MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

SEPTEMBER 1 AND 3, 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chairperson Bolkcom called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:02 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.

REVIEW OF MINUTES

Bolkcom: Board of Supervisors meeting for Tuesday September 1st, 1998 to order. Good morning everybody.

Lacina: Good morning.

Jordahl: Good morning Joe.

Bolkcom: Item 2 on the agenda is review of the formal meeting minutes of August 27th. Has everybody seen those?

Stutsman: Yes.

Bolkcom: All right. We'll have those on for Thursday.

DISCUSSION: MEETING WITH AREA LEGISLATORS

Bolkcom: Item 3. Business from the Board of Supervisors. A. Discussion regarding a meeting with area state legislators. I think this is an item we want to begin to talk about in terms of whether or not number one, the Board and our various departments want to have a meeting with our legislative delegation prior to the session beginning in January and if so maybe start looking at a possible date to do that.

Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: Last year, well for several years, you've always wanted to hold this meeting after the ISAC fall conference where you talk about legislative priorities. We've had them on Saturday mornings. Last year it was at 4:30 in the afternoon, so I would suggest if you want to have another meeting contact them and see what time would be best for them because I don't know the calendar.

Bolkcom: All right. So we'd be talking sometime in early December.

Peters: Yes.

Bolkcom: All right.

Stutsman: As far as your question about whether we should do it or not, I always think it's a good idea for all of the department heads, not just the Board of Supervisors and elected officials. I think it's a good use of everybody's time rather than everybody contacting them on their own. I always think it's good to do it after ISAC. They have some good position statements and we can decide how we feel about those issues.

Peters: The procedure in the past has been to contact the department heads and ask them to please put forth their concerns in much the same manner as ISAC because of their legislative priorities and that way it gives the area legislators better information.

Bolkcom: Do we want to try for say the Saturday, December 5th. Are we looking at a Saturday being talked about or do you want to try an afternoon.

Stutsman: I guess I would almost say try an afternoon. When does the League start their legislative season?

Bolkcom: I don't know. Do they start in January.

Stutsman: Do they? OK. I was thinking that...

Bolkcom: All right.

Stutsman: I thought our attendance was better in the afternoon than it was on a Saturday morning.

Bolkcom: So the first, 2nd or 3rd maybe.

Peters: I'll make a few phone calls and get a sense of that.

Bolkcom: OK. That would be great Carol.

Stutsman: Maybe we could mention it at the Elected Officials meeting this afternoon if anybody has any preference. But look at that first week.

Bolkcom: OK. Thank you. And we should have that on as an agenda item at our next department head meeting as well to get some attention from the department heads on any issues that they want to raise.

DISCUSSION: BUDGET PROCESS

Bolkcom: Item B. Discussion regarding the budget process.

Stutsman: Deana do you want to come on up. This is a report, and there is Tom.

Bolkcom: Good timing.

Stutsman: Yes. I guess. Report from our subcommittee. We were asked by the Board to begin working on some things regarding the budget process. So we have met and these are the results of what our committee has come up with. We wanted the Board to review these things and see how you feel about them and then we will proceed from there. The committee was made up of Tom and Deana and Carol and myself and Jonathan and maybe the first thing that we want to go over is the memo that we've put together. We've also developed a time line and then the last piece of paper on the handout was kind of an agenda that we thought probably should have when we meet with our elected officials and department heads about the budget process this year because there are a few changes.

County Auditor Tom Slockett: Sally you might want to warn them that we aren't really done with it. It's kind of a work in progress and so the main thing is the ideas and not necessarily the exact wording. Because we still need to work on that.

Stutsman: Right. It's written draft in big letters at the top of the page. Tom do you want to go through the memo. I was going to say anybody from the Committee please jump in with any things to add or any clarifications. Our main goal was to make the process clearer this year and to have better communication between department heads and elected officials as well as the public as we get to that point.

Slockett: Well basically what we're describing here is the work sheets that we'll be distributing to the departments for submission back to the Board, to the Auditor's Office. They'll include an expense and revenue work sheet and a payroll work sheet and an additional needs work sheet that we've come up with if the Board approves it. Under the expense and revenue work sheets, one of the points of possible controversy is kind of a change, I believe, is that amendments that are approved during the year at least at this point in the memo are stated that they will be reexamined for inclusion in your 2000 year budget. In other words they aren't included as though were an approved budget yet. They are still included as an additional need I guess. Sally do you have, jump in here.

Stutsman: Right. OK.

Slockett: I think in the past pretty much if an amendment was approved by the Board it was then considered to be part of a base budget. That's something you folks might want to consider. Do you want to include it as part of the base budget. The idea was that sometimes it might be the one time expense that the budget was amended for and it shouldn't be automatically included in the next years budget. But I can think of many examples also where personnel or something like that (inaudible). That's one thing to think about. The expense work sheet, these will all be submitted at the same level, and the net as the previous year. For example expenditures could go up in one line item but they would have to go down on another. So that they would be zero increase, so the Board will use it to see what a zero increase budget will look like for each department and then they are asked to provide a description of what the impact of a zero increase budget would be for them. Then their revenue sheets will be included and the process for requesting increases is outlined on the additional needs which we'll get to (inaudible). You're not telling them that they can't request any funds but they do have to think through the process of funding at the same level and what impact that would be under non-personnel line.

Bolkcom: I had one question as it related to the question of amendments and I wonder if this would make it clearer for us. One of the major amendments this year is going to be the implementation of the salary survey which is an on going impact whether or not we ever like the idea of holding the amendments separate but because that one is such a solid.

Slockett: They are incorporated and we'll get to that on the next section in the payroll.

Bolkcom: So it wouldn't be noted as an amendment in every budget. OK. I think it would just be cleaner to add that at this point.

Slockett: Yes. We do cover that in our payroll work sheet. So that is treated separately. The same thing and other departments have added personnel and that sort of thing. They may not really want to go over. They may think that it's unnecessary to go over that again as well. So that's something for you to chew on.

Lacina: With that example the salary survey was taxed for. Any amendment that takes a reserve I think should not be included, because automatically that gives that department a benefit that every other department didn't have a chance to come in and make their pitch for theirs.

Slockett: They're stepping front of the line on taxes.

Lacina: Exactly. They just jumped so I think if it's not taxed for that they need to come in and explain and defend it.

Stutsman: I think there was some concern expressed by the Board in taking some of these things out of the budget process and reviewing them. This will put those things back into the regular budget process. So I think it will send a message to department heads and elected officials that that's the way we prefer to do it. Especially personnel and things.

Jordahl: Especially additions made in July. You know people come in and do we need more personnel in July. I really think we ought to have a pretty strong policy to not do that unless there is an extraordinary justification for it. Because we've only got a couple months before the budget process starts again.

Slockett: OK. The payroll worksheet; all the current positions are listed by the Auditor's Office which they are currently approved salary schedules. It just describes how they're to be filled out and indicates that any requests for new personnel are to be indicated on that work sheet and it also notes that there are going to be 27 pay periods in this budget year so that will cause a one time increase in budgets for this fiscal year. Then we go into the additional needs area. Now one of the things that we didn't get incorporated into the additional needs paragraph, there was some language by Jonathan that I didn't receive till after we had already handed out the new copy. So that is included and another is that we've decided to try to standardize the additional needs requests by creating a work sheet that everyone would fill out so we would get it in the same format from each department. We refer to it as a list. In here, (inaudible) we'll need to change that language so that it reflects the list. But here is the concept on additional needs and it's going to be controversial so I need to consider whether or not you want to do it. The idea is to ask the departments to submit their additional needs in 1% increase increments, in 1% up to 5%. So I they want a 4% increase they also have to submit a 1%, a 2%, a 3% increase. If they want a 5% increase, they have to submit a 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% increase as well. Then they need to think it through, what it would be like, and also have a written description of what that size impact would mean for their department. Now the reason for this is, I think, the rational for it is every year the Board gets down to make really tough decisions at the end of the budget process. They have to make a cut here or there. And invariably a cut is made with unintended consequences. For example a cut will be made in a department that has an expenditure that came from a grant. So after the Board has made a cut the department head will come back and say, well yes, but if you make that cut we will no longer qualify for this grant. That would actually take more revenues away than you cut. So that's not possible to do and so forth. This will allow the departments in effect, to choose their own poison and to give the Board... If a 1% cut has to be made in the request that they make, what would be the impact of that on the department and it will be all laid out. It will make it... Although it will be a lot more work for the departments up front it will guarantee that the Board makes... It will be a much higher probability that when the Board makes the decision they understand the implications of it and it will be a workable solution. I can think of other examples where a couple of departments had a full time person denied, but they were given a half time person. The department said that won't work with our program. So this will preclude all those sort of rough edges in decision making and if there's a 1% cut it will be the one that the department head thought through ahead of time and recommended that it be. Then we also included a statement so that the Board isn't giving up any of its flexibility. That the Board reserves the prerogative to make adjustments between increments proposed by department heads if necessary. That sort of stems from the process by which the Board sometimes says, well we have to cut out another $30,000, let's look at the cars or let's look at the coffee machines or some of the aspect of capital expenditures or equipment. Because maybe you make a broad category of cuts there it may impact on departments. Someone might get a 4% increase minus a coffee machine or something like that. The Board isn't preempting its ability to do that sort of thing either. Then also we thought of the possibility that a department will say, well a 5% increase simply is not going to meet my needs, I have much greater needs due to a change in the law, due to Coral Ridge Mall, due to some other large change in the community that affects the operation of the department. So there will be another column provided on the worksheet for the department to submit whatever other correct requests they need above the 1-5% increments, in case they need that. So they can also submit that and that will inform the Board of what that need is, and what it would look like, and how that would impact on the department as well. As I said this is a big change, it's a lot more work for departments. I think personally, that it's a good idea and that it would result in better decision making down the road. Also even though it's a lot... Thinking through it myself in the budgets that we prepare it's going to be difficult. But I think will be a good exercise for me and for my staff to think through how we would operate, and what the impact would be on the department at various levels of increased funding, and it might help us make a better decision. I think it's something that would be worth trying for a year at least, but it is different and it is a big change and it needs to be the Board's decision on whether or not to do it.

Lacina: I really think that it would be burdensome on the departments, some of which don't have a lot of time and I could see somebody coming in saying, well if you take me from 5 to 4 then I'm going to eliminate an ambulance. When in fact we need to be able to go in and look for minor cuts. Just to say that what happens with a 1% cut, I don't think that's going to be realistic. Well there would be no food for the jail. I think...

Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard: No, we're looking at increases.

Lacina: I know, but... From a macro sense when you look at 1% cuts, to me we need the departments to have the flexibility to go down into their budgets and see what they would cut, where there would be a priority; maybe it would be food, maybe it can't be food, maybe it's a fuel line item. But just to say... Just to have them do this exercise just in case...

Stutsman: I think, you know we always ask for them to list their priorities.

Lacina: Right. I don't have a...

Stutsman: ...would be another way...

Lacina: ...problem with that, but this 1% exercise... Because they also don't know how it fits into the total budget. Again you can do as you wish, but I just think it's going...

Stutsman: But we need to talk about this.

Bolkcom: Well (inaudible)...

Lacina: ...to be burdensome to departments.

Stutsman: Joe, I was going to ask you...

Bolkcom: Go ahead Sally.

Stutsman: ...what's the best way to approach this. I know we've got budget amendments on for...

Bolkcom: Sure. Right.

Stutsman: ...9:15 or 9:30. I think there is a lot of discussion in here and I don't know if just want to run through this for the Board to kind of think about this for a couple of days and maybe have it on...

Bolkcom: Maybe have a work session.

Stutsman: ...for a work session or whatever. I think there are... People haven't had a chance to look at this memo...

Bolkcom: Good point.

Stutsman: ...or to kind of think it through. So I guess I'm asking the chair...

Bolkcom: We're on for a week from Thursday...

Stutsman: To meet with...

Bolkcom: ...to meet with... So we could conceivably give the Board a week to think about it and have it on next Tuesday again to make some final decisions.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Bolkcom: Would that be soon enough or would...

Stutsman: That would be OK with me if the Board's comfortable with that.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lacina: I think you better talk to your department heads.

Duffy: That's what I was thinking.

Stutsman: Well...

Bolkcom: We're going to the meeting on the 10th.

Bolkcom: I don't happen to believe this is a lot... Having department heads write narratives about why they need additional resources; they ought to be doing that.

Lacina: I have no problem with that.

Bolkcom: They ought to be thinking through what they need and how they're spending their money. This is a way to do that whether you assign a percentage, 1, 2, 3 through 5, fine if not. But I think people are thinking this stuff through and I don't really see this as a lot of extra work, frankly.

Jordahl: Let me read my language into the record here because I think it's a lot more positive a spin on this task. The paragraph is entitled Prioritized Needs and this is something we had the Sheriff's department do in particular. I remember that interaction, it was like we don't want to decide what you get, we want you to decide what you get, but we only have this much money. Rather than the Board of Supervisors trying to prioritize items within your department's budget, we would like you to explain what you would be able to do with each 1% increase in your budget for the coming year. Please explain the impact on your department at each level from 1-5%, we'd like to see a complete accounting of your needs including account numbers for all items requested. That's something the Auditor asked to be included were the account numbers. I think it's a positive look. It's not what if we had to cut 1% from your request what would be the results. It's what can you do with this much additional funding.

Bolkcom: Why don't we keep moving? Tom and Deana, you can lead us through this memo. I think we should look at the time frame and then have another opportunity next week to make some final decisions.

Slockett: Next is Technology and Capital Expenditure List. This is the process started last year in which technology and capital expenditures are submitted separately for approval by the Board, including for the budget year at hand as I understand it, and future purchases as well, where funding can be accumulated in the capital expenditure plan.

Bolkcom: Hasn't Information Services already developed a form for this? I believe last year they did, and I assume we're going to use the same vehicle to collect that information again. Let's do that if we aren't.

Slockett: We haven't looked at that yet.

Stutsman: That's another thing we wanted to do with this memo, was to include sample worksheets with everything so that people could understand what we're asking for.

Slockett: We can have those when the Board is ready to begin. OK. This then, basically, describes how it would be designated for current, out of which levels of additional needs that are proposed and so forth. Here's an example where one percent increments might be useful. It might be that the one and 2 and 3 % increments have one way of moving forward that is a priority for the department because there isn't enough funds to do something, either to add a certain person or to add a piece of computer equipment or something like that. Whereas, once you get to 4% and they can add that new person, then their priorities change and they want to do something else. The list for 3% percent increase might have a lot of changes in the line items, or the change of 4%, because of that reshuffling of priorities that are allowed by that level of funding. So that just points out that sort of thing will be designated as well. And then the last paragraph is what is left that wasn't already covered, and kind of summarizes... Maybe I'll just read that real quick. During your budget presentation, we will focus on the increases and decreases over the certified budget year as was done for Fiscal Year 1999, and general department narratives should be submitted as a separate document. Please list projects completed that no longer require funding and any corresponding decrease in revenue. We believe these changes simplified the budget process last year and will help improve it for Fiscal Year 2000. The Board intends to provide each department with the information contained in all documents utilizing the budget process for that department. So that's a change. An important point is the Board, the idea of the subcommittee was that the Board is going to make every attempt to provide all of the information they use to make decisions and the effect of those decisions at the time they make them on the departments. What we envisioned is that we will e-mail to all the departments, and those that don't have e-mail, we'll snail mail it or put it in our internal mail, what the decisions the Board made on that department on a daily basis. That's something for you also to consider whether or not that's a good idea. As you submit your budget requests, please be advised that even though there is no longer a budget freeze, members of the State Legislature suggested that they will enforce another freeze if budget requests get out of hand. Thank you. Then there's a checklist of things that need to be submitted and a reminder to get them to Rosemary in the Auditor's Office by whatever date you decide.

Stutsman: Thanks, Tom. I wanted to go through the timeline. The big change in this is that we're moving the whole process up considerably-

Lacina: Before you do, on your checklist, I'm assuming you're going to want to know your budgeted revenues vs. actual revenues. Because if you don't generate... Historically, we've had some departments that have not met revenue projections and what happens is that they then come out of your reserves to make up that difference if they fully expend expenditures.

Slockett: Yes. That is a place by the Auditor's Office, what the current year's budget is on the worksheet. This will be more clear when you actually have a copy of the worksheet. This is their budget, and what they're putting on there is their budgeted revenue.

Lacina: So each department will do that themselves, give you the historic...

Slockett: We provide that on the worksheet...

Lacina: ...OK. That's what I'm after.

Slockett: ...and they provide the next year's budget.

Lacina: But I think it's important in looking at departments in the past that they give you that number.

Bolkcom: The Auditor's Office generates historical revenue projection and what we actually got.

Lacina: Back 4 years.

Bolkcom: Now these departments are trying to project next year's budget. They only have one number and that's what they think they'll take in. They don't know what they'll take in because it hasn't happened yet.

Lacina: They can go to the previous year. For example, if they budgeted $150,000 in revenues and generate 100,000, and fully expend their expenditures, you're coming out of the reserves with $50,000.

Bolkcom: What I'm saying is, Tom generates those numbers for us. We will have those numbers.

Stutsman: You'll have them separated out.

Lacina: You're not hearing what I'm saying. I want the departments to look at that and give that to you. Yes, we do have it. Yes, I have graphed. Yes, I have gone back 4 years. Tom does it, but we need to be aware if they have a trend running 5 years of running half a million short on revenues, they need to tighten up the revenues side even though they may be dead on with expenditures.

Slockett: I believe we addressed that under Goals. That's something we were planning on covering today. Deana, that was one of the goals Deana suggested we have, that departments make every effort to estimate within 3% their revenues and expenditures as a goal. It seems like maybe it ought to be 100% accuracy, but 3% would be a huge improvement.

Bolkcom: Maybe we want some narrative in this memo saying, we want you to justify your revenue numbers to us based on historic revenue.

Lacina: Or if there's a grant you feel is going to disappear, that's going to be transferred into a tax asking, you need to know that as well.

Pillard: That was another recommendation for the Board, that they have separate sheets for departments (inaudible).

Lacina: Timelines on grants?

Pillard: ...What grants they have coming into their departments as well as the date they received it and when it's set to expire, the amount, and I would say also a short narrative as far as what the money goes to, what program, and what it actually goes to fund, whether it's departmental...

Slockett: Cindy has pointed out, and I think you've already discussed this, but these projections are adjusted in the Auditor's Office for accuracy, but that's not the way it ought to be done. They ought to be done accurately, done by the departments and the goals should be to have the Auditor's adjustment decrease over time. I think we all are on that.

Jordahl: There's a very closely related question, and I have a handout here we received this morning on budget amendments that relates to that. It's the question of how unexpended dollars from the previous year are to be handled in terms of these budget amendments we're seeing now in July and August for things that weren't paid for or something. This year-end overlap, I think, is a very gray area, particularly in terms of what the capital expenditure's budget for technology, for example, are things carrying over there. What is necessary for any department to have for carryover to fund things into the next year? This is something that needs to be handled a little more consistently among departments. It's a subject we still need to discuss at the committee level.

Slockett: Departments don't have carryover. Those are in the funds and are controlled totally by the Board.

Lacina: I think Jonathan's point is that at the end of the year, a department can come in and request, say, a $40,000 transfer into capital expenditures and then come back 3 months later with a budget amendment. It's one of the things we're trying to watch.

Stutsman: That is a policy the Board needs to...

Slockett: That would be rational if it's an expenditure that wasn't able to be made. For example, Human Services had expenditures that weren't able to be made in the current year, so they asked that it be put into a capital project, capital expenditure fund, or to be carried over in balance. Then the actual expenditure would come later than expected but for the next year that wouldn't have been included in the budget because it was expected that it would be expended the previous year. But I totally agree with you that I think whenever you do an amendment there should be some very strong justification why it wasn't requested during the regular budget process and why it can't wait until the next budget process because there is a tendency for these amendments to be people getting in front of the line and not having to have their needs weighed against everyone else's and so I think those are very good points. (Inaudible).

Jordahl: Well and there's the question of what were people taxed for too. I mean to say that we weren't able to expend that money this year but that's part of the zero based budget, what your budget was last year. There it was.

Slockett: Right. It was taxed for that purpose...

Jordahl: And then your spending it next year plus your taxing for it again.

Bolkcom: All right. I want to come back to the timeline.

Slockett: Well an amendment doesn't create a tax at that point.

Jordahl: No but it's part of the budget from the previous year. And so your spending it during Fiscal Year 99.

Bolkcom: Let's come back to that. Sally do you want to come back to the timeline.

Stutsman: Right. This was passed out last week for the Board to review. I didn't know if the Board had any concerns or thoughts about moving up the whole process. We heard from department heads and elected officials that they wanted to have a longer opportunity to present their budget and so this will give us that chance to do that, that we won't be so rushed during the whole process. But it means that department heads will have less time to put their budgets together. The other piece of paper has to do with the agenda for the department heads and elected officials. These are just some ideas that we put down about things that should be discussed with the department heads. We heard input from department heads and elected officials. They wanted a discussion about issues and trends. The Auditor to talk about revenues. What kind of moneys are coming in, what kind of moneys that we have to work with. Going over the budget memo and then getting into the performance based budgeting. I tentatively had Deana down to cover this. The things that we want the department heads and elected officials to include in their budget information that can start us down the road of performance based budgeting. I don't think we're ready to do performance based budgeting in a full-blown extent but I think we can at least start that process with some things that we have put down here. And then finally to give an overview of the budget process. We need to nail down some of these things about what we're going to do as far as the presentation and schedule, the things that we will have to work through as far as the Auditor giving the daily updates and things. Information on the web page, and how we accomplish feedback from the department. But these are just kind of things that we have heard from department heads and elected officials that they want included in this overview and this debriefing and we want to respond to that. But then we have to think through about how we're going to accomplish that. So these are just some items to go through. We also did some work on roles between the Board, the Auditor's Office and Deana. Oh Jonathan... So we listed something's we need to get this ready to hand out and maybe we'll have that ready for next week. Do you want me to go through these things or should we just, well basically what we kind of came of with the Auditor would collect the data from departments and compile into a useful form. He would take care of the statutory requirements including the publication and provide budget information as a view only access to spreadsheet and other budget documents, and then do the presentation during the public hearing. Deana would be the point person for this years budget process. She would do the analysis of budget information in the long term and then would be working towards implementing this performance based budgeting. Of course the department heads are responsible for putting their budgets together. The Board of Supervisors would review the budget process. They're the ones that make the final decisions. I guess we had some goals that we had listed. We need to clarify this a little bit more before we get this handed out. But we'll have this ready to go too. If anybody has any ideas too about roles and clarification of those roles. Maybe we can discuss those next Tuesday. But that's kind of what we've done, information for you to kind of mull over and think about. I think maybe if we have a work session next Tuesday then we can nail down these different things.

Duffy: What's the bottom line on performance based budgeting. How much better is it than the way we've been doing things and keeping people out of debt. What are we trying to accomplish here?

Stutsman: I think it's moving us towards that goal of clarifying the budget ultimately to the taxpayers, so that they know what they're being taxed for and what it's used for and that they're getting results for those tax dollars.

Lacina: Asking only for what we need.

Duffy: They know now (inaudible) and the information we get from the Auditor.

Pillard: But the other fact of it Charlie is your trying just to get some numbers as far as what departments actually provide to the public as far as the services. The number of customers they're serving. The amount of money it costs per customer just to serve them. It's numbers that the department already has. We're just trying to get departments to coordinate those numbers better and put them in a readable format that is useful for them, for the Board as well as for the public so that they can see how they're tax dollars are being spent.

Lacina: Actually Tom generated the revenue adjustment number which has been reviewed throughout the state to reduce the tax asking from what it might have been because of the revenues that we've been able to generate. So we're generating stronger revenues. We didn't need to historically ask for that tax and we came up with a very good formula, revenue adjustment number to reduce.

Slockett: (Inaudible).

Lacina: So really with tighter budgeting it can kind of move us out from having to do that. We just simply ask for the funds we need, we can defend those, justify those, and we don't have a $600,000 swing one way or the other and it's just more accurate.

Jordahl: Well I think your point of having the departments present the relationship between their projected revenues and their actual revenues and expenses and so forth. Rather than just their requests is an important piece of this. They have the departments participation and looking at how things worked out and how they could work out.

Bolkcom: Very good. Good work you guys.

Stutsman: OK, well we need to get this on track and moving forward so we'll just, if anybody has any questions about things and as Tom said this is just all a draft so nothing is in stone yet. we're certainly ready for Board's input or department heads or elected officials thoughts on it so...

Bolkcom: Very good. Do you want to see this on next Tuesday or do you want to talk about it again Thursday.

Jordahl: There is just one item I think we need to make sure we talk about it as it goes forward and that's the question of immediate access to what we've done with a computer.

Bolkcom: Let's save that. When do you want to talk about this again? Do you want to have it on Thursday or Tuesday next week? We have it Tuesday and there is some... You guys that are working on the memo are going to have to have time to get this all organized for our meeting Thursday.

Slockett: I don't know if we'll be ready next Tuesday. I think we'll be ready Thursday. I'd like to have the forms and everything for it.

Bolkcom: Maybe if there is another draft by the end of the week it could be circulated so that people could at least have a look see before Tuesday.

Slockett: If we could just find the time to meet we could do it.

Stutsman: That's the challenge.

Jordahl: I'd like to ask if this isn't a good time to talk about having a computer and projector set up in here on a kind of a permanent basis so that as we go into this we've got the forms on line, we've got any kind of information.

Stutsman: I think we can have that discussion on Tuesday. I think that's what...

Bolkcom: I think there's commitment to do that. All right. Thank you very much.

(Continued in Part 2)