Bolkcom: We're back to Item 7 and we'd be down to Item B. Discussion regarding joint meeting with City of Coralville on October 6th and I guess we're searching for agenda items. Seems to me one item would be discussion regarding the Fringe Area Agreement. That's kind of in the works.

White: Housing the ambulance would be another one. We're working on an actual written agreement relative to housing the ambulance that would require their approval and yours.

Bolkcom: All right.

White: We'll try to have a draft of that ready for you to look at before then.

Bolkcom: Other items.

Lacina: I'm trying to remember if you get my calendar to see if we have the Deer Creek Road Meeting prior to that and I think it's... I'll check on that. That might be an agenda item just to get everybody updated.

White: We could also talk with them about that site on Holiday Road that I had mentioned to you.

Lacina: By the gas station.

Bolkcom: So housing the ambulance and future ambulance.

White: We could package that into the ambulance location.

Bolkcom: OK. Anything else?

Lacina: I wonder if we put a feeler out to a couple of the department heads, for example Sheriff Carpenter, get a little feedback on the impact of the mall. If this is placing some pressure on us? Pat, you could probably give us some...

White: I certainly could.

Bolkcom: Pat could...

White: You don't want to get me started on that.

Bolkcom: Mall update guy.

Lacina: Is it an agenda item, something that we could see a problem and come up with a solution or is it just something we have to deal with?

White: Well, I think we could come up with a solution. I don't think it's one Coralville would raise.

Stutsman: What's the...

White: They just need to give us some money.

Bolkcom: Money.

Stutsman: Well, and I wonder have we ever gotten an answer from them as to how long they're going to have to do their TIF?

White: No.

Stutsman: I wonder if they kind of have an update.

White: They don't know yet, Sally, because the evaluation of the mall is just now starting. The Assessor has retained an appraisal firm, and that firm is about to begin the process of the evaluation. It's not yet known what the revenue is going to be, so they can't finalize a TIF payoff schedule until they know what the annual taxes are going to be. Depending on whether the valuations are litigated, and this would be the first mall that was built without some valuation litigation if it's not, it could be a couple of years before that's actually known. I mean we'll certainly know by January 1st is a target date for establishing valuation.

Bolkcom: They were initially estimating about a 50 million dollar assessment. I've heard more recently maybe as much as 80.

White: Their 50 was erring on the conservative side in hopes that it would go higher than that but not wanting to risk it being lower. They've used an I think pretty conservative estimate.

Lacina: They had referred to a 5 to 7 year TIF. I don't know if that's going to be achievable or not.

Stutsman: I think for some of our budget planning, we need to have an idea of how long they're planning to do that.

White: One of the impacts out there that's not well, I'd be surprised if very many people realize it. Coralville police officers who are working in Dillard's are not being paid by Coralville. Dillard's...

Stutsman: They are being paid by Dillard's

White: They have been employees of Dillard's in Coralville uniform.

Bolkcom: Interesting.

White: It is.

Bolkcom: So the City doesn't assume any liability, do they?

White: Well I don't want to take the City or the City Attorney too far out on a limb, but I think that's an issue that needs to be examined very closely. I think a person in a Coralville uniform carrying a Coralville firearm being paid by Dillard's probably isn't gong to be exempt from Coralville liability. But...

Bolkcom: So do we want to have the TIF on, discussion of the TIF.

Lacina: We probably should.

White: That's a good issue to keep on the table.

Stutsman: Yes, I think to show our interest that we need to have some ideas of what they're thinking of and...

Bolkcom: All right. Update on TIF and mall. Anything else?

Peters: Yes. I was wondering, do you still want to have the meeting where you did the last time or would you like to change the location down here?

Stutsman: We had it at... Where did we have it?

Peters: Clarion.

Bolkcom: Are we hosting?

Peters: Yes.

Bolkcom: That was fine.

Stutsman: The Clarion?

Bolkcom: Although it was kind of like a suite. It wasn't exactly, it might have been a little small.

Peters: I didn't get to go to the last meeting. Deana went.

Bolkcom: It was like in a room virtually.

White: It would have been a hard place for John or Jane Citizen to find.

Bolkcom: Right. Right.

Stutsman: Yes. I guess I would say let's have it here.

Bolkcom: Yes. Good.

Peters: Just looking for a little direction here.

Bolkcom: Always a good thing. Anything else for the agenda. Bob?

Welsh: Would you want to discuss with the City of Coralville possible locations for a satellite site for the Nutrition Program.

Bolkcom: Satellite site for Nutrition.

Lacina: That's probably up to the Nutrition Committee, isn't it?

Bolkcom: Is the Nutrition Committee looking for a satellite site?

Welsh: We've talked about one in the Coralville area. Several years ago the Mayor of Coralville was opposed to that. They now have a new mayor.

Lacina: I would think that should come through the Nutrition Committee as opposed to us.

Bolkcom: All right. Well Bob's on the Nutrition Committee, he's asking us whether we want to do that. Would that be something we would want Heritage there for if it were on the agenda, just to listen to the discussion. Because any increase in number of sites is obviously going to require their involvement.

Lacina: Have you run that past the Nutrition Committee?

Welsh: Nutrition Committee for at least the last 6 years has had some interest in that possibility.

Bolkcom: I guess I don't have any real problem having this on just to raise it as an issue to people. We've got some new people on the Council and whether or not they have any interest in advocating for it. Heritage is certainly always looking for more sites. It could just be an information item and see if they've given any thought to it.

Welsh: What time is that meeting?

Bolkcom: I assume it would be 4:00. But it might be something we'd want some representative from Heritage there in case there were questions about how it would actually work.

Lacina: And Mike.

Bolkcom: And Mike Foster. All right. People OK with that being on? All right. Anything else?

Stutsman: When do we have to have this over there Carol? Today?

Peters: No, it doesn't have to be right away. I was just trying to get a head start on it. We'll be the one preparing the agenda. What I wanted was to get your thoughts so when I go back to Arlys I can tell them the items that they're interested in discussing.

Stutsman: OK. Because I want to go back through some of my notes and see if there's anything else that we wanted to talk about.

Lacina: (Inaudible) Deer Creek Road meeting too.

Bolkcom: We could check back in on Thursday. It would probably be helpful to get this to them pretty soon; if we could do that by the end of the week. OK.

Lacina: OK. So we've got Roads, Nutrition, Mall...

Bolkcom: Fringe.

Lacina: Fringe.

Bolkcom: Ambulance.

Lacina: Ambulance.

Bolkcom: Deborah.

Conger: I think you might want to rethink having it here in this building, because there were 30 people around the table at the last Coralville meeting plus 20 in the audience; so there were around 50 people there. I don't know.

Peters: This one is just with Coralville. It's not...

Conger: It's not the joint meeting.

Bolkcom: Right. It's just with the City Council of Coralville. So there would be what 7 or 6.

Lacina: Except you're right, that the one we did have at the Clarion, if you'll remember the room, we were crowded in there. Now they had it configured in a big square, which was a big waste of space. I don't know. Say we didn't have it here, any suggestions of somewhere we would have it that would be a good meeting place.

Stutsman: I thought it worked out well having it at Montgomery Hall, when we had the joint City, Coralville. There was plenty of parking, it was pretty accessible.

Peters: The only problem with Montgomery Hall is after the last meeting there, I really need to be assured of some muscle.

Stutsman: Oh, for set up and take down.

Lacina: The tables and that.

Peters: I just can't lift those tables.

Stutsman: Yes.

Peters: They're bigger than ours.

Conger: Maybe the Armory too.

Stutsman: They really don't have a big meeting space.

Conger: Where we did the Franklin Planner.

Stutsman: Oh, that's right upstairs there. The acoustics aren't very good up there. At least that's what I think.

Conger: Because this isn't a big... I thought you were talking about another joint meeting like that. This is a smaller, you're just meeting with one city council; it's not a problem.

Stutsman: Yes, I think it's OK here.

Bolkcom: I think we can make it work here.

Lacina: The other thing would be to go back to the Clarion and ask them if they have a different room.

Peters: You know I do have it setup in both places. I have both places covered for in case and I'll go out and look at the space myself if you decide.

Stutsman: Let's just have it here. There's no point in you making a trip out there.

Peters: This is the first I've heard that the space wasn't very good. I'm sorry I wasn't aware of that before. I certainly would have let them know we were disappointed in their accommodations.

Bolkcom: All right.

Stutsman: Did we have to order a meal too at that space to get the room free.

Peters: That was the... When you first started having the joint meetings, that's the way the various entities wanted it set up, so that after you had the meeting, you'd have an opportunity to just enjoy each others company, without discussing business.

Bolkcom: What are we going to talk about.

Peters: I don't know.

Bolkcom: I'm kidding. Let's have it here. It's easier to set it up. We can open up the doors if members of the public, I mean we can just put tables around. There's 5 more people here, 6, 7 more people.

Peters: It's a lot easier if you have it here.

Bolkcom: And we can get some finger food and drinks. OK. Any other items for that agenda lets talk about Thursday.

Bolkcom: Item C. Discussion regarding another joint meeting with the Iowa City School District Board of Directors, City of Iowa City Council, Coralville, and North Liberty, who is a late invitee, but North Liberty has expressed interest to begin to come to these meetings and I think people are fine with that. That's October 28th.

Stutsman: You know I don't know if Nicholas Johnson is going to put something on the agenda concerning communication at these meetings. You know he had some thoughts on how to better facilitate communication.

Peters: That would work out well, because the Iowa City School District is hosting this particular meeting, so...

Stutsman: OK.

Peters: The last time for the last meeting we were a little late getting the agenda items there. I just kind of wanted to be ahead of the game. Get them there as soon as we can so that...

Stutsman: They will probably continue discussion about the sales option tax.

Peters: (Inaudible).

Lacina: I kind of felt North Liberty was lost in that meeting and that with the exception of the question of the regional transit system they were more passive observers. Is there a way we can set up the agenda where we can specifically go to each entity? Iowa City do you have any other issues, North Liberty, that way if they've got a list of 2 or 3 things or something that they've seen, they have a chance, rather than, well, the County, Coralville, and Iowa City really going on our issues.

Bolkcom: Right.

Lacina: Maybe we just do it with an agenda item, just say specifically each entity is there an issue.

Bolkcom: Probably the hosing entity probably needs to in the future get out a memo saying here's the deadline for agenda items. Councils have enough time to talk about it, we do and whoever is hosting gets it back and compiles it. I don't know if that's happening with this particular meeting. I mean North Liberty, the City Manager called and asked if he could come to the meeting and Jim Fausett called him back and said sure, your more than welcome, and then only one member of their Council was able to make it. I assume that when they have, now that they're officially invited, everybody is invited.

Lacina: Because the transit system is an issue that as they look at a bus service. The other thing is as they continue to grow the discussion on their own start up law enforcement center up there and some things like that that we really need to be aware and talk to them about. You're probably right.

Bolkcom: Sure, and I could give the City Administrator a call and say if you guys have any agenda items get them to Helen at the School District. They could do that and then maybe we could talk about maybe having an agenda time on this next agenda about organizational issues for this meeting on agenda items and who sends out the memo and that. But I'll call Tim and see if they've got any items and they can get them directly in. That's a good suggestion. All right any other... So maybe we could have an item on from the County on organizational issues for the joint meeting. Talk about that.

Lacina: Procedures.

Bolkcom: Sales tax.

Stutsman: I think what we should be getting out of these meetings, we kind of talked about it from time to time, how all of these entities can work together, more collaboration we should be doing. I don't have any specifics, but I think we should be spending more time thinking along those lines. Are there opportunities we should be pursuing concerning more collaboration? More working together instead of all of us... You know like the transit issue. Are there other things we should be thinking about? We've talked from time to time about joint purchasing. I think we're all... It seems like we're getting larger, yet we're getting smaller too, as one community starts to blend with another.

Bolkcom: We might want to put Empowerment Zones on, which is one of those collaborative things in the future.

Stutsman: Right. I just think we need to think more globally about a lot of these things. Even about park services. Should we be thinking about doing... Instead of all of us having our individual park services. Maybe we're not ready for that.

Lacina: Well, empowerment will draw the school system into it more. When we talk streets, and bridges, and stuff, they're not involved with that. That's our responsibility, but I think those types of issues will get them more involved and keep them coming. I've been pleased with the attendance the last couple of meetings. I think that's a good one to discuss. Maybe from time to time give an update on the Juvenile Justice Grant or something of that nature, because obviously that involves the kids in the schools.

White: I'd like to see school gymnasiums more accessible in the winter particularly. It always breaks down, because...

Stutsman: Winter, year round. I just...

White: The cross jurisdictions just never get it done. It's a physical plant that the community could make much better use of.

Lacina: Coralville's negotiation with the new school up there. There are some possibilities.

Bolkcom: Should we put that on?

Lacina: Other areas of collaboration. Lets have an agenda item to talk about it.

Stutsman: Yes. Yes. Maybe we could all be kind of thinking of some ideas that we should begin pursuing or just talking about.

Lacina: Maybe not midnight basketball. It didn't work.

Stutsman: Did it or didn't it work?

White: Some places it's still going.

Stutsman: Yes. After the mall closes, have 10:00 basketball.

Peters: OK. I'll get these items to Helen. Thank you very much.

Bolkcom: Thanks.

Bolkcom: All right. Item D. Discussion regarding comp time policy, compensatory policy. The Board has been... We met with our staff a week ago, or 2 weeks ago, and talked about our current comp time policy as it relates to professional staff and we're in the process of reviewing that. It currently allows professional employees to basically accrue, up to 5 days or 40 hours, I guess we would say, of comp time at any one time. It actually allows people to accrue an indefinite number of hours, but they can only have 40 in the bank at any one time. We're reviewing whether or not we want to make any modifications to that policy, so that's why it's on today. Any thoughts? One of the thoughts that's out there to get the discussion rolling is the idea that we hire people to do a particular job for us and according to a particular job description that is our professional staff and that if it takes 37 hours to do the job this week and they can do it satisfactorily, fine. But if it takes 45 hours this week, that's just part of doing the job and that comp time, taking comp time on kind of an hour for hour basis is not something that people should be encouraged to do, but rather you're employed by us to get the job done. If you can get it done in fewer hours this week and you've worked... Or you've worked a bunch of hours in a given day or 45 hours in a week and it comes Friday afternoon and your job is done, take off a couple hours early. That kind of approach, versus kind of a keeping track of a one for one, you owe me kind of set up. Any thoughts on how we should go? Whether we should even change the policy or whether we should make some changes?

Lacina: I suppose the first question is is there a problem with what's in place now? I know that we're concerned about the FLSA regulations and keeping track of comp time and things that have come down. But Lora, do you have any comments that you want to make as far as recommendations or possible improvement that we could make?

Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: I would recommend that we would review our current record keeping system and would propose a time sheet, or I should say an attendance record for all exempt level personnel across the County and would move towards exemption reporting. So people would be keeping track of their paid time off, such as vacation, hourly, sick, bereavement, jury duty, and regular hours would not be recorded.

Lacina: This would be for professional exempt.

Shramek: Exempt from the Fair Labor standards Act.

Bolkcom: So it would be directors of departments and assistant directors.

Shramek: (Inaudible).

Bolkcom: OK. That's an item that we need to have on our staff meeting next time because there are some reporting things we need to improve on and give some explanation and some description to department heads on that issue. Maybe we should continue... We have kind of a personnel committee that meets regularly. Maybe we should talk more specifically about this comp policy and see if there are some recommendations that would come out of that conversation about it. This is on today just to see... We've got a couple members missing today... To see what people's general sense about this was, to give some direction on that, whether we need to make any changes or not.

Lacina: I suppose the big things we need to worry about, one is compliance with the Federal Labor Act. 2 is uniformity throughout the County, so that we're fair. Then 3, just to see if there are some improvements that we need to make.

Bolkcom: All right. Anything else on this item?

Stutsman: So we'll refer then to the committee to kind of... When was the original comp policy put into place Carol?

Peters: The one that we're operating under now? I believe it was '91.

Stutsman: '91. OK.

Shramek: 90.

Peters: 90.

Lacina: Have we gotten any feedback from anybody as far as their desire to go one direction or another or make changes or modifications?

Shramek: As it relates to?

Bolkcom: Comp policy.

Shramek: Comp policy?

Lacina: Yes.

Shramek: No, we have not. I haven't.

Stutsman: Have we solicited any though?

Bolkcom: We had it on a couple weeks ago at the staff meeting and...

Shramek: It was on the agenda.

Bolkcom: Yes, I don't think we were overwhelmed with comments.

Stutsman: No. It didn't seem like there were any comments at all.

Lacina: Sometimes in a meeting though it's difficult. I just wonder if maybe the Committee would want to take 2 or 3 people, I don't know Graham, well not Graham because of his leadership role. But a few non-department heads and just some of the deputies and ask them.

Bolkcom: My sense is that people don't want us to change the policy, probably, because people are keeping track hour for hour. If we have a night meeting and have to work 2 and half hours, they're writing 2 and a half hours and they're taking that 2 and a half hours the next day or the next week. I think what is being proposed is a little bit less rigid a system. It says we hire you to do a job; you need to be here to do the job. If you can do it in 7 hours today, great, but if it takes you 9 tomorrow, we expect that you're going to be here doing the job. It isn't kind of this one for one kind of setup.

Stutsman: It seems to me like so many times we get into a situation where somebody wants to be a manager and compensated accordingly, salary, and yet they want the benefits of a salaried person too, having to be able to take overtime. I guess any environment that I've been in, you know when your a manager, you just go to that next step of responsibility and professionalism and that includes maybe working some overtime if the job requires it. I guess I feel that it's time to review that policy, get away from the hour for hour and just trust that people that are in a managerial position will work and provide the hours to get the job done. Some weeks it's going to be more and some weeks it's going to be less. I think we all in our jobs have our peaks and valleys. Even as Supervisors there are occasionally slow times and you just realize that. The problem we get into is when we get into these offices that are smaller and people find it difficult to take some of that time off. Like when the office doesn't have to be covered.

Lacina: With night meetings.

Stutsman: Yes.

Lacina: Well, we shouldn't imply that there is a problem within the County, that it's being abused. There was a court ruling, as far as the recording, really that brought this to our attention. We're trying to review some things there, but as far as our department heads and that, we really do have good people that are working hard to get the job done.

Bolkcom: Right.

Stutsman: Right.

Bolkcom: That's a good point.

Lacina: We're just trying to improve and stay compliant.

Bolkcom: Well, I think we've been engaged in the Salary Survey and just some internal personnel stuff, so we're reviewing a variety of things.

Lacina: We have a good HR Director now who is keeping us on task on these things.

Shramek: I think it's important to note too, some people are able to take the comp time, other people are not.

Lacina: Yes.

Bolkcom: Right.

Shramek: (Inaudible).

Bolkcom: Pat, you look like you wanted to say something a moment ago.

White: I did.

Bolkcom: Do you still have the desire to say something?

White: This is being a lawyer in a very technical sense. I just want to say that the meetings that Lora has is not in any legal sense a committee. The 4 people that she meets with is more of a consultation and so the referral wouldn't be to a personnel committee, which really doesn't exist, but to the Human Resources Administrator who is consulting on an ongoing basis with 4 people.

Bolkcom: And they would be?

White: You, and Sally, and Carol, and me.

Bolkcom: Ad hoc. OK. All right. Thank you for that.

Bolkcom: Let's move on. Item E. Discussion regarding Salary Survey, compensation schedule and implementation. We are to the point in the Salary Survey that we've been conducting for, boy, a year.

Shramek: Since September.

Bolkcom: Since September. Gosh, it's been about a year where the Board- I guess this has been coming over a period of a couple of years- has decided to review the compensation of what about 100 people, maybe a little more than 100 people, and we are down to a proposed range, presentation and taking dozens and dozens of hours worth of work by a private consultant and by Lora, Carol, Pat, and a number of other people, to make this presentation this morning. Go ahead.

Welsh: Joe, are there copies of that?

Bolkcom: Are there copies? Do you have some extra copies there Carolyn?

Peters: I will make some more.

Bolkcom: All right. Lora has some extras there.

Shramek: The job evaluation effort performed by Jerry Thompson, the consultant from Jack Lipovac and Associates, has been completed and we were afforded with all of our job titles and put them into pay ranges. That's what one handout is based on. We have 18 pay ranges ranging from 9 to 26 and the current Compensation Plan at Johnson County includes the cost-of-living consideration which was made on July 1, in addition to the longevity. This would be a third component in the Compensation Plan. We are looking at proposing a 1% step with a 2% merit consideration. That is the second handout. It is an 8 step pay plan with merit consideration over 15 years. Do you have this one as well?

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Shramek: The first step starts off at 6 months. It does not have a beginning wage. This allows for some flexibility with managers as far as qualifications coming in. Second step is at one year, third step 2 years, fourth step 3 years, then there is a skip to 5 years with the fifth step, sixth step is 7 years. Seventh step is 10 years, and then the eighth step is 15 years. The proposal would be effective October 5th, which is the beginning of the first pay period in October, to move all non-bargaining unit employees under the Board's jurisdiction to their tenured step on the scale. That would be in accordance to their tenure in the position that they currently hold. That would take them to the step minimum based on their years of service. Then, as far as the merit portion would be concerned, this is something that the Board would probably need to be put into the budget and possibly for proposed implementation of July 1, 1999. That would give us time to solidify a job performance evaluation form, as well as provide training and education to our department managers. Again, the 1% step would be for those having a good performance, standard performance. Then those who are meritorious, above and beyond that, could be considered for up to a 2% merit consideration.

Bolkcom: OK.

Lacina: Merit would be reviewed by you and by the Board for the merit pay and recommendation of the department head.

Shramek: Recommended by department heads based on the performance evaluations, and then of course approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Stutsman: So you would review them first, the department head of course first, and then you would bring them to the Board?

Shramek: Yes.

Bolkcom: This is a major change for us, mostly. I think we've had Health at one point did some merit consideration. I know the County Attorney's Office has. I don't know if I'm leaving anybody out, but we have not...Go ahead.

Shramek: Conservation did.

Bolkcom: Conservation. Where we would like to try and develop a component within our workforce where we try and reward people that are doing an exemplary job. Historically the Board has not really budgeted in that regard. We have a cost-of-living increase that we give every year and this longevity piece, but that's a new change. We're going to have to do some development with our department heads to put that into place. Hopefully, by giving us 7, 8 months between now and July to do that, it will provide the time. The other thing that this scale does or the Plan does... One of the reasons that the Board undertook the survey to begin with is because we recognize there are a number of our professional and management employees who are simply not staying up with the market for the work they were doing in terms of internally looking at other local governments, other county governments, as well as in the private sector. That was the result of the fact that for many years these employees in the survey were only getting cost-of-living increases and were not getting step increases for service, and so this tries to improve that. In addition, it took a look at really kind of the base salary that we were actually paying people that had been with us and in some cases the first phase tried to make some modifications to that. Some increases frankly to a number of people, many people. October 1st is the second phase of this and there are a number of other people, as we implement the second phase, that will move up to their tenured steps as a result of this plan.

Shramek: The job evaluation effort included both an internal and an external consideration. We had the 10 compensible factors that were rated for each particular job, as well as we had 20 benchmark positions that we surveyed with 8 different cities, counties, University of Iowa, and so forth. The intent, I believe, was to have the proposed pay plan effective July 1 and if you recall that's when we did phase I. Because at that time we did not have all of the data in. At this point, we are ready to go ahead and implement the second phase and propose the whole plan.

Bolkcom: Other questions or comments?

Lacina: Well, in the past, too, we had management people move down into the bargaining unit to receive greater wages, which was a disparity that we tried to address. This does not include elected officials or their deputies, which by Code is handled in a different way. Is Major Lewis, he is a Deputy under Bob, right? So he is outside...

Shramek: With the Code. Uh-huh.

Lacina: Thank you.

Stutsman: I just would add that I am just real pleased that the Board is to this point right now of accepting this. I think this is a great step forward in providing some additional pay for people. It was a good process to survey what we're paying compared to outside people, to look at what we're doing and to address some areas that people need to be increased, and then to put in the merit part of it. I just am real pleased that we've got something that is going to be consistent, that's well thought out, and that will be fair to employees. It's a great move and I'm glad we're to this point. It's been a lot of work, but I think it's time well spent.

Shramek: One thing I think is also important to note is the hourly rate is based on 40 hours per week, 2080 hours in a year. We did have just a handful of employees that were working 37 and a half hours a week as their standard work week. We've had discussions with those. Most of them have gotten back to us and will be moving to a 40 hour work week starting technically October 5th.

Lacina: At some point we may want to put a reminder out to departments when they calculate their grants to make any adjustments as far as reimbursement. Or like the David Griffith Study, when we seek reimbursement from the State, if we're factoring at 37 versus at 40. See if there would be a difference in the cost and so we don't jeopardize something. Because it is a very subliminal change that could pass through and we might just miss it. You did a lot of work on this. Good work.

Shramek: Thanks.

Bolkcom: Good job. Thank you. We'll have this on for Thursday. Thanks.

(Continued in Part 3)