• Appointed Department Head Meeting

• Department Head Evaluations
• Review of Comp Time Policy
• Board and Department Head Communication about Time Off
• Board of Supervisors Office Hours
• Inquiries: Year 2000 Problem; Phone Systems; and Mileage

• Work Session: Johnson County Land Use Plan

• Introduction and Authority of Plan
• Use of the Plan and Johnson County Profile
• Issues Statement
• Policy Criteria
• Use of Land Use Policies
• General Development Policies

• I. Environmental
• II. Agricultural/Rural

• Use Of Land Use Policies
• General Development Policies (Cont.)

• III. Minimize Conflict

• General Discussion On The Plan

Chairperson Bolkcom called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:32 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.

Appointed department heads present were: Ambulance Director Mike Sullivan, County Assessor Jerry Musser, County Engineer Mike Gardner, Human Resource Administrator Lora Shramek, Information Services Director Jean Schultz, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Interim SEATS Director Burnell Chadek, and Veterans Affairs Commission Director Leo Baier; Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney arrived at 9:37 a.m. Staff present were: Board of Supervisors Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard, and Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler, recording secretary.

Bolkcom explained the purpose of this work session with the appointed department heads was in order to discuss items of importance to this group that might not be as fully discussed in a full meeting of elected officials and department heads.

Bolkcom explained that the Board would be conducting another round of evaluations of the appointed department heads in the very near future and they also would be reviewing the process used for evaluations. Duffy said he wasn't for additional evaluations because all the department heads were evaluated last year. He said he felt that evaluations were a hammer hanging over the department heads head and that he visits the departments every year. Bolkcom explained the Board would be following principally the same process of the Board members filling out evaluation forms, the department head doing a self-evaluation, and also peers being selected to fill out evaluations. He said one change would be having the department head fill out an evaluation and select another person to fill out an evaluation. Bolkcom explained they will also be picking people to do evaluations of the department heads, instead of the department head being able to choose everyone that would evaluate them. Bolkcom said they would be able to conduct a detailed evaluation by having it before Lacina and he left the Board.

Stutsman said evaluations are needed with the pending merit raises. Duffy repeated his objection to the evaluations, and felt it was a gimmick to tie it to the wage increase. Bolkcom noted the second round of the salary survey would be effective October 1st. He said the Board would be in touch with department heads to schedule times that would work for them. Stutsman said she hoped the evaluations would be similar to last year, meaning that they got positive feedback from the department heads and she fully intended for it to continue in that process. Duffy asked if the Board intended to conduct yearly evaluations. Stutsman felt they did. Duffy asked if there was a special pay increase dependent on the evaluation. Stutsman said there was not. Jordahl said that was the plan being discussed, but it hadn't been adopted yet; however the plan was to include a component of merit in the annual salary increase. Duffy said that was over-regulation of the County employees.

Jordahl said they are trying to do more with communication and these evaluations will increase communication. He said there would be feedback both ways; it would be a microcosm of the budget process. He said they are seeking a fair method of supervising and determining pay increases. Lacina said the test of the evaluations will be if the departments' needs are met or ignored. He said the Board needs feedback on the evaluation process and how to improve the form or the process. Duffy asked if this would be a department head evaluation or department evaluation. Jordahl said it is a department head evaluation. Bolkcom said they will also look at the last evaluation to see how goals were met. Lacina said the department heads should mark the positives and negatives on the evaluation form. Bolkcom said they should put down changes which should be made.

Rick Dvorak said he had seen a ranking of department heads, assistants and deputies, and wanted to know if that has a bearing on the department heads' pay or the work they've done. Bolkcom noted that within the salary survey, positions, not employees, were given points and through the rankings pay grades were established. People were slotted by responsibilities in grades. Dvorak saw some assistants ranked higher than some department heads and mentioned the different degree requirements some jobs may have. Shramek said degrees, as well as experience required, were rated. She said she would meet individually with those affected to explain the process. Lacina said that if they see things they have questions about to ask. Dvorak wanted to know if that would be part of the department head evaluation. Shramek said they had reviewed the proposed pay grades, determined the need to expand them, and added pay grades. Lacina said the first draft of the document was not valid, so Shramek and Administrative Assistant Carol Peters reviewed it and it is now more relevant.

A handout prepared by Peters regarding vacation and comp time policy was distributed. Duffy asked if they were talking about comp time policy for all non-union employees. Bolkcom said they were discussing the policy for management. He said the Board is reviewing the policy. They may move to eliminate tracking of comp time and phase it out. Bolkcom said they hired their department heads as professionals and some of the department heads would be able to get the job done in 30 hours and for others it would take 50. Jordahl said they should distinguish between professional and hourly employees. Shramek said what Jordahl is talking about is the Fair Labor Standards Act. Management employees are exempt under the Act and not eligible for overtime compensation. Jordahl said this has an implication for overtime as time off. Shramek cited court cases in which, if comp time is tracked, the employee is being treated as an hourly employee. That would mean additional paid time off. Jordahl said part of being a professional is doing the job in the hours it takes to get it done. He said this includes things such as attending evening meetings. He noted those present were professionals and hired as professionals.

Dvorak said he was hired as a professional but hired with comp time, which is now being taken away. Lacina said the court system is struggling with this issue. Dvorak asked if they were being told not to track comp time. Lacina said no. Shramek explained what they should move to is called exception recording, citing the types of leave to track. Lacina said they should do the job in the hours needed. Whitney asked for clarification that all managers should not fill out time sheets. Lacina said no, as long as they are salaried . Shramek said they need to review the process. Jordahl said it is not accurate that professional positions are doing a 40 hour per week job; it is difficult to take all the time due. Lacina said if the workload is much greater than 40 hours there may be need for a new position, that management employees are not slaves to the County. Dvorak asked if comp time accrued had been examined in the context of salary determination. Bolkcom and Shramek said that did not enter into the determination.

Lacina said management could provide data on the hours worked in a non-structured way. Duffy asked the group how they handled calls after hours as far as tracking time worked. Baier said he makes a note of each call for his records but not as hours worked. Sullivan said he notes his calls, which with the nature of his work can be numerous, but the calls are not considered comp time. There was general agreement on this point.

Bolkcom explained the Board is looking for a way to communicate when department heads are gone. Lacina said it doesn't need to be a big deal, just a note. Stutsman suggested they might have something like a master board showing time off. Sullivan asked if an e-mail would help stating who to talk to in his absence. Lacina said the message could include how to contact the individual, such as a cell phone number. Bolkcom said it would be helpful to know who the contact person should be. Gardner asked if they don't need to let the Board know if they would be gone a day. Lacina and Bolkcom agreed that one day wouldn't matter. Bolkcom asked if the Board would know who is in charge in the department head's absence. Jordahl said not just who, but when. Stutsman asked, if the Board has a question, do the department heads want the Board to come to them or an assistant. Gardner said he would be comfortable with them going to an assistant, and if the assistant has a question, the assistant can bring it to him. Sullivan, Dvorak, Schultz, and Musser said that would also be true for them. Many of the rest of the group nodded in agreement. Whitney said it takes too much time to track people down if the question is not directed to the person with the answer.

Bolkcom shared the interest of the Board in extending the hours of the Board of Supervisors Office.

Whitney said she had received information on an upgrade for the year 2000 problem for their voice mail system. She said it was very expensive. She wondered if there might be expertise in Information Services in dealing with this problem. Bolkcom asked if the system was under warranty. Whitney said it was; the system was bought in 1994. Stutsman asked about the cost of the upgrade. Whitney said it would be $6,000 for a software upgrade and the system originally cost $7,000. Schultz said her department did not have experience with voice mail systems. She said for this type of problem there are a lot of things to look for. Lacina said they should look at the contract for this system. He said they should ask specifically what the problem will be. Lacina said the company should also be asked why this didn't come up before. He said they should have spelled this out. Lacina said they should also check out the phone system provider for the County system to make sure there won't be problems.

Lacina asked Gardner how the Secondary Roads phone system was working. Gardner said he needs more time to evaluate the system. Bolkcom asked what the nature of the main complaints were. Gardner said that the positives were people said they haven't had a problem with it. Gardner said that the negative was that it is a little complicated for some people, and it is a little slow. Whitney said their system was working out. Musser made the observation that he personally prefers to talk to a person to begin with, then use voice mail if needed. Bolkcom agreed. Dvorak asked the Board what they were doing about a phone system. Bolkcom said they were looking at a possible replacement phone system for the entire building. Sullivan explained that the Ambulance Department had an antiquated phone system at capacity and asked how departments should budget for a new phone system. Bolkcom said it should be budgeted by the department. He suggested Sullivan sit in on the meetings where they would be discussing phone options for the Administration Building.

Lacina asked for feedback on the current mileage reimbursement. Jordahl said that Federal government pays $0.32 while the County pays $0.24. Stutsman asked what the State pays. Whitney said $0.24. Stutsman said she remembers the Department of Public Health presenting this as an issue. Bolkcom asked how many departments get mileage. Replies indicated most departments pay mileage as needed when a County vehicle is not available.

Lacina asked if the year 2000 problem was all right with the County's PCs. Schultz said it was because they are replacing the older PCs and programming is getting upgraded.

Jordahl asked if mileage covers costs and depreciation; if not, he said it should be raised. Lacina said another logic at play is that they want employees to use County vehicles. Stutsman agreed.

The next meeting with appointed department heads was set for 9:00 a.m. on October 21, 1998.

Recessed at 10:30 a.m.; reconvened at 10:43 a.m. with Lacina rejoining the meeting at 10:44 a.m. and Duffy rejoining the meeting at 10:47 a.m.

Countryman Group consultant Karen Countryman distributed copies of a new draft of the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan. She explained that the sections with gray highlighting will have further revisions made as indicated by the Board at recent meetings which have not been printed due to some technical difficulties. Countryman suggested first reviewing the changes made in the Introduction and then going to the Policies section. She explained that the Introduction says the same thing but is smoother. The Authority of Plan section, Countryman explained includes more of the State statutes. Bolkcom said on page 4 the Goals restate the narrative. Countryman said there was the thought that it is important to pull this out because this is what the State statutes say the goals should be. Jordahl, noting the points on conservation of resources and access to solar energy, said there are things in the State statutes that they should be reminded of. Bolkcom said they might simplify and not restate points. Countryman said she would eliminate redundancies.

Duffy enters at 10:47 a.m.

Countryman told Duffy the changes on page 5, under Use of the Plan, address his concern regarding what the Plan would address. She said it would address land use in the future. It will not affect land currently zoned; however, changes to current zoning should be in accord with the goals and policies of this land use plan. Bolkcom noted the Plan would be a 20 year plan and reviewed every 5 years. Countryman noted the Profile section comes from the information in the Appendix and will be revised once editing is complete on the Appendix.

Countryman said the Issues Statement will be updated from information she currently has on the computer and in her notes. She noted the changes in the first paragraph. Duffy said the public input received was based on a small percentage of the population. Countryman acknowledged Duffy's point, but said public input had to be based on something, noting some elections turn out a small percentage. Duffy questioned whether special interest groups were over-represented at the public input meetings. Bolkcom said the public input process may not have been perfect, but they will continue to have public input. Jordahl said the Planning and Zoning Department scheduled meetings and invited the public to attend.

Jordahl read the beginning of the Policy Criteria section: "The Johnson County land use policies are criteria that establish County priorities for land use decisions. They are based on the following:" He continued to read the first bullet: "The type of governmental jurisdiction and level of services available makes some areas of the county better suited for development than others;" Jordahl said that is a pale shadow of the current Plan, which he said talks very clearly about the rural areas being less suited for the provision of these services and cities being inherently better suited for the provision of those services. Duffy disagreed. Jordahl said the issue is the economics of providing those services. He said it is a matter of a policy decision of the Board and not the type of government jurisdiction. Lacina said it shouldn't be the governmental entity; it is a conscious decision by the governmental entity of the level of service they wish to provide. He asked if they want to say the type and level of service available. Bolkcom stated the old Plan dealt with it appropriately. He said the Plan indicated the County didn't have the resources to expand services and they would continue a policy to provide limited services. Duffy said some Board members act like they don't have good services in the county. He said they have excellent services, asking what is provided in the cities that is not in the county. He cited the lower cost of volunteer fire protection. Lacina offered the following- Johnson County policies make some areas of the county better suited for development than others. Bolkcom agreed with that statement but felt they should indicate the rationale for the policy, that the County can't afford to pay for municipal type services, therefore their focus is on limited services in rural areas. Lacina said they can't say today what the County can afford years in the future. He said that putting in the County's policies gives them the discretion when funding is available to make enhancements in areas such as the North Corridor. Jordahl said rural services of the County- Sheriff, Ambulance, and Public Health, are called upon to provide more service in rural areas with no more funding than if the same homes were built in cities. Duffy said Jordahl is trying to tell people where to live. Duffy also noted the demand on the Sheriff's Department by all the arrests occurring in the cities. Bolkcom said they need to focus on the question- Are they prepared to provide expanded services or is the Board going to continue to provide basically rural services? Jordahl offered this language- The County affirms the policy of continuing a quality rural level of services in the rural areas. Lacina that was good and it could be added as a bullet. Jordahl suggested using this to replace the first bullet. He suggested following it with- People who expect urban levels of service should live in cities. Lacina suggested- The County will not provide urban levels of service, which will be provided by the cities. Bolkcom read from the current Plan: "Municipal governments are inherently better suited to administer urban type services and in most cases the necessary service systems are already in place." Lacina said that it is kind of a slam and would like to just state urban type services would be provided by population centers. Bolkcom said he would like to see more narrative to bring forward some of the thinking. Lacina asked for confirmation that the first bullet would be replaced by Jordahl's suggestion.

Lacina asked if the second bullet would remain as it's worded: "Existing land use patterns should be respected and disruptions to them minimized;" Jordahl said he is opposed to it; they should not respect scattered rural spot zoning as if it was ever part of the County's plan. He said it would provide further justification for sprawl around them with residential development in rural areas. Lacina suggested adding language regarding spot zoning and sprawl. Bolkcom suggested dropping this bullet. Jordahl said it indicates the Board will respect existing land uses based on prior decisions but it doesn't address expansion. Duffy wanted to leave it in. Lacina offered the following: The County recognizes existing zonings and the rights to utilize that but will not expand with additional zonings in areas. Jordahl suggested the following: ...and the rights of property owners to continue their uses as appropriate to that zoning classification.

Jordahl suggested dropping the third bullet: "A variety of living environments should be provided;" There was general agreement with dropping it.

Lacina asked about the fourth bullet: "Efficiency, cost-effectiveness and equity are important factors in the provision of services;" Stutsman favored leaving it in. Jordahl favored collapsing it into the first bullet. Lacina said an example for this would be when people wanted to build on a dirt road which would be difficult for fire trucks reach and then later came back saying they couldn't get fire protection. Jordahl said Lacina's point indicated public safety should be included. There was general agreement.

Lacina asked about the fifth bullet: "Protection of natural resources, agricultural lands and environmental quality is important in the County." Duffy asked if they would indicate the different types of agricultural land. Lacina said that would be covered in the Agricultural section. Jordahl said this bullet should be the first bullet. It was agreed to move it.

Lacina read the sixth bullet: "Communication and mutual understanding among local governments is critical in the development of County land use patterns." There were no changes.

Lacina read the seventh bullet: "Agriculture is treated as a valuable industry in Johnson County." Jordahl said it should simply say: Agriculture is a valuable industry in Johnson County.

Bolkcom again noted his desire to see more definition of expanded versus limited services.

There were no changes indicated for the Use of Land Use Policies section.

The discussion went on to the next section on General Development Policies which began as follows: "General Development Policies fall into seven (7) categories; Environmental, Agricultural/rural, Minimize land use conflicts, Economic development, Residential, Transportation, and Parks and Open Space. In making land use decisions in Johnson County, the following General Development Policies should be followed:" Duffy said there wouldn't be the need for additional parks and open space in areas where there is already a tremendous amount of acreage in Coralville Reservoir or a State park.

I. ENVIRONMENTAL

The first Environmental policy: "I.1 Preserve significant features, including, prairie remnants, and steep slopes." Duffy asked for a definition of steep slopes. There was general agreement they could state it would be defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Duffy wasn't ready to agree until he saw a definition.

The second policy: "I.2 Protect the environmental quality and natural resources of the County such as woodlands and forested areas." Duffy asked how many acres would be defined as woodlands. Bolkcom said they haven't addressed the question of an interconnected web of woodlands and forested areas. Dvorak said the Sensitive Areas Committee was addressing this issue. Cole Chase said the Committee was also working on a refined definition of woodlands. Countryman said policy I.3 skirts this; "I.3 Reduce forest fragmentation and destruction of natural habitat for wildlife and plants." Moore suggested combining the I.3 with I.2. Protect ... forested areas by reducing forest fragmentation and destruction of natural habitat for wildlife and plants. Jordahl suggested promoted the combined points 2 and 3 to the first point. Lacina said if they were indicating importance, they should talk water quality first. There was general agreement to have the combined I.2 and I.3 first and I.1 would move to second.

"I.4 Protect drainage areas, creek beds, and other highly erodible lands." Duffy said it doesn't state how this would be done. Bolkcom suggested reference to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Lacina said there might be erodible land that is not a sensitive area. He suggested leaving it as it is. Bolkcom said they might leave references to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance out of the policies in this section and put the Sensitive Areas Ordinance under Strategies.

"I.5 Protect Johnson County water quality and wetlands." Jordahl suggested taking "wetlands" out of I.5 and putting it in what was I.1 in place of "steep slopes". Bolkcom suggested leaving "steep slopes" and adding "wetlands". Stutsman and Lacina agreed. Duffy asked, if they say they should preserve steep slopes, why aren't they talking about protecting prime farm land. Jordahl agreed that prime ag land should be added under Environmental in I.1. Lacina suggested placing it under I.7. Stutsman suggested a separate policy. Countryman suggested putting it under the Agricultural/Rural section. Bolkcom agreed to put "prime ag land" in I.1. Lacina confirmed that "wetlands" would be moved from I.5 to I.1.

"I.7 Preserve and protect historically or architecturally significant resources." Jordahl suggested adding "including archeological sites and historical artifacts." Stutsman asked what historical resources would be. Chase said there are 3 categories used: sites, artifacts, and themes. A river crossing would be a theme. He said "resources" is language they got from the State Archeologist. Moore cited Secrest Barn as an historic resource.

"I.6 Protect archaeological sites and burial mounds." Countryman discussed changing this to "Protect archaeological sites, artifacts, and themes, such as burial mounds." She would keep I.7 as a separate policy to keep the archeological and historical features under separate policies. There was agreement with that.

Countryman suggested adding "Protect prime agricultural land" as a first policy. Lacina suggested combining that with II.1: "II.1 Protect farming activities from residential encroachment." In order to eliminate a redundant use of "prime", Jordahl suggested- "Preserve agricultural land and farming activities from residential encroachment." Lacina, Stutsman, and Bolkcom favored having them as separate items, adding the new first policy, "Preserve ag land", I.1 becoming I.2, and the rest would also be renumbered.

"II.2 Preserve the availability of agricultural land in Johnson County." There were no comments.

"II.3 Support the rural lifestyle and the quality of life associated with agriculture presently available in Johnson County." There were no comments.

"II.4 Discourage non-farm development on agricultural land." There were no comments.

Bolkcom asked if the question of purchase of development rights would belong under section II or if it would be a Strategy. Stutsman, Countryman, and Lacina felt it would be a Strategy.

Lacina left at 11:36 a.m.; Duffy left at 11:37 a.m.

Jordahl had a suggestion for the following sentence in the Use of Land Use Policies section: "For example, urban services differ from rural services primarily because population density is the major determinant of the way services are delivered." The change offered was as follows: Urban services can be more efficiently provided in cities because of their greater population density. Bolkcom suggested- Municipal governments are inherently better suited to administer urban type services. Jordahl said he would favor bringing that language forward. Bolkcom said in most cases the necessary services are already in place. Jordahl added that when cities annex ground they should be ready to extend services too.

Duffy returned at 11:39 a.m.

III. MINIMIZE CONFLICT

Bolkcom favored reordering these policies, making III.2 be the first one. What was the second policy reads as follows: "III.2 Recognize existing land use patterns and minimize disruptions to existing uses in conformance with zoning." Countryman asked if they would want this to reflect the criteria and talk about recognizing existing zoning patterns.

Jordahl offered a change to the following: "III.1 Recognize that some areas of the County are better suited for development than others. Primary determinants for development are the suitability of the land, available level of services and the type of public services." He wanted to change it to- Primary determinants for development are the suitability of the land and the cost of providing public services or the impact on public services. Bolkcom suggested eliminating III.1 and starting with II.2. Jordahl agreed. Duffy disagreed, saying there certainly are areas of the county better suited than others for development. Stutsman agreed with leaving it out, saying this doesn't belong under Minimize Conflict. Jordahl said in the Plan they have made some movement towards recognizing the point in III.1 that Duffy is raising. He said, for example, it is recognized in the North Corridor Plan. He suggested reducing it to the first sentence and do something different with the second sentence, possibly putting it a Strategies section that elaborates it quite a bit, such as talking about the LESA or some other chart of factors. He said it needs to undergird the idea of buffering.

Duffy left at 11:43 a.m.

Bolkcom said they focus on what Jordahl was talking about in the Residential section and buffering is discussed in III.6. Bolkcom said he could favor leaving all section III as it is. Countryman suggested for III.2- Recognize existing zoning patterns and minimize disruptions to existing uses. There was agreement with that. Jordahl said the statement about minimizing the disruption to existing uses is important for a farmer wanting to expand an agricultural operation in proximity to an existing residential use, the agricultural rights of the farmer would supervene because of the right to farm. He said this would seem to give wait to claims a residence complaining against a neighboring agricultural use. Countryman suggested for III.2- Recognize existing zoning patterns and minimize disruptions to existing uses which conform to zoning. Jordahl and Bolkcom indicated agreement.

Duffy returned at 11:44 a.m. to say he would have to leave and he left.

Jordahl asked about the following policy: "III.3 Ensure adequate infrastructure and quality public services are available at a level appropriate to the land use." He said in reference to the North Corridor, if they have urban levels of land use, they are not going to provide urban sewer systems. Bolkcom said he doesn't think they are saying that; they are saying rural areas are going to have rural services. Jordahl said he liked to say this in reverse, to ensure that development does not occur at such a level that it requires urban services. Moore said that is not how it was originally written; he said it was meant as a way to say no to a proposal where there wasn't infrastructure and the County wasn't going to provide it. Bolkcom asked why they are talking about infrastructure under Minimize Conflict. Jordahl said it is a conflict with the existence of rural levels of service to approve a change to an urban density of population that would then require provision of service at urban levels which they could not afford to do. Stutsman agreed with Bolkcom that it wouldn't fit in this section. Bolkcom said there might be another place for this idea, possibly under Residential. Countryman said the intent to minimize conflict would be that public services would be in place to support the level of development, but there is a gap between that thought and what it says. Moore said in a rural area where there is a request for development and there is an obligation to provide infrastructure appropriate to the land use for the area; if the land use is rural agricultural, it allows them to say no. Bolkcom said he could be convinced to leave it. Countryman suggested adding- prior to zoning approval. Jordahl suggested- Deny applications for rezoning which would have an undue impact on County budgets for rural infrastructure. Bolkcom suggested using the word "discourage." Countryman suggested- Ensure adequate infrastructure and quality public services are available at a level appropriate to the land use prior to zoning approval. Jordahl said that wording could be used to demand an appropriate level of services for development to occur. He said, if the intent is to say don't approve developments that will require more than they are prepared to provide, then they should say that. Bolkcom agreed, but didn't like the wording "deny." Jordahl brought forward the following wording- Proposals for zoning to permit further non-farm developments in areas essentially rural in character should not be approved. Bolkcom agreed, asking how that would be incorporated. Jordahl suggested- Applications for rezoning which would have an undue impact on County rural infrastructure should not be approved.

Bolkcom opened the discussion to the public. There were no comments. Moore indicated the draft Plan was available for viewing on the County Web site and it was clearly labeled as a draft.

Bolkcom asked if they were ready to send the Plan on to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a memo asking for their reaction. Stutsman agreed. Bolkcom suggested meeting with the Commission in September. Countryman said she would incorporate the latest changes and prior changes, then forward the draft Plan to the Board.

Moore asked if an implementation schedule would be left out of the Plan. Bolkcom said that would be good to have in the Plan. He said they should talk to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff about that.

Bolkcom suggested they move the Economic Development section under the Residential section, because Residential would be next in importance after Environment, Agriculture, and Conflicts. Jordahl suggested moving Transportation up. Moore said the importance of the transportation system is often overlooked.

Countryman said she would get the draft Plan with the changes the next day. Moore said staff would forward copies of the draft Plan to the Commission. Countryman noted her contract will end with the delivery of the completed draft. Moore noted they would have the computer file to use for making subsequent changes.

Adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Mark Kistler, Recording Secretary