Reconvened on October 1, 1998 at 9:26 a.m.

Bolkcom: Reports and inquiries from the County Attorney. Thanks. I see that stuck back on under informal. Item B, inquiries and reports from members of the public. All right we've got a quiet public today. Item C is reports and inquiries from members of the Board. Jonathan do you have a report?

Jordahl: Yes if I can keep my voice going here. Yesterday with other members of the Board entertained by Gazette editorial staff out at the mall and had some really good sweet rolls out there. Those things were juicy. I mean you wouldn't want to do that too often, you'd gain a lot of weight. But it was a really good opportunity to meet with some of those people and talk with them. Had a couple of really nice conversations. Ran on up then to Cedar Rapids to be the Board's representative at both the East Central Iowa Education and Training Consortium JTPA Welfare to Work meeting, and the East Central Council of Governments. The most interesting things that I have to report there come from the East Central Council of Governments meeting. I think Charlie may want to go into detail on the question of the DOT proposed rule changes for Federal Surface Transportation moneys. So I'll leave that alone. Dee Vanderhoff mentioned that Iowa City had arranged to expand their landfill to provide another 30 years of useful life. I don't know if everybody's heard of that beside me, but the... Also as part of that expansion they're going that expansion they're going to make a household wastes disposal area available on an ongoing basis in conjunction with the little weigh station up there. So it's going to be much more convenient to get rid of that old paint and so forth. Jim Houser mentioned something having to do with annexation, saying that they did not know there that you could require a City, when it does an annexation along the side of a road, to take half of the road. That Cities weren't always doing that and they were finding that the City wanted them to pay for the whole road.

Lacina: You (inaudible).

Jordahl: He says there's been some change of the law in the last year. I don't know what the law was. I didn't get a quotation from him of what the chapter was or something, but he said that. I'm not saying that it's true. I'm saying he said it.

Lacina: He said that you can require the City to take over the road?

Jordahl: Take over half of the road when it does an annexation along the side of it.

Bolkcom: Can anybody think of a road that we might want to...

Lacina: Yes, we had that challenge on Taft and the City... Because in the cities the City takes over the road and then the County, the landowner actually owns to the center of the road. There's a difference of the way that the road is owned. We have an easement as opposed to the City having title to the property. So that in the example of Windsor Ridge when they annexed that, if I recall correctly, or in the case of Streb's annexation on the Phillip's they stayed back and did not annex the property sliver of it which stayed within the road. I'm not sure that we can require them to... We'll have to see the law.

Jordahl: Exactly, I'm sorry I didn't get the (inaudible) on that.

Lacina: But those were 2 areas where we specifically disputed that because we wanted them to be involved in that road and they chose not to.

Bolkcom: It'd be worth looking into.

Jordahl: Yes.

Lacina: That's good news if that happened.

Jordahl: Yes. I'll give Jim a call and see if I can get the chapter on that.

Lacina: Yes. Great.

Jordahl: To continue I've always wanted after these meetings to stay in Cedar Rapids and talk to somebody in Cedar Rapids City Administration along the lines of what are their plans. We talked about Swisher's Fringe Area Agreement, let's look at what Cedar Rapids plans are. Well I took the opportunity yesterday afternoon to stop by and talk to Dean Wheeley in their planning department. I have here a document calculated to make us all be envious. I think they have more money to spend on planning. This is their beginning document for their Comprehensive Planning process that they have begun now. They have maps in here to just make you turn green. Look at this. This is one of about 50 maps in this book. About every other page is one of these things that folds out showing where the sewer systems are and where the land with a CSR of 65 to 85 is and so forth. It's just a gorgeous piece of work. This is the beginning of their Comprehensive Planning process that they have produced and now they've got a consultant, Mr. Frielich. You'll see Mr. Frielich's work in the annexation packet that I've decided that rather than passing this around because there's so much in it that I'll put it in a convenient place and we can all go get a piece of it as we like and look at that stuff. Mr. Frielich's consulting agency they've spent in the neighborhood of $150,000 for the consulting services to do their Comprehensive Plan. So it's going to be a beautiful piece of work I guess. So that's underway and I think it's something we may at least want to sit on once in a while or follow. I've asked to be put on a mailing list for that stuff and I'll try and circulate it when it comes. I would like to see us meet with the City of Cedar Rapids. We've had joint meetings with Linn County and I think it's timely for us, as they're involved in their Comprehensive Planning process, to begin speaking with them about our activities, our visions, and what's going to happen in the Corridor. The Economic Development piece that you and Charlie have been working, I think is at the center of this. There's so much economic development going to happen there that it's just important for us to get our feet on the ground and talk to them. I think they'll be willing to do that. So I just wanted to, you know, rather than inviting them myself, ask the Board members how you think about that. If we'd like the idea if we would be willing to make approach to them.

Lacina: I think Jonathan should pursue that. I think that'd be a very interesting meeting.

Duffy: Uh-huh.

Lacina: I know Nancy Evans and some of the other ones on the Council, and (inaudible). There are some issues, she's the Safety Commissioner, there are some issues that we could discuss as far as law enforcement tracking of gang situations and things where our Sheriffs do coordinate now with Linn County. But I think if Jonathan pursues that that would be good.

Bolkcom: I think we should talk about it in the context of what the agenda would be, in terms of...

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Bolkcom: It sounds good to meet and I think there are some land use questions, but what are the other... I would feel more comfortable before made that approach having a conversation where we define what it is we want to visit about.

Jordahl: I have a couple more items that came up in the discussion with Dean that I'd like to mention and that may help flush out a possible agenda would be. He mentioned that they are discussing, as part of their arrangement with Swisher, that they're proposing to supply water to Swisher. Part of the agreement there would allow Swisher to buy such items for the water system. Such as fire hydrants, at about a third of the cost that they would have to pay if they were doing it on their own because they can advantage of Cedar Rapids bulk buying power. This is a 66% discount. That kind of thing is something we could look into regionally. So the question of joint purchasing would be an item that would be on the table. Joint planning for GIS, they have a GIS system that is in change. They're going to have to change what they're doing, looking into a consultant for that. It's something that we're looking at and want to do. I wonder if one consultant's fee couldn't cover Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Johnson County, Iowa City, Coralville. We could all get our planning on the same page. We could have an articulated plan. So when we look at a planning document together about what we're going to do in the Corridor or something where we all have the same equipment, our lines match and so forth. As Charlie or Steve mentioned up at the Minnesota border, so we don't wind up with roads off by 15 feet. That would be a... Joint GIS and funding for these things. Cedar Rapids is very aggressive in seeking funding and that's something where we could perhaps take advantage of their expertise; do a joint grant application. I think a group of the 2 counties, and the city governments that are interested, could together accomplish something far more cheaply than we could separately if we all did that planning. ECICOG is interested in doing that for paratransit, to have GPS. Linking this together, I think, is a good thing. Some of the other joint... Aerial photography is a possibility, part of the GIS system that we might do jointly. Another interesting point that came up was street financing. We've talked about the problem with the 12th Avenue extended and the neighbors' concerns there, that if annexed into Coralville they might have to face this huge street assessment. To Dean that seemed kind of surprising, he said that that's not a problem for Cedar Rapids. I don't have real good details on that, but he said basically that for any subdivision that goes in they require a petition for paving be signed by the developer which then transfers to his heirs in law to request it. But that existing homes, I don't want to say this too strongly, but the impression that I got, are not assessed for streets. That street improvements in front of them went under annexation because they were already there and they just budget for that centrally and seek Federal grant money, aggressively. I don't claim to know all of the details of that, but it's very interesting in terms of our discussions in Coralville with fringe area agreements. That would certainly be an item on the agenda for me, is to ask more details about how Cedar Rapids finances streets and what they do when they annex property. The other thing that I wanted to report on is that, on a related note, there's a meeting Des Moines on Monday of the Commission on Urban Planning, Growth Management of Cities, and Protection of Farmland. I have the agenda here if people want to look into the possibility of attending that. Where Lee Clancy will be speaking on the issue of urban sprawl. RJ and I are planning to go into that and if anybody else would like to go there'd be a ride. I guess I'll probably stop talking with that.

Bolkcom: All right. Good report. Regarding the meeting with the City of Cedar Rapids maybe that'd be an item we could put on in the near term and talk about more specifically an agenda and the like.

Lacina: We may want to see if they're meeting with us first before we do a lot of work.

Bolkcom: OK.

Lacina: I know there was some experience with Cedar County and other counties in the past where Cedar Rapids really wasn't interested. But if they're interested then we could go ahead and flush out an agenda.

Jordahl: Uh-huh. Dean said that he would be willing to help facilitate that in speaking with the mayor about the idea of our joint concerns. I'll continue to work on that with the Board's support then.

Stutsman: OK.

Bolkcom: OK. (Inaudible) any problem with that. Sally?

Stutsman: I had a Space Needs Committee meeting yesterday and we will be coming to the Board with a Committee update on what we've been doing. So we'll put that on for probably a Tuesday. Hopefully it will be a Tuesday where we won't have a lot on the agenda. So we can spend as much time as we need to, to talk about where we're at and what we've been doing so far and get some direction from the Board as far as priorities and things. That's it.

Bolkcom: All right. Charlie?

Duffy: Because I wasn't here last week, I had a great time in Ireland and thanks for filling in the slack. Maybe I probably shouldn't say that, maybe there wasn't any slack because you're probably doing a lot of my work anyway. (Inaudible) a little bit on what you're saying about economic development. Really it used to be that economic development... like they used to have these programs, small towns for example, main street projects. They used to go directly to the Department of Economic Development, but it's really changed. Cities should cooperate with each other, Counties should cooperate, and the States because we're a member of a... there are 5 states that are being studied and Iowa is one of them. You might run into some competition between Cities and Counties too, so the more information you can get... We did have a meeting, it was a short meeting, but it was very important. Region 10 ISTEA Policy Committee and alternates, and I'm glad you were there because you had a meeting before that. What was on this agenda was discussed by some other agencies that had some say in how we spend these dollars. The thing is that Transportation Enhancement funding, this is a Federal program that comes from the gas tax that you pay when you buy gas. It used to be that there was 10% of that for enhancement projects. Like bike trails was a big one probably, you'll find highways and things like that. The reason that this thing was changed was that some counties, because it's a matching fund, like it's usually 60/40, it could be 80/20 on some of these projects, really didn't feel that they had the matching funds for some of them. That's why (inaudible). So now what happens is these Federal dollars go to the State and then we have to apply to the State for the funding. But it could be more than 10% doing that way and right now that is as much as we could get directly through the Federal program. So we can still apply, but you're talking a lot of money here. It's about $1,139,400, but that's for a 6 year T Funding, they call it T Funding 21. So all is not lost, but it looks like we should ask some pretty good grant writers and do our own thing on this. That's the way it looks to me. Thanks for being there for me.

Jordahl: I was the lone dissenting voice in that vote of the Committee to support the DOT rules change. Because under this change we will not be required to spend 10% of our funds on enhancements. So this means that any trail projects that we may want to pursue we would have to apply for the State money to the State. We could spend the STP money, but there would be no requirement that we do so. So the pressure to keep up with the roads system would probably mean that it would be a strong pressure to spend it on roads instead of trails. So we would be in the position of applying to the State for enhancement money.

Bolkcom: Which we're going to be very unsuccessful with. I mean there's a lot less money and very competitive and it's also very focused on regional projects not necessarily the local projects.

Lacina: Des Moines.

Bolkcom: Yes.

Jordahl: But that's why it's important for us to regional trails planning as we discussed on Tuesday. We'll be more competitive for that money if we have a County plan in conjunction with the Cities.

Bolkcom: I agree.

Duffy: But it could be more than the 10% too.

Bolkcom: Charlie is a big trails supporter so he'll be fighting for that, those road dollars to go to trails. Anything else, Charlie?

Duffy: I don't think so.

Bolkcom: Steve?

Lacina: It is interesting Jonathan, on the one map here that shows Cedar Rapids growth area and it includes the north part of Johnson County up there.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lacina: Two things basically... oh, and a question. We are going to appeal the empowerment grant and try to go back for that, right? That's our intent...

Stutsman: A letter was sent...

Lacina: Yes. Good, good.

Stutsman: ...from...

Lacina: Charlie and I have 2 road concerns that we're trying to deal with and Mike Gardner and Kevin are on it. One is the pipeline down south where they are doing their own culvert system and crossing the road so that they're not chewing up our ditches. Apparently, we've got a culvert that may be either damaged or plugged down there that's affecting the water flow and it does affect the farmers in the fields when they're trying to get stuff done. Kevin's checking that out. The other one is on the Cedar County line. We've got an agreement with Cedar County on a section of road that they'll take a section and we'll take a section. Our responsible area we've got some erosion and a caved banking, again they're checking with that. We may end up having to go into Cedar County with their permission to do some reconstruction, but Kevin will give us a report on that later on too. The only other thing, we have a request coming to our Zoning Board for additional commercial property on Herbert Hoover Highway. We've received a letter from the City requesting that we not approve that. Because that in the future it being an entry way to Iowa City. In discussing with, so far 3, City Council people, what do you foresee there and they didn't have a good answer. Out of that came the suggestion that at some point we have a joint meeting with our planners, their planners, and City Council. Sit down and say, what do you see here instead of just saying no in the future what would you like to have in these places. So that we know along Herbert Hoover Highway and also with the discussion of the possible mobile home park to the south side of Iowa City. There would be a lot of impact for schools and that. That we sit down and discuss highway 6, probably Legion Road, what the future of Taft will be, and Herbert Hoover. The idea also being where we will have other roads go east and west for ambulance, fire trucks, for arterials to get in and out. So we don't end up with a real tight village green where they go 2 miles to get to a house.

Jordahl: Yes. Amen.

Lacina: Anyway we're just batting around the idea of some time having a work session, discussion session about what that should be.

Bolkcom: That's a good idea.

Stutsman: I think we should do that on a yearly basis. Just update one...

Lacina: Updating.

Stutsman: ...another on what we're thinking and plans that we have.

Lacina: They may have a plan time table for the airport that we're not aware in which case the commercial out there may not be as needed. But we're not seeing what they're time table is for that just below Jack's down there on that flat.

Jordahl: This should be part of the 5 Year Road Plan discussion this idea of east/west north/south arterials. We need to have some sort of facilitation of our emergency services in rural Johnson County and that should articulate with the City's growth plans. So I wholeheartedly agree not just with Iowa City, but county wide we should be doing that.

Lacina: Court Street extension would be an example, had we allowed a zoning for a house then they would have had to condemn the property and the whole thing. And 965 is another one where we're keeping the easement open...

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lacina: ...and there will be nothing built in there because we know there's going to be a road there. So just a thought sometime when things slow down possibly after the budget cycle...

Stutsman: I was going to say I don't think I'd wait for things to slow down. I think (inaudible) should set it up.

Lacina: That's all I have. Thank you.

Jordahl: Steve, if I may briefly, you mentioned on Tuesday, I believe, about some problem with the bridge on Mormon Trek. That the railroad was not interested in doing that. Does that affect the plans of the Cities for doing that?

Lacina: One million 4 for the trestle.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lacina: The railroad's comment so far, not formally but informally, is it's working. Not interested in investing a million 4 in something that is functional. So if they're not going to do it then the question is who will step forward with that million 4. We're restricted as far as what we could do with our rural levy, as far spending it on a municipality. Given Coralville's situation and Iowa City's we need to discuss it more. But that will be a major roadblock if that trestle is to be reconstructed.

Jordahl: We might perceive Mormon Trek and 965 Deer Creek as kind of one puzzle. In some way counter balance with County funding in the rural area the need for that north/south transportation service... I don't know... to handle that component. Rather than paying for Deer Creek all by ourselves we're cooperating with the Cities on a joint project and maybe as a way of...

Lacina: We only have a small section of Deer Creek. We have zero portion of Mormon Trek.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Right. But we...

Bolkcom: All right.

Jordahl: ... could... In that Coralville will be paying for the 965 extension portion of Deer Creek rather than us paying for the whole Deer Creek where a lot of it lies in rural Johnson County this...

Lacina: We can't pay for Deer Creek. We can only pay for the portion of Deer Creek that we have jurisdiction over.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lacina: Our rural levy can't be spent on a municipality for their roads.

Jordahl: I guess I'm not proposing that it be spent on a municipality, but... We need to put that on the agenda or maybe we don't need to put it on the agenda. Your subcommittee is looking into that question and I guess I'll just defer that.

Lacina: It's on for our joint discussion, I think, for Coralville.

Bolkcom: Right. Anything else, Steve?

Lacina: No, thank you.

Bolkcom: All right. I had just a couple brief things. I attended the Chamber of Commerce's Board meeting yesterday morning. More discussion about the sales tax and under what conditions they would be supportive of a local option sales tax. It was noted that... by a Coralville representative, that for Johnson County's part we would generate about 1% of the tax. In terms of businesses that would collect it and we'd receive about 25% of the tax to spend. I think there is some concern about how we might spend the money based on our disproportionate share. The Board also met with the Zoning Commission on Tuesday night, the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think it was a good meeting. I think we've gotten over the hump about some concerns about where we were headed with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We look forward to getting their comments back after their meeting in a couple weeks and keep that process moving ahead. The Board will meet tomorrow morning with department heads, informal meeting at 10 o'clock, to really officially kick off the budget for next year. (Inaudible) handing our budget forms and instructions for next year's budget. Look forward to that meeting. There's been a lot of work go into the process of getting that together by Jonathan and Sally. It'll be good to get that rolling again. That's all I had.

Lacina: Can I make a quick point?

Bolkcom: Sure.

Lacina: One thing that does bother me with this idea of the formula for distribution for local option tax. One, we have no control over it's set by the State. But number 2, the farm community when they travel to the Sycamore Mall, Old Capitol Mall, or Coral Ridge Mall, obviously those dollars are being counted as Iowa City's or Coralville's not the rural area. So I, as a farmer, can't go out in my cornfield and make a purchase. I have to go into town and then they're tracking that as "their income". The fact is, all the citizens of Johnson County are spending money within Johnson County and we have a lot of people coming in from other places. When they look at this formula and say, well this is our money. I'm sorry if you look at the population of Coralville and you look at the money generated through the mall, it doesn't match.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Bolkcom: Right.

Lacina: So...

Bolkcom: That's a good point.

Lacina: ... the formula is something the State sets now whether the public wants it or not will be their decision and that will depend on whatever programs we put together. But if Coralville is really upset with the formula they need to the legislature and the State.

Stutsman: I think that's a good point, Steve.

Jordahl: Well said.

Bolkcom: All right. Other comments from members of the public?

Kathleen Farrell: Yes. I'm sorry because I wasn't thinking when the public came up.

Bolkcom: That's all right.

Farrell: On behalf of the Crisis Center, first of all I think you've gotten an official invitation to the open house for the opening of our new building in which you have invested much. That is October the 15th from 4 to 6 p.m. in our new building on (inaudible) Highland Court right next to the Department of Health. We hope that you can come. In conjunction with that, we had a wonderful move over the weekend about 100 volunteers who did it. That is going very well. The bad news is that the City of Iowa City is still considering strongly an option on the Gilbert Street extension. It would whack off 10 to 15 feet of that new building and eliminate half of the parking. That is option 4 in the Gilbert Street plan. Sally, we appreciated you attending the informational meeting with Stanley Consultants, but Iowa City is taking it up in the first public way in its next meeting which I believe is October the 5th. It would be very nice to have a statement from the County who's been a long investor in the Crisis Center. And how ridiculous it is after the City and it's Community Block Grant Program gave $200,000 to this project in the last year and is now seriously considering jeopardizing a project which volunteers have worked 5 years to raise the money and to get that property. So I'm asking you on behalf of the Crisis Center to make some sort of signal to the City Council. Sally was at the meeting. She knows that there's a lot of concerns about the way that project has proceeded and the poor information gathered which has informed the options that were produced by those consultants. She can brief you on that, but I wanted to bring that to your attention.

Bolkcom: OK.

Lacina: Well I think if we draft a letter, basically summarizing what you said as far as the grants...

Farrell: OK.

Lacina: ...that would be a good...

Farrell: So that letter has been drafted?

Lacina: No, no. I'm saying what we should do is do that with your comments.

Stutsman: Did you say Monday the 5th is the next meeting?

Farrell: The next City Council meeting. I forgot my... I think it's... Is it Monday?

Stutsman: Monday... I don't know.

Farrell: OK. I believe it's Monday the 5th. I could check on that or Carol could check on that.

Lacina: Could you give us the...

Farrell: (Inaudible) the next (inaudible) one.

Lacina: ...exact numbers and that so we'll be accurate in the letter as well, as far as the grants and...

Farrell: The exact numbers are that there have been 2 Community Block Grant, $200,000 was the initial one. Then in July, about 2 months ago, an additional $25,000 for the completion of the renovations was given by the City with no indication whatsoever that this was under strong consideration.

Bolkcom: OK.

Lacina: Obviously, we're watching the Health Department too as far as the road would impact the...

Farrell: The Health Department is seriously impacted the project as well.

Duffy: That's on the property... Sally we were on there I know, maybe some of the rest weren't, but when they turn the first spade full of dirt we (inaudible). That'd be on the, let's see, the east corner right across... Is there another new building right across from that? I think... How much land are they going to get in there? What's...

Farrell: They have to move the tracks, Charlie is what is involved.

Duffy: Oh, is that right?

Farrell: I can't give you the exact space. I've got tunnel vision where this is concerned and what it means for us. This 15 to 20 feet cut off of the back of our building and half of the parking which we desperately need. And the creation of an entirely different environment for our elderly and disabled clients in which we needed a quiet street. That was the rationale for the purchase of that property which the City supported to the tune initially of $200,000 and now 225. For the Health Department, Sally can talk to you about what the impact is, it's severe. We were told that if such a impact of the building would mean that we couldn't function properly that we would be happy to condemn then the entire building and help us to relocate. That was the response from the City Planning Office. In other words, if the taking of the end of that building and the parking would impact our ability to serve our clients, well they would just be happy to compensate us for the entire building and we could look for another one.

Duffy: Well that's a nice quiet area and in a really nice lot there.

Farrell: Right and that's why we got it. The political reality of whether or not they will go ahead and sanction that option, I can not speak to. All I know that it is alive and well and I think a letter drafted from this body asking some questions about that, and Sally was at that meeting, would be...

Stutsman: Uh-huh. I still have those...

Farrell: ...very much appreciated.

Stutsman: All right.

Farrell: And you have a copy of our statement...

Stutsman: Right.

Farrell: ...from the Crisis Center which has a lot of details in it.

Stutsman: Right.

Farrell: This was a poorly conceived project. The data collected is dismal. Traffic data was collected in '94 and '96. There has been no traffic data collected since they changed that intersection at Kirkwood. The business owners along there if you talk to them, like Aero Rental and those people, are just beside themselves. They have made multiple suggestions to the City. Timing the lights on Gilbert Street, putting a light at Stevens Drive, and all kinds of things at that meeting were said. The City has expressed no interest in doing those kinds of incremental changes and are talking about these 2 one-way pairs on (inaudible) of Gilbert Street. Plus some other kinds of widening things.

Stutsman: Any of those proposals are going to have impact on businesses...

Farrell: Right.

Stutsman: ...to the point of even some business will have to close.

Farrell: Right, right. That's OK if it's necessary, but as you witnessed the data that produced those plans is extremely poor. The City Planning Office has been unwilling to provide what that data was. In this 2 hour meeting it was repeatedly asked for, for their point of origin studies, and all of that kind of stuff. No response to that. In essence it's a matter a private matter between Stanley Consultants and the City Planning Office. So the process has been less than desirable in terms of the decision making process. The impact for us, who you fund at a very generous level, is serious.

Bolkcom: All right.

Farrell: And the Department of Health.

Bolkcom: Great. Thank you. Did you introduce yourself?

Farrell: I'm Kathleen Farrell.

Bolkcom: Thank you.

Farrell: Member of the public.

Bolkcom: Very good.

Stutsman: Thanks for bringing that up, Kathleen.

Bolkcom: All right. So the Board... would the Board be interested in drafting a letter?

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Yes.

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: I think you should put that on the agenda.

Bolkcom: I think that's fine.

Stutsman: The problem is, is if that meetings on Monday...

Bolkcom: Well if...

Farrell: That's the first public discussion of it (inaudible) the decision making point.

Stutsman: OK. All right. It's not a public hearing It's just...

Farrell: No.

Stutsman: ...the first time that the Council we be...

Farrell: There has been no public hearing, there's only been informational meeting.

Stutsman: So why don't we put it on for Tuesday then?

Bolkcom: That'd be fine. All right. And Monday would be, I suppose if it's a City Council meeting, their informal meeting. So they wouldn't be acting on anything at that point.

Duffy: We could visit the site again.

Bolkcom: OK. Sally would you be willing to... I'd work with you, we could draft something for Board's consideration next week.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Bolkcom: If you've got some notes on it. Any other members of the public wish to address the Board this morning? Any other business Board?

Lacina: Why don't you check with Graham too?

Stutsman: That's what I was going to say, we'll... Because I went there because of interest in the Department of Health and our space needs and things.

Farrell: Graham spoke at the (inaudible).

Bolkcom: Great.

Adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary