Reconvened on October 15, 1998 at 10:06 a.m. with Bolkcom absent.

Jordahl: We have to discuss scheduling times for department head evaluations. This is a project we began last year doing an annual review of department heads since the Board of Supervisors is the supervisor for the appointed department heads and we thought it was appropriate that people know where they stand. Give us an opportunity more not so much to criticize department heads but to make sure we have a channel of communication about concerns on at least an annual basis. Although I think as Charlie frequently points out, it's important for us to do this on a more frequent or informal basis one on one. So to schedule this.

Stutsman: We have been talking about this evaluation procedure in our smaller group that meets together. It's made up of Lora, the Human Resources Director, Carol Peters from our office, Joe, and I sit on the committee, and Pat White. So we are in the process of re-evaluating or updating the evaluation form. There's just some minor changes that we want to do to that. I think we need to also clarify the procedure on how we want to proceed with this, plus set up some times on our calendars when we want to do these evaluations. I think it would be real valuable if we could do these before the end of the year because we've got 2 very experienced Board members that will be leaving in December and so I think it would serve department heads well to have their input in that evaluation process. Hopefully we can schedule these before the end of December.

Lacina: Should we have a work session on just the Board members first, what we expect in terms of ware we expecting 3 goals or 12 goals? Some things we can talk about, so we've got consistency too as the department heads come in, that we have certain expectations and things.

Stutsman: I think that would be real valuable for the Board to get our thoughts together before we meet with the department heads. Maybe in executive session, but it's my understanding that the employee has to request the executive session before we could do that. But I think that would be time well spent.

Lacina: Just the 5 of us in general.

Jordahl: So we need a work session scheduled to hash out our own approach to this. Sally, do you have other meetings of the subcommittee scheduled to proceed such a work session?

Lacina: Do you have one coming up that you could have all 5 of us sit in on. Is that a bad idea?

Stutsman: Well, we could do that. Lora, why don't you come up to the table. we're talking about the procedure for the evaluations. I think what we kind of talked about maybe doing is before each individual evaluation the Supervisors get together in just a short executive session just to kind of lay out some of our thoughts about the particular evaluation. You know both the positives and maybe something's that we think need to be worked on. So I...

Lacina: That will work.

Jordahl: The County Human...

Stutsman: So that we could reach a consensus before we met with the department heads about things, goals that we would like to see. Of course, they'll have their own goals but we need to have our thoughts together about things we would like to see accomplished.

Jordahl: This is County Human Resource Administrator Lora Shramek. Lora do you have something that you want to expand upon here?

Human Resource Administrator Lora Shramek: I think we touched on before, just as far as having that work session, so we're able to reflect with our different perspectives with each other and that we'll have our thoughts collected versus in front of the employee, just to have that time beforehand.

Stutsman: I think it will just be much more valuable interaction once we do get into the evaluation with the employee, if we reach agreement on some things that we think are important.

Jordahl: Would this be immediately prior to the meeting with the department head or at some date prior by week or so.

Shramek: Perhaps prior because we would have to prepare the written evaluation form.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: One of the things that I think we need to do and I think what we want to accomplish today was to put some time aside to start some blocks of time when we can schedule these evaluations. Our calendars are really getting full, so I think if we're going to get this accomplished we need to start planning for it. Now we kind of talked in our smaller group about maybe doing 3 evaluations in a block of time. Now I don't know how the Board feels about this. I think we've got 11 individuals that we need to evaluate. So to get all of those 11 in before the end of the year we're going to have to have a pretty aggressive schedule. I through that open as... Last time, time wise they ranged from half an hour to an hour. So we would be talking about maybe a block of an hour and a half or 2 hours to do 3 at one time.

Jordahl: The efficiency in that might be that we could do 3 pre-evaluation discussions at the same time, so we wouldn't be scheduling 11 other meetings as well.

Lacina: So if we started like Wednesday the 11th of November or are you planning to do it sooner?

?: That's a holiday.

Stutsman: Well, that's Veteran's Day, Steve.

Lacina: The following Wednesday is ISAC and the previous Wednesday I'm in Des Moines with a meeting. Maybe Wednesday is not a good day.

Stutsman: Well, then we've got the budget things to start thinking about too. How does the afternoon of the 9th look?

Lacina: Of November?

Stutsman: Yes. That's a Monday afternoon. Or we could even do it Monday morning. Charlie...

Lacina: Let's do it Monday morning.

Duffy: Great.

Jordahl: Monday morning is good with me.

Stutsman: Start maybe at 9 or 9:30.

Jordahl: Now are we scheduling the pre-evaluation periods. Or are we scheduling the actual evaluations.

Stutsman: I'm talking right now about the evaluations with the department heads. Maybe the pre-evaluation conference could be at the end of a Board meeting or something. I don't know that we'd have to spend a whole lot of time.

Shramek: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: OK. So what time were we suggesting Monday morning?

Lacina: 9...

Jordahl: 9.

Lacina: ...to noon.

Stutsman: 9 to rest of the morning.

Jordahl: 9 to noon.

Stutsman: Then with your approval Board maybe Lora and I and our smaller group could set up who we will evaluate and get that housekeeping stuff taken care of, if that would be OK.

Lacina: It sounds like your subcommittee has really put a lot of time and energy in on this, and so yes, if you give us the evaluations and some guidance on that, that's a good idea.

Stutsman: OK, so that takes care of 3 then. We've got 8 more to go. What are some other days? How about the 12th? The 12th is evening Board meeting, so we...

Jordahl: Uh-huh. Morning of the 12th? Or afternoon of the 12th?

Lacina: Let's go 9:00, the morning of the 12th.

Stutsman: OK.

Lacina: Because the other advantage of doing this is it's going to be fresh in our mind as opposed to taking a long period of time.

Stutsman: How about the afternoon of the 24th? That would be 3, 6.

Shramek: 9.

Stutsman: Pardon me, Lora? Your saying 9, I thought you were talking about time 9.

Lacina: How about the 16th?

Stutsman: That would work with me in the afternoon, Steve, or are you talking about the morning.

Lacina: I wondered about morning.

Stutsman: OK.

Lacina: If we just... would that work?

Jordahl: There's something I had been thinking about attending there. If we could find, that week we've got a double meeting on Tuesday and we've got ISAC Wednesday through Friday. I'm wondering if we really want to load up on Monday there.

Lacina: The only thing is if we can keep it close to the other 2. It would be easier to have consistency.

Jordahl: Friday the 13th a possibility, kind of put them all in one week? Or is that too much?

Lacina: No, that's fine. Charlie, the 13th? 9:00.

Duffy: Isn't that kind of a bad luck Friday?

Stutsman: Oh, my.

Jordahl: That would set the tone for the whole thing.

Lacina: Pick those very carefully. OK. 9:00 on the 13th?

Stutsman: Are we going to do it?

Duffy: If I was a county employee I'd think... That sounds all right.

Stutsman: OK, our smaller group is going to meet tomorrow, so we'll work on scheduling which department heads and then get our thoughts together about a pre..., because we're going to have to get permission from employees before we do any kind of pre-conferencing. We'll have to get that OK first before we go ahead.

Lacina: If there is any changes would you just let us know, otherwise we've got those dates blocked out. Now are we still short?

Jordahl: So that's 9. We need 11. We need another time. The 24th was suggested, keeping them together was also suggested. How about the previous week, your gone on Wednesday Steve?

Lacina: Why don't we just work those 2 individuals in in the other...

Stutsman: Maybe we could run a bit longer than 3:00, or maybe some will be shorter, too.

Lacina: Let's try to schedule on those 3.

Stutsman: All right, have those 3 times and see what we can do.

Jordahl: We don't want to look at say the 2nd of November for example?

Stutsman: You know I think by the Board meeting beforehand I think we can shorten the length of time and just zero right in on goals for the employee, what they had for themselves and what we have. So I think that will work.

Jordahl: So that's 9:00 on the morning on the 9th, 12th and the 13th?

Lacina: Are you suggesting like half an hour, 45 minutes per individual or what's...

Shramek: Probably about 45 minutes.

Lacina: 45. OK. Sounds good.

Stutsman: OK, real good.

Jordahl: We'll still have to keep in mind that we've got to get together beforehand to figure these things out and schedule that.

Shramek: Right.

Jordahl: Maybe a recommendation from the subcommittee would be welcome there.

Shramek: Because we have the self-appraisals as well for the employees.

Jordahl: I didn't quite hear that.

Shramek: They fill out the self-appraisals as well.

Jordahl: Yes, so we would have access to that at that time perhaps.

Shramek: Right.

Jordahl: Good.

Lacina: Good.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: Thanks Lora.

Shramek: Thank you.

Jordahl: Good work. Reports and inquiries from the County Attorney.

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: Nothing.

Jordahl: Inquiries and reports from the public? Yes, Carol?

Carol Spaziani: Carol Spaziani. Just a question for clarification. Do the department head evaluations include elected officials as well as appointed, or just appointed.

Jordahl: No, it's just appointed officials.

Lacina: Appointed.

Jordahl: We don't supervise the elected officials in the same way the public supervises them.

Lacina: Although I imagine they'd like to evaluate us. It would be an interesting 360 experience to sit down and...

Spaziani: (Inaudible) employee evaluations are (inaudible).

Lacina: Yes.

Jordahl: OK. Yes Bob.

Reverend Bob Welsh: A couple things. Zoning and all of the platting and all of that aren't all my high priorities on interest, but a couple of comments. The County Attorney has repeatedly reminded you all not to make decisions based on personal considerations, and yet continually I hear people bringing before you the rationale for an action on the basis of personal reasons. I think the reason why they do that is because they probably realize that that does make an impact on your decisions. I guess that's something you all need to look at and evaluate how you do that and how you get across to people that can not be or shouldn't be a part of your consideration. That (inaudible) today. I think Pat's consideration if I understand it right in the past has been OK, you make 4 lots so this mother and 3 children can live together. Once you have made that zoning there is no department that would be the use of those 4 lots. They can be for anybody anytime. The one before (inaudible) I want my daughter on the top of the hill, so do that. There is no continuing assurance of that and somehow, I don't know how to do this, I'm just making an observation that they continually... people come before you bringing their personal considerations. I think- I may be wrong- but I think the reason why they do that is they think that does impact your decision and I think you need to look at that. Maybe seek the County Attorney's judgment at this point or advice as to how you can separate those factors.

Lacina: Well, they area separated. One, the County Attorney is correct in that what we deal with is the most appropriate use of the land. But if you think about it and I had this told to me a long time ago when I was on the Zoning Commission, when individuals come to us, it's the first time that they've been before us. I mean we deal with this all of the time and we understand the rules and regulations. They're new. What is driving them in many cases is a personal need- somebody that's going to a nursing home, a daughter that needs a piece of ground, in some cases the loss of that farm if they're not able to subdivide. So they are acting on a personal issue. It isn't just suddenly they get the idea that they're going to zone land for land use. It is a personal thing that drives them to this. Now when they come to us they explain their logic, we have to follow the advice of the County Attorney and look at appropriate land uses and regulations. But in some cases, while it's very compelling, we can't meet their personal needs. But I think we always have to remember to be sensitive to at least listen. I learned along time ago, too, there are some valuable points that they may have in relation to our rules and regulations. I remember Ralph Neuzil came to me one time when I was Chair of the Zoning Commission. He said, I want to warn you up front when the guy comes to you, when he gets nervous, he swears, and he's going to burn your ears. But if you'll listen, he's got some valid points. Sure enough the guy was very nervous and it was a very interesting meeting, but we learned from him a road problem. So when the public comes to us, they're explaining their needs, yes, we have to rule on it based on the regulations. But we also really have to be sensitive. Because it's to many of them the first time and last time they'll ever be before us.

Welsh: I realize that. I guess again (inaudible) the County Attorney, but it might be in such cases you need to reaffirm to them that your decision will not be made on the basis of a personal... Keep reminding people of that fact.

Lacina: That happens with our staff as we give them the rules and regulations, at the Zoning Commission meetings and public hearings, and then also with us. That it isn't personally, we're not voting against their family. We're looking at a request and dealing with it as best we can.

Welsh: I'm saying today I don't think that clarification was made (inaudible). (Inaudible). The other is to go back to the item that you voted on that Carol and I both addressed and that's the procedure that I think you all really need to look at and that is if your going against an agreement, do you change the agreement before you act contrary to it. Do you act contrary to the agreement, then seek to change it. It seems to me that the more orderly way of doing business is you change the agreement if you find it faulty, rather than just violating it and say we've got to make some changes so we're going to disregard it. I'm not sure that is the good procedure. It is something citizens... I think there are better procedures.

Duffy: Bob, could I say something about...

Welsh: Certainly.

Duffy: First of all, I'm not so sure the Supervisors, one of their duties is to protect the health and welfare of it's citizens. You've heard me say more than once that we're people oriented. So does that mean Human Services, we shouldn't think about how it affects the people, is that what we're saying. This whole thing could really blow up if we didn't. Anyway I feel it's one of my duties to indeed protect the health and welfare of the citizens. Again I've said I feel I am people oriented, and I don't want to speak for the rest of the Supervisors, but we might have our faults but when it comes to people we do as good as we can do for them. I don't know. I don't agree with you. In fact you might be digging up a can of worms on something like this.

Welsh: Are you saying that you think that zoning decisions needs to be made on the basis (inaudible)?

Duffy: No. It's appropriate use of the land. That's what my decision was and I'm not convinced, it was so close to the 2 mile area that I'm not convinced, that a few feet on the edge of the ice type of thing. So I think I made the right decision on the best use of the land, but still again the welfare of the citizens I know is one of my top priorities being Supervisor.

Lacina: Again we may agree to disagree on this particular issue. The City of Iowa City has jurisdiction and responsibility to the people in that boundary. We have a responsibility to the people in that boundary and the people outside of that boundary. As we talk now there are windows of opportunity. As it was said, if the timing didn't happen just right, that piece of ground could be sold to somebody else and this opportunity could change so that we are seeing a request for residential use, which we would have some concerns about housing on an interstate against a commercial site. So we have to weigh all of these things plus the city's input, but bottom line the Code gives us jurisdiction over this. We have to weigh all of the factors. This may be an area where we carve it out and say we agree to disagree. We may carve it out and say here's what needs to happen in the future. We've all said we need to sit down and talk. As far as taking this general guide and saying public, if it isn't according to this, then no, I think that's government at it's worst. It's not responding to the public need. But we are... We'll try to sit down and have a meeting with the City...

Welsh: Whether or not you change the agreement before you act contrary or you act contrary and then seek to change the agreement.

Lacina: And we weighed the fact that there was $200,000 for road improvements, there was already infrastructure in place to handle the waste system, do we want another waste system out there? These are factors that the City is not concerned with right now. It's not in their area. Their growth area, it's going to take them years and years just to touch his boundary line, like 25 years. We do, we take those all into account. But the city made a decision, and I think based upon the information they had, was realistic for them. And I think we weighed all of the situations that we have and we made a decision in the best interest as we saw everybody and we need to have a meeting with them and talk. A piece of paper versus people, I'll go with people every time.

Welsh: I guess my only point is that it seems to me reading the letter from the City that the action that you took was contrary to the agreement that you have with the City. But that may be wrong but that is their contention, I think is why I was saying at least procedural wise, if you have an agreement, at least as one citizen I expect you to live to that agreement. I'm one of those old fashioned characters. I guess I believe that when you make an agreement, you stick to it. Circumstances are going to change. Either you change the agreement, you don't violate it, you change it, then (inaudible). That's all I'm suggesting.

Jordahl: Sally, would you like to address the...

Stutsman: No, I was just going to say I think some real good points have made by both sides. I think Steve has made some good points and I think Bob has made some good points. I definitely will take them all into consideration. Thank you.

Spaziani: Jonathan?

Jordahl: Yes, Carol.

Spaziani: May I say that I just had an opportunity to read the background report from the City staff, about why they were recommending against that rezoning. I don't think these points were brought out in the earlier discussion. It seemed to me quite interesting that they point out there is already 29 acres of commercially zoned property which is adequate for a neighborhood commercial, which is what they're recommending in that area. They're also saying that this rezoning would contribute to strip development along Herbert Hoover Highway, so I would like to just ask if that's a consensus of the Board members present that you wish to contribute to strip development along Herbert Hoover Highway. Is that a consideration?

Lacina: I don't think that's a fair comment.

Stutsman: Yes.

Lacina: I think you couched it in a very negative way. There's some strip development on Taft that the City has in place that wasn't brought out prior to this plan. But now that its in place and the public, when houses aren't built out there, they put it in place. So that now suddenly it's time to take a look at this particular intersection. We've had it brought to our attention that this is an entryway to Iowa City and we've also pointed out other entry areas to Iowa City where we felt that they should have a little more influence like across from the fairgrounds. So if you knew all of the background on this, we made the best decision and in my opinion we made the right decision. We will communicate with the City on these other issues.

Stutsman: But I think there is a platting process. So then we have some say as far as strip malls or whatever during that process.

Spaziani: As far as the type of development specifically.

Stutsman: Yes.

Lacina: Other things we need to take into account. I think there is a need for an acceleration-deceleration lane out there. Do we want that to fall back on the taxpayers and increase their taxes to cover that, for acceleration-deceleration lanes coming off that interstate, up that steep hill, because bicycles use that road as well going over to West Branch, there are a lot of factors on that road.

Spaziani: How would that be related to it?

Lacina: The developer is going to kick a couple hundred thousand and install those. So if we're going to get that benefit to the taxpayers of the county, I think that is a factor.

Spaziani: That can't be done without the commercial development.

Lacina: No, because even the commercial development that's in place now, its not a factor; it's only if this other portion trips in. So we weighed all of those factors. I think the citizens of the county are going to gain because of this application.

Spaziani: In what way?

Lacina: As I have explained earlier and I will talk to you about it later if you would like, but as far as one piece of paper saying no, and then we just go with the piece of paper. I'm not for that either. Government needs to respond to the needs. And we need to sit down with Iowa City and talk to them about it.

Jordahl: Regarding the first issue that Bob raised, things have kind of moved here, but it seems like all of the same topic. Are we acting responsibly in zonings? I want to address the first question briefly, the taking people into account. I think it's perfectly appropriate, as Steve said, for people to raise to us what their concerns are, whatever they are. It's up to us to differentiate and say we're not making a land use decision based on that personal consideration. In the case of the 2 applications today, you had one in an agricultural area that's outside the North Corridor, it was one lot, and it could be argued, people may dispute this, but that it was a second home on a farm of 40 acres or more. Which our ordinance does allow for, but it specifies certain things about participation in the farming operation. There's some argument out there that you could construct about that, in terms of density it's one house on another house, a second house on a farm. It happens to be a third house and in terms of the zoning process, incrementalism. So that it is a vexed question and not entirely clear cut. In terms of the second application as Sally rightly stated in approving it, it's in the North Corridor where the North Corridor Plan specifically states the majority of future anticipated development will occur. So the decisions, although they may look, because of the appeals that people made, to have been based on a family considerations, there is in fact a basis either in the Ordinance or in the North Corridor Plan. Not to say it's black and white and clear-cut, but that there are justifications that differentiate those 2 and shift the focus away from family and on to the question of density in the relative area. In terms of the relationship with the City, I think Steve raises a number of valid points on the development of that particular area. It's almost as if the Fringe Area Agreement seems to not really fit this particular piece of that area and that's kind of what we need to discuss. But I also as you recognized from my vote think it's important that we be on the same page with Iowa City. I agree with Bob, we ought to do that kind of thing before we make these decisions, rather than after, but there was some pressure here and the Board acknowledged the situation and acted accordingly. It's gray, but we're listening to what your saying here and I think we'll move to take action and talk to Iowa City about this. Try and get the...

Spaziani: Those pressures will continue to arise every week in your considerations. You have to just figure out how your going to respond. You can't always respond to immediate pressures if your going to see the welfare of the whole county develop.

Lacina: And that's what we're looking at.

Stutsman: Yes.

Lacina: Not just one municipality.

Duffy: That's right.

Lacina: Our Zoning Commission took a look at it. Staff took a look at it. We looked at it. We're all in agreement. This is the best for that. We're not looking at any small town or large town's interest. Again, I have no problem with their points that they addressed. It is realistic for them in their setting to make those recommendations. But when we look at the entire county and adjoining Cedar County and the surrounding counties and the interstate system, that we're looking at it, I think we made the right decision. In this situation we just have to look at it from different perspectives. We may agree to disagree on this particular area. We may agree that there's more needed, but we definitely know we need more communication to talk to them.

Spaziani: In this particular instance was the communication all the way up the line before it got to your decision and the Council's letter?

Lacina: Yes.

Spaziani: So that your Planning Department...

Lacina: Planning and Zoning received the letters from the City as it went through the process. Yes.

Jordahl: All right.

Duffy: Just about a mile and half up the line to Cedar County, Cedar County has a person in economic development. She's doing a whale of a job for economic development. More times than not, maybe once or twice a month, you'll see new buildings and areas that's especially zoned commercial and that's not too far up the... You know where the turnoff is at West Branch? I kind of looked at that area over there. There's a couple of those that we lost that were going to relocate North Liberty and there's 3 Supervisors that voted the area down, most on account of the high corn suitability rating, and if I had to vote on over it again, I would have voted yes because it's annexed into North Liberty now. But there's people that have moved out of the county and especially with the Interstate there and the road and I'm still not convinced that this is in... I don't know that 2 mile area is pretty close there. I know Iowa City has a very fine City Council and Mayor and maybe they would understand something like this. But it's a real close and I say get the ball rolling, so we have some extra dollars. It's going to be an awful tough budget. There's going to be a lot of no's as far as I'm concerned. There is, there's commercial property all over there, but does that mean then say if Iowa City has a lot of farmland that has been annexed into the City that they're not going to annex anymore. Is that what we mean? If you ask a question like that, there's commercial property in the area, but I'm hearing more and more of that. But I think it's appropriate use of the land.

Jordahl: OK, well we've had a lot of discussion about this this morning. Maybe if people want to discuss this further with individual members of the Board or vice versa or if members of the Board want to speak with members of the public we could pursue that after the meeting.

Lacina: There is one other quick point. Charlie brings up West Branch. We lost a million dollar building that Wausau constructed in Cedar County. 3 million dollar Sauer Sunstrand, because they wanted to be close to the Engineering Department here at the University, but they looked at Johnson and looked at the bureaucracy and some papers that say don't do it. They left us. NCS big expansion is not here where they're base headquarters is, it's Linn County. We're looking at Riverside for economic development. Sometimes it's important not to just take some plan and tell everybody no. When West Branch sited Sauer Sunstrand, they had a special evening meeting with the people and said we'll do the public hearings. They got public input and expedited this to move quickly so they could take that basically away from us, because they were looking at North Liberty. So government needs to kind of wake up and realize too that we have an obligation to the citizens to serve them as a opposed to just set behind some rule or regulation and say well maybe we want you or maybe we don't, come back in 6 months. There's a lot of CEO's that go into a community and look at building and providing jobs who walk in, look around one week and they're gone.

And they will not wait for 6 months to move someplace.

Jordahl: I think it's important to note, too, that the draft of the Comprehensive Plan that's now being considered that the Board has sent back to the Zoning Commission has a significant section on economic development that will be a somewhat different approach than it has been in place in the existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This will affect I assume the development of future or the modification of existing fringe area agreements. So we may move in that direction. You and Charlie have been working on that.

Lacina: That will have to change constantly to meet the needs of the public. Right now we're looking at low unemployment. We're probably looking at more retraining of people who are going to retire or are in that 50 age bracket. But in times as things change, those plans will have to be flexible to meet the needs of the public. Good point.

Jordahl: So regarding the Comprehensive Plan, having mentioned that, it was discussed by the Zoning Commission at a work session last night. A number of members of the public were present; Charlie was there for more of the meeting than I was. Perhaps under reports and inquiries from members of the Board of Supervisors I could request that you give us some kind of report on what the Zoning Commission did last night.

Duffy: Well, really when I go to a meeting like last night I just sit in the back, Jonathan, I don't say a word. I'm just there to listen. I feel better if there's a few more people there, especially farmers, but I'm sure they were in the fields and here comes the storm and all of that. Because there were only 3 of the people representing us on the Planning and Zoning they decided to have another meeting similar to last night instead of a public hearing, kind of a work session, which I thought was a pretty good idea. There's a couple of them that were here last night that agreed, that they should have another meeting when all 5 of them are there.

Stutsman: Did Rick say that was set up for November 10th at 6:30, that they'll have another work session?

Duffy: Yes.

Jordahl: Any other, we're under the section here reports and inquiries from the members of the Board of Supervisors, so if you have other reports to make?

Duffy: Well, I continue my visits to some of our County departments. Tuesday I was down at the Health Department. I was just saying hi to all of the workers and all of that. It was no big deal. Maybe 5 or 10 minutes. Graham took me around and I appreciate that. The building looks real good. Have we all been down there since it's been painted.

Stutsman: Huh-uh.

Duffy: Some of the space needs, some walls are being changed. I thought it looked great. Maybe the windows again. We had trouble with the windows before and we repaired kind of the wall there, but still the sills themselves, maybe sometime we replace them. The building really looks great. Flu shot season, I think a lot of folks will probably get the flu shot, whether they like it or not. In fact the doctors are saying not only the people with disabilities or senior citizens but other folks I've heard should. We're just gearing up for a bad flu season. Thank you for going to the meeting this morning, which I should've been at. I had it down in my other book. I think it's easier to cross off using one of these, that wouldn't have happened. I used to have the real important ones; I didn't have it down, so... Oh, don't forget next Monday evening is our volunteer dinner for the volunteers that help us in the Nutrition Program with the Senior Center. We have a good program wouldn't you say, Bob?

Welsh: Hope so.

Duffy: This is not the taxpayers money. This money was left by folks at maybe their estates, they had some money for that. Especially you, Jonathan. Jonathan used to work in a restaurant, to put yourself through college.

Jordahl: That's right.

Duffy: Boy, you ought to have seen him last year. You know we're going like this; he's going like this. Anyway that will be... You should be there at least by 6:00.

Jordahl: That's all? Steve?

Lacina: In the Health Department, I think the tetanus shots for our employees are free but the flu shots are 5. It probably would have wise to call and to schedule the time for that.

Stutsman: Well, they're going to be here in the Administration Building next Tuesday and Wednesday.

Lacina: Well, you can walk down there and wait, but if you do it's first come first serve. Hope everybody has had a chance to look at the resolutions for the Supervisors. I serve on that. I also am passing around 2 separate pages from Jim Houser from Linn County, Supervisor who has drafted a couple of things on annexation. Those are coming around. For the sake of time that's all I have.

Jordahl: OK. Sally.

Stutsman: Attended the Crisis Center open house on Tuesday night and they've done a beautiful job with that building. I've never been in a building that has obviously has so much thought in the layout and accommodating their needs. So I think they're going to have a Community Block Grant reception this afternoon that I think would be well worth everybody's time to go over there and just take a look. It's really a great addition to not only the Crisis center but the community. Let's see Rick and I and Pat met yesterday afternoon to talk about the Cedar Rapids Airport regulations. We have not adopted those yet, so we will be putting together, well not I, the Zoning Department will be putting together an ordinance and that will be on our agenda in the near to future to review that ordinance and then set up a public hearing to get those adopted. That's it.

Jordahl: OK. I did, this has been mentioned, attend a meeting this morning, a joint meeting sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Local Option Sales Tax with representatives of Iowa City and Coralville to discuss the ballot issues. As I mentioned it earlier, the key to this for me is the issue of cooperation. That it's an opportunity for the cities and the County to sit down together and talk about mutual priorities and ways in which we can do things together. It is, as the Board has discussed this in the past, we have a priority under space needs concerns right now. Clearly there are a number of things including the Jail and Department of Human Services and the Administration Building as well, despite how new this building is, where there are some concerns with having to spend considerable money to meet the needs of a growing population. There's a matter of this joint project to extend 965 to the south to accelerate the timetable on that and it's a matter that we're going to take up in our 5 Year Road Plan discussion. What is the date of that. We've got that set now don't we? I'm looking here I guess it was in November.

Stutsman: The 27th isn't it? 1:00?

Jordahl: 27th of this month? Or 27th of November?

Stutsman: Of October. 27th of October. Here.

Jordahl: We did move it to this building, thinking that it might be more accessible for members of the public to at least know where the building is. We've had these in the past out at the Secondary Roads Department, but this year, 1:00 in the afternoon, Tuesday the 27th of October. We're going to be discussion the 5 Year Road Construction Plan. This issue of whether and how we may wish to contribute to this as a joint project with the cities in the context of the local option sales tax will be taken up at that time. It's not something that we've made a decision about really. One thing that was discussed for information for members of the Board was the possibility of a 28E agreement being in place before the ballot to discuss how we might share the costs of that project, whether or not we chose to include it in our specific ballot issue.

Stutsman: If we... Well, I guess we can discuss this at a later time. If we sign a 28E agreement and the sales option tax doesn't pass, are we committed then to upgrading that road? That's something I need to have some clarification on. I don't want to take the time this morning to enter into an elective discussion about that.

Jordahl: That's going to be part of the discussion at the 5 Year Road Plan so I think that's the kind of thing we'll probably be dealing with on the 27th. Let's see here. Senior Center Dinner Charlie mentioned. I have a Board of Health hearing marked on the 19th. I believe that's for the update to their regulations for water wells and wastewater systems, and I believe that will be here in this room again as well, because they've sort of lost their conference space over there as part of the space needs question. Meeting of the Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Planning Council here in this room at 4:30 on Tuesday the 20th of October. Then at 7:00 that same night, the Secondary Roads Department is going to have a meeting here to present the plans for Prairie du Chien Road construction project. That's 7:00, Tuesday the 20th of October. Also a reception, is that not right, the 21st, for the new SEATS Director Lisa Dewey, who has come to us from Anaheim, California. She started her work here Monday of this week and a reception will be at the, I believe at the Library, isn't it? At the room A of the Iowa City Public Library 3 to 5:00. This is being conducted jointly with PEPTS, or People for the Ethical Para-transit Systems and Coalition for People with Disabilities. Again welcome Lisa. It's a wonderful opportunity to meet with her if you haven't met her already. 21st of October, 3:00 to 5:00 in the public library of Iowa City. Anything else?

Lacina: Yes. Sunday there will be a fundraiser at the Eagles from 7:30 to 1:30 for one of our employees who has Leukemia. So a pancake breakfast for anybody that would like to come. I'm sure all of the employees and we would all appreciate it.

Jordahl: Tickets are available in advance at most offices here in the County Administration Building. $5.00 a head for adults and 2.50 for children 12 and under.

Duffy: Good thing you thought of that, Steve.

Peters: Lots of good food.

Lacina: Yes. Lots of food. And with the road races this Sunday, after they walk or run they can come down and have a pancake with us.

Jordahl: Perfect. All right. Anything else? Yes.

Tom Kriz: One comment on a positive note. I hope the Board realizes the outstanding job that I see that gets done by many of the County offices, but especially the job that Rick and RJ do in that office.

Lacina: Yes.

Kriz: As this County has grown I don't think people have any idea what transposes by the time somebody shows up at that office and says I want to build this or I want to do this, before it gets to this point. I think this county is growing enormously. It faces many problems that we talk about everyday. But I think that department, as many, really exemplify the outstanding people this County has. From a real positive note, I think R.J. and Rick do a marvelous job getting the information that (inaudible). I hope that gets passed a long and I hope the Board as they get into their evaluations for doing things, pass that kind of information along to the department heads. I think that's one department that really exemplifies the great quality we have.

Jordahl: Yes, these evaluations need not be considered as all a negative thing. This is very well may be an opportunity to talk about how well people have done and about their needs as a department.

Spaziani: I would like to second that, because I think they're really on the front line with this growing county and they're the ones that have to deal with all of the interpretations and (inaudible) a huge job.

Lacina: And they meet the public well. They're very kind. They really will help, try to go out on the sites, and we're very lucky. They're good. The whole department. We're lucky.

Jordahl: Tom, you may wish to identify yourself for the folks at home.

Kriz: I'm sorry. I'm Tom Kriz.

Jordahl: Thank you. All right. Well, if that's all we've got going today, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Stutsman: I'll move we adjourn.

Adjourned at 10:49 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary