I'm interested in what the County Attorney has to say. Even putting a list together of who we all fund, because Linda's speaking from those Human Service agencies. But I'm sure you're talking about other agencies, too.

Slockett: I think it's great that Linda's doing that, but we as the funding entity also have a responsibility to have some idea of what procedures they are using and so forth. So I think even if she does something and we can just get copies of it...

Stutsman: Right, and think that's what she was talking about, that she has copies if we have questions, you know, access to her. But let's have her come in and...

Slockett: I think it would be good. It's sort of like the central grant idea.

Stutsman: Exactly.

Slockett: It's a good idea and we spent a lot of the County's tax dollars on these programs.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Slockett: And we should hold people accountable.

Stutsman: Sure.

Slockett: JCCOG is doing it. It's no slap in the face to them that we as the entity that's actually supplying a significant portion of the funding also want to have those kinds of records on file. So if the taxpayers have questions and so forth, we can supply the answers.

Bolkcom: Very good. Any other...

Stutsman: The other comment I was going to say... If storage is such a problem here in the County, I don't know if we need 2 duplicate copies of that. So that's why I'm saying coordination. Let's sit down and talk about how we can coordinate this, so that...

Bolkcom: All right.

Stutsman:...we're not having a bunch of things that are also being stored at Johnson County Council of Government.

Slockett: We can scan them on the new County scanner.

Jordahl: One thing that has occurred to me as you're discussing this is that where there may be various forms of reporting from the various agencies that we might develop a scannable, I don't mean scanner in the computer, but the human eye scannable form where a predictable thing will be in a predictable place on a sheet of paper, so you can compare them.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Slockett: I agree. That's the sort of thing we're talking about.

Bolkcom: We will continue to talk about this Board. I want to get you out of here, because I know somebody has to be somewhere at noon. Tom, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Slockett: Thank you.

Bolkcom: Look forward to working with again next year, looks like. Carolyn looks like she has something to say to the Board.

Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: I sure do. Item 8e, discussion of issues in the Senior Center. I had provided you folks with a memo back in April, April 2nd to be exact, regarding the items you wished to be placed on the Senior Center Commission Agenda.

Bolkcom: Right.

Peters: I did not hear anything back. I did have to let Linda know by 11:00 this morning what those items were. So I told her you had...

Bolkcom: Storage, parking...

Stutsman: Space needs.

Bolkcom: Space needs.

Peters: Do you want me to just run by and then I'll check which ones to take off?

Bolkcom: Go ahead.

Peters: OK, Senior Center Contract.

Bolkcom: Yes.

Stutsman: Yes.

Bolkcom: Review it.

Peters: Space considerations.

Bolkcom: Yes.

Peters: Coordination of system of welcoming and registering persons.

Bolkcom: I don't know what that is.

Peters: I'm sorry, coordinated system of welcoming and registering persons.

Lacina: That's basically do we hire a greeter, I think.

Stutsman: Is that what Charlie...

Bolkcom: Well, that was the Senior Dining thing, right? No, I'd can that one.

Duffy: Who put that on?

Peters: These are the items that were suggested to the Board by the Nutrition Advisory Committee.

Stutsman: Oh.

Duffy: By some of the Nutrition Advisory Committee.

Peters: So I'll delete that, right?

Stutsman: OK.

Bolkcom: Fine.

Peters: OK, consideration of Nutrition Director as an adjunct member of the Senior Center staff.

Stutsman: You're saying the Senior Commission put on some of these things or the Nutrition Advisory Committee.

Peters: These are the items that were suggested by the Nutrition Advisory Committee.

Bolkcom: They are County employees. I don't know what this is. Is it some kind of appointment?

Stutsman: What does an adjunct mean?

Jordahl: I think the idea there...

Peters: Just so that he could... When they have a staff meeting he would be able to attend and have a better idea of what's going on.

Jordahl: I'm thinking that what it may represent is that we fund the Senior Center to a certain amount of dollars and that maybe some of those Senior Center dollars could flow to his position and...

Bolkcom: I don't think so.

Stutsman: No, I think they're just asking that he be official capacity at these meetings, that he doesn't...

Peters: Not really official, but ex-officio.

Stutsman: Ex-officio, but that he has a reason to be there.

Peters: So leave that one on?

Stutsman: OK.

Bolkcom: Sure.

Peters: Review of staff roles.

Bolkcom: No.

Peters: No. OK. And of course, parking.

Bolkcom: That sounds great. Maybe move parking up. Anything else for that agenda, Carol? OK, that's fine.

Peters: No, I appreciate you reviewing that, so I can get back to Linda.

Bolkcom: We've got another hour and a half here on the agenda my friends.

Stutsman: At least.

Bolkcom: And we are meeting at 2:00. I don't know if the Board would be inclined to... I'd like to try and keep the meeting to no more than 60 minutes this afternoon talking about a Vision Statement. Is the Board interested in meeting for an hour after that? Otherwise, I would recommend that we move all these items to Thursday night. Does the Board have a preference?

Stutsman: Carol, a comment on early retirement policy?

Peters: Yes, maybe I can take care of it very quickly. This was placed on the agenda. Some of the Supervisors were interested in investigating that. I visited with County Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek. She said that's fine. But she just wanted the Board to know, if this is your desire, that she really cannot address that until July.

Jordahl: Yes, she's got some items on her plate here.

Bolkcom: That's fine.

Peters: And the Item 8C, you have your workshops coming up in June, and I need to know...

Stutsman: Who's going where.

Peters:...sooner or later what you want to do with your meetings.

Bolkcom: Can we do that at 2:00?

Peters: You sure can.

Bolkcom: Sally needs to get somewhere by noon. I would encourage members of the Board not to schedule things on Tuesdays and Thursdays before noon, if we can do that. The Board's agenda is extremely busy now and it just makes it hard to get through things. And I will talk to the member that's not here.

Stutsman: Is it fair to say that we will be done at noon, though, on these meetings, because...

Bolkcom: I think we should just stop at noon. If somebody has a noon appointment, we try to accommodate it, but people do not set appointments for earlier than noon on Tuesdays or Thursdays, unless it's some sort of personal emergency, or...

Stutsman: It helps just to have some directions and then we can plan accordingly. That's fine with me.

Bolkcom: ...or other Board business. Like you have a meeting in Cedar Rapids on behalf of the Board, like another commission or something you're appointed to. There's a meeting on the fourth Thursday, I believe, at 11:30 in Cedar Rapids. So that would obviously, if a member of the Board is on that committee as a member of the Board of Supervisors, we would want them to be at that meeting, and therefore leave early.

Stutsman: OK.

Bolkcom: OK?

Stutsman: Carol...

Bolkcom: So when do you want to meet? Do you want to try and convene at 3:00? We need to tell the Auditor's Office if that's true or we will finish this agenda on Thursday.

Stutsman: What's Thursday night's agenda?

Peters: It's full.

Stutsman: It's full. Then I think we probably better meet at 3:00.

Duffy: Let's finish it up this afternoon.

Bolkcom: All right, we'll meet at 3:00. We can continue to work at 3:00. There are a couple of items here. One item, the Local Option Sales Tax is on the Board's agenda with the cities tomorrow. I don't believe we have anything to report unless we talk about it.

Stutsman: Yes, I guess I would agree.

Bolkcom: I guess I'd like to say... When do you want to meet, at 3:00 today?

Stutsman: Yes. This work session with the SEATS Paratransit Service? When is...

Bolkcom: Soon.

Stutsman: Can that be postponed to another time?

Peters: It's strictly up to you.

Jordahl: With regard to the idea of doing this this afternoon after the Comprehensive Plan meeting, I think that we need to focus more energy on the Comprehensive Plan and not limit that meeting to an hour. If we are making progress, we should be able to keep going. I think we could perhaps assess at that time...

Bolkcom: Sure. That would be fine.

Jordahl: ...whether we can do this agenda, or put it on Thursday.

Stutsman: I think we need at least to talk about the Local Options Sales Tax. If that's on the agenda for tomorrow night, I think we need to discuss that.

Jordahl: That's fine.

Recessed at 11:56 a.m.; reconvened at 2:02 p.m. as a work session on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan with all Board members present.

(Continued in Part 5)