Reconvened at 10:41 a.m.
Bolkcom: The next business from the County Engineer. A discussion on the right-of-way acquisition for a pre-cast box culvert installation on Rohret Road in section 28-79-8. Following, a right-of-way contract with Lawrence Joseph Meade, Lisa McDonald, Mary McDonald, Susan Wilson. Good morning.
County Engineer Mike Gardner: Good morning. This is a project that has been on our list of things that the maintenance department came up with, structures we're are going to replace with our own crews. We've done a lot of these this summer. This happened to be one that the design required larger structure than the other ones. The other ones we've done within the existing right-of-way and gotten encroachment easements around them to do the ditch work and so forth. This one was a bigger structure so we needed additional right-of-way to be acquired. It was going to be put on a skew, which shot us out there a little bit further too. We negotiated with the property owners to get an easement. That's what we've got here. It's a minor amount of land that we're buying and everyone has signed off on it. This will take place next spring.
Bolkcom: All right, questions on this pre-cast box culvert? OK, item b is discussion regarding projects to be submitted for the TEA-21 FY 2000-2002 application programming cycle.
Gardner: OK, what we're going to propose to do this morning is that we submit the Sand Road paving project for TEA-21 funding. In the program we had it listed as Farm to Market funding and that's what we'll be using as out matching share on this. That will free up some Farm to Market funds to use somewhere else. I think it's a good project for the federal funding. It's a large project. It's something that is going to eat up a lot money. We can take care of the additional paperwork and so forth that goes with federal funding in one shot. We've basically already obligated our funding through 2001 so we've got one year's worth of funding that we can work with. Also we found another 150,000 dollars that had been submitted on a project earlier. What happened is it got submitted twice and so we're going to be able to use that money in this situation as well. So that's our proposal to you. The project, the estimate is around $600,000. We've got approximately $400,000 worth of TEA-21 funds to use, which is going to give us approximately a 70/30 split on the funding. It's a maximum of 80/20 but in this situation, we've only got X number of dollars we can use. We'll submit for that amount and it will actually come, whatever the bid comes in at, a given percentage. We'll be looking into the dollar figure that we've got available to us.
Bolkcom: OK. Mike, when you talk about Sand Road, are we talking about the 2 miles north of Hills Road?
Gardner: Yes.
Bolkcom: Is that the project approximately?
Gardner: Right. It's scheduled for regrading next year. Paving is in 2004.
Lacina: Where do we stand on the archeological digs and easements?
Gardner: We haven't started right-of-way acquisition or anything at this point.
Lacina: One of the residences down there is for sale right now and the question is... on one hand it would be nice to notify the potential owners of this project. The flip side of that is we don't want to decrease the value of the property or they will say we have materially damaged them. Is there a way of dealing with that? Is there a way of dealing with that? Do we just stay away from it for now?
Gardner: All of the current residents have been notified of the project because we have sent letters out that we're doing survey and stuff. We have gone out and one a lot of the survey and data collection already so most of the people that are down there at this point are aware of the project coming up.
Lacina: The one for sale was not happy about it either.
Gardner: They were not what?
Lacina: They were not happy about the frontage they were going to lose off their front yard.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Are you talking about the first house north of Hills and that on the west side of the road? I think he came in before the house was built and talked to us about the project.
Gardner: We've met with him several times. I think it has actually sold once since the person built the place.
Lacina: They're sandwiched between that the stream and the road.
Gardner: Right, so what we tried to do... we've made adjustments with our alignment to minimize the impact on their front yard. None of those... We don't actually have any need line at this point. Design hasn't gotten that far.
Jordahl: I've only begun to participate on this ISTEA funding process last December with Charlie. The impression I got there was that we were funding specific projects rather than general dollar amounts and I'm unclear how it is you shift money from one project to another once it's been granted. Can you talk about that for a minute?
Gardner: You can't once it has been granted. What happened on that 150,000 dollars I'm talking about... We had submitted a resurfacing project several years back for a 50/50 proposed matching split. Subsequently, we submitted it with a newer estimate at a higher split at 80/20 actually so that is the one we've ended up, that we're going to use. When I talked to Mary Rump, she sent us all of our past projects and this came to my attention at that point so I called her. I said what happens to this money that we've actually programmed for the same project twice? Are we going to lose that or can we shift it? She said yes. When you send in your update sheets on all those old projects, I would recommend that you suggest where you want that money switched to. So when I send these sheets in, if you people agree that this is the project we want to use it on, that's what I will do at that time. She didn't see that as a problem since it was something that had already been obligated to Johnson County and we had another place for it. She didn't see that as a problem.
Jordahl: So we're really at a stage here of a request rather than a certainty that we're going to choose to spend the money this way. We're choosing to request that we be allowed to spend the money this way.
Gardner: Right. It's fairly certain that it's going to be approved if it comes with our recommendation.
Jordahl: You'd said something about not using Farm to Market funds. I'm not sure I follow that discussion.
Gardner: OK, originally we had programmed $600,000 to be paid out of our Farm to Market dollars if we use $400,000 of our TEA-21 money, that will free up that 400,000 of Farm to Market funds for use on some other Farm to Market project.
Jordahl: So we had programmed this in Farm to Market before we knew that we were going to get the TEA-21 money.
Gardner: Right.
Jordahl: OK.
Duffy: We talked about this quite a while back and Mary Rump at one of her meetings up at Kirkwood said that we could switch some over... Dollars that we thought we'd get and we can switch... That would mean... What's the total of the whole project, that includes the bike lanes on each side of the road?
Gardner: Our estimate right now is 600,000.
Duffy: That seems kind of reasonable.
Bolkcom: So what is the plan, Mike, for wider surface or paved shoulder? Do you have a sense of that at this point? What you're proposing?
Gardner: That's what we're proposing. That's the way it has been programmed from day 1. This has been in the 5 year program for several years. It had paved shoulders.
Bolkcom: So 6 foot.
Gardner: Yes. I think this one will have a 24 foot top plus the 6 foot shoulders.
Bolkcom: Great.
Duffy: I am going to ask a question. Is that going to affect 140th Street, probably not?
Gardner: No because 140th Street wouldn't be eligible for the federal funding. It is a Farm to Market.
Duffy: That's Farm to Market.
Bolkcom: Any other questions on this?
Stutsman: Why wouldn't we do this?
Gardner: If you thought that there was some other project that you would prefer to have...
Bolkcom: Some other priority...
Stutsman: But there's nothing that...
Lacina: This is dangerous. Some of those curves and things down there...
Stutsman: Oh yes, but why wouldn't we apply for this funding for this? It makes a lot of sense.
Bolkcom: But this is pretty much a straight shot through the area we're going to be doing, right? We're not really... We're not into the curves at this point.
Gardner: No, this is the south stretch.
Bolkcom: To take it to the pavement around Long's, Dave Long's place...
Gardner: There are some small curves but nothing like on the north stretch.
Bolkcom: Mike, that's been striped out there, that section, chip sealed and striped. Is there a reason for that? I think it's a good thing but...
Stutsman: Where?
Bolkcom: Along Sand Road north of Hills Road.
Stutsman: Uh-uh.
Bolkcom: Really? I thought that was striped all the way down to the actual pavement.
Gardner: No.
Bolkcom: Really?
Lacina: Not as of Sunday.
Stutsman: No, not since the last time I drove out there.
Bolkcom: (Inaudible) the wrong county. OK, never mind. I thought it was and was going to commend you for that.
Stutsman: Would you ever stripe that?
Gardner: No.
Stutsman: It seems like it would weave all over the place.
Gardner: Not the oil portion.
Bolkcom: All right. Thank you.
Lacina: Now with the soccer field though it's not a bad idea with the traffic and stuff but...
Gardner: That part is.
Lacina: That is striped?
Bolkcom: Maybe that's what I am thinking of... the Sycamore section.
Gardner: Yes, that part is striped. That is filled with asphalt already.
Bolkcom: All right.
Duffy: I like stripes.
Bolkcom: How may people want stripes? OK.
Stutsman: I like them too, but I don't like when they weave all over the...
Bolkcom: OK, proceed on that, Mike. That will be on for Thursday to actually do something, to pass a resolution in support.
Gardner: Right, to authorize me to submit that as an application for our TEA-21 funds.
Bolkcom: OK, we need to make sure that gets on with Carol. Item c discuss bids received for Johnson County bridge replacement project on Calkins Avenue.
Gardner: OK, this is the bridge that is out down on Calkins Avenue that we let in August. There's been letting in Ames. We only had one bidder at that time and it came in substantially in over our estimate. I don't have the figure with me, but I know it was in the range of $540,000 from what the bid was at that time. We discussed it with DOT and their recommendation, and ours as well, was to reject the bids, see what we can do as far as coming up with an alternate design and relet it. We did that in the October letting and we had 2 bidders this time. I gave you copies of the bid tab sheet there. The bid did come down approximately 50,000 dollars. So it was well worth our time and effort on that. DOT does recommend we award and we do too.
Bolkcom: OK.
Lacina: Are they building the approaches as well?
Gardner: Yes.
Lacina: Could we do that and save money or do you think this a realistic price for the project?
Gardner: I think this is a decent price for the project now. Something that we are considering doing in the future is... We don't have earth moving equipment but we would be able to do the rock surfacing on this and that is something we're considering on some of these projects.
Lacina: Could we break it apart so that somebody builds the bridge and somebody does the approaches? Would that help us?
Gardner: We've tried that and there are advantages and disadvantages to it. There you're trying to administer the project between 2 contractors. If you let it as one contract, they're managing it and they can deal with their own subcontractors, instead of us being the middle man getting beat up on both sides. And one guy (inaudible).
Lacina: They need access... right.
Stutsman: Then you run into weather problems like this year and it would just be a nightmare to try to coordinate that.
Gardner: What we've found is it works better if they're the ones controlling the project and they're telling their subs when to come in and when not to come in.
Lacina: They're would be 2 mobilization costs and the whole bit. OK. You're recommendation is for which one then?
Gardner: I recommend award to the low bidder Iowa Bridge Equipment.
Bolkcom: All right. We'll put that on for Thursday. Any other business, Mike?
Lacina: What is the proposed construction and completion date? That crick carries a lot of water. I know we've been catching flack about traffic going around it. When's the completion date?
Gardner: Right. What we've got on this one... One of the changes we made was that we gave them a late start date of April 1. They have to be moved in by April 1 of this year and that's when we'll start counting work days. We have been in contact with the contractor and our hope was they would move in sometime this winter and get started with the substructure. That's what they have indicated. They will move in, get the rest of the removal taken care of, drive their piling, get everything ready, actually have the deck in place so that on April 1, they'll be ready to pour the deck.
Bolkcom: Great.
Stutsman: Update on Byertown Bridge?
Gardner: They hope to have it open tonight.
Stutsman: Oh OK.
Bolkcom: Great.
Duffy: Getting back to this bridge here. This isn't the easiest place really to build a bridge along Old Man's creek there. There's always problems on the...
Gardner: Yes, that's always tough.
Duffy: Yes.
Bolkcom: Thanks. Have a good day.
Gardner: Thank you.
SENIOR DINING DIRECTOR MIKE FOSTER: SENIOR DINING BUDGET PRESENTATION
Bolkcom: Item number 7 business from Mike Foster, Director of Senior Dining, regarding the Senior Dining Budget Presentation. As you know, this budget has to be submitted to Heritage in early December which kind of makes it difficult for Mike to come to our budget meetings in December with the budget he's already presented. He's on today to review for us what his proposal is.
Senior Dining Director Mike Foster: Good morning. I like stripes too. You have our budget proposal which we are planning on submitting to Heritage pending your approval. The program narrative, which you have before you also, I believe the rhetoric pretty much elaborates what our budget presents in terms of numbers. I apologize, there are a lot of numbers on here and it's quite detailed. Unfortunately, apparently the Auditor's office didn't have the forms prepared in time for us because we are early so therefore this was prepared on excel on Heritage's budget application sheets. I thought we'd kill 2 birds with one stone. (Inaudible).
Lacina: Total meals, Mike?
Foster: I've estimated 105,000, which is the minuscule amount over what we're preparing, what our goal is this year.
Lacina: That's all meals, home delivered as well.
Foster: That's an aggregate amount, yes.
Lacina: Thank you.
Foster: To me, the 2 controversial issues undoubtedly will be the 27th payroll, which we have included in our budget. Basically what I did was instead of putting... in the past we've always put personnel's hours per week... I went a head and doubled them and then took them times the 27 payrolls. Obviously it has some serious budget implications in terms of percentage wide increases due to the 27th payroll. That may be something you may want to look at to try to absorb in this year's budget, or perhaps half of that 27th payroll within this year's budget. I believe there's probably room for that to happen.
Lacina: With that payroll out, what would your variance be?
Foster: Well I suspect you could reduce it by 1/27th. I didn't figure that. I didn't calculate that, Steve. You would have one payroll less.
Lacina: Could you put a footnote in there. When Miskimen looks at this, he's going to see that number and it's going to jump out at him. Could you put an asterisks and down there say part of this factor is because of that increased payroll and it's a one time thing.
Foster: Right. As Bob and I were talking before we met, I suspect Heritage will even have a problem with the number of hours. That's probably going to be confusing to them. It's merely a doubling of the hours, rather than that.
Bolkcom: You might note what the... I agree with Steve on asterisking the 27th payroll and you might also include a dollar figure on what the actual financial equation is to this budget so he has that.
Welsh: 9,292 dollars.
Bolkcom: 9,200...
Welsh: Well that's a ball park figure. I just took the 250,000 divided by the 1/27.
Foster: What was it about?
Welsh: 9,292.
Bolkcom: You're asking for additional staff time, Mike, is that what you are saying? (Inaudible). What positions are those?
Foster: Just the one position. This is again, a duplicate of last year. We did ask for 5 extra hours a week on Cook A. We're again asking for that. We were denied that last year. The other, I would assume, controversial issue is going to be the salary ranges themselves and what kind of commitment we're going to get from Heritage within those salary ranges. I would suspect that they're going to be coming before you and wanting a better working agreement. I would suspect that these salary ranges and increases they're going to find quite alarming, in dealing with federal funding extremes and such.
Bolkcom: Sure, I understand that Lora did submit the Board's conclusion on the salary survey to Heritage under separate letter in the last few weeks here.
Foster: Is that right? OK, that's good.
Bolkcom: They do have some sense of what the Board's salary structure is for this department. On the question of personnel costs, as you know the Board is implementing a merit system starting in July, which is when this budget begins. The Board has not had a full discussion about what we're actually budgeting for in that. It's my sense that at this point, we're probably not budgeting the entire 2 percent at merit but maybe a one percent at merit. We have a bunch of work to do to get that merit system up and running as in figuring out the evaluation process and some guidelines about the merit system. Does everybody get that maximum merit? How does that work? My sense is it probably, and other Board members should jump in here, I don't think you should budget the whole maximum 2% in merit. I would be looking myself at a budgeted amount of like one percent, assuming that some people will get a half of a percent, some people might not get any merit. Some people might get the entire 2% but on average we might be at one percent for budgetary purposes.
Foster: I recognize that but I truly felt from a bargaining relationship, and perhaps that would give you better bargaining power to start high...
Stutsman: To ask for the whole amount...
Foster: and be able to go low.
Bolkcom: I see what you're saying.
Lacina: That's a very wise move in fact.
Bolkcom: This a different set up of problems here, isn't it?
Jordahl: As long as the expectation of what you're actually going to fund there is (inaudible).
Foster: I certainly wouldn't foresee everyone receiving 2 percent merit.
Jordahl: OK.
Foster: It does give you a little bit more liberty to bargain with.
Bolkcom: We'll have to take that up later with other departments.
Foster: Yes. Like I said at the bottom, it certainly is subject to change. Certainly.
Bolkcom: Other questions?
Stutsman: What's the 2,000 for equipment and repairs? Why an increase there?
Foster: It was suggested by my Nutrition Committee to raise that by 2,000. A lot of our equipment is really becoming archaic and run down. We're requiring a lot of repair, ultimately probably need some replacements soon It was suggested by the Nutrition Committee that we bump that up by 2,000. We really don't expect Heritage to support that. It's been traditional that they've given us the lower amount every year with the understanding that in terms of their capital revenues they would continue to support buying if necessary. So it's a flexible thing, certainly.
Bolkcom: Mike, talk about where we are with the County's involvement with this budget right now. We were... the Board agreed to put, I believe, roughly about $10,000 into the budget this year. What's the proposal for next year? Is it the 16? Or is it still 10?
Foster: On the narrative... It's still, each line item still has the same County commitment. Generally speaking, it's 6%. There's some line items that are 34%, 2 of them. One is 100% County funded. But on the bottom line, the commitment of 26,288 is what we're asking for, which is... If you look at the variance in the percentages, it's a pretty high amount but in terms of the dollar amount, it's only a $4,000 increase. It's obviously negotiable. I would expect that Heritage is not going to be supportive of that.
Stutsman: What do you mean supportive?
Foster: I would expect they are going to want more than that.
Stutsman: More County dollars into that?
Duffy: We don't have it to give to them.
Foster: But on the narrative, it does explain through the Elderly Waiver, we're probably going to acquire 16,000 of that 26,288.
Bolkcom: OK, that's what I'm interested in.
Foster: But I was remised. I should have mentioned there that also of that 16,000, approximately 5,000 goes towards food cost. We're only actually looking at 11,000 of the 26,000.
Bolkcom: As a County property tax commitment?
Foster: Yes.
Bolkcom: OK, that's good to know. Any other question for Mike on this budget?
Stutsman: I know last year you talked about fundraising efforts. Can you just tell me where you're at on that?
Foster: We haven't succeeded. We haven't really pushed that a whole lot. It's a little difficult in our environment to do that because of City code also. We'll have to get outside of our domain in terms of doing some of that fundraising. But nothing significant yet.
Bolkcom: Mike, you know the construction that's going to take place on that parking ramp next to the Senior Center and some suggestion about an alternative site for some period of time. Do you want to elaborate on your thinking there?
Foster: I don't have a site in mind. I don't know what's out there, available. I guess we'd have to check with local Realtors but I've got to believe that we're going to really suffer participation due to that ramp being established there.
Stutsman: Establishing a new site... Who picks up the cost for that?
Bolkcom: Maybe us and Heritage.
Stutsman: Is that part of this budget or would that be an amendment coming in or how does that work?
Foster: I wouldn't really foresee a lot of increased costs. We could probably find a place that's rent free. It would just be temporary quarters for us. It would obviously give the seniors a handicap accessible place. It's going to be a lot of walking from Iowa Avenue around that construction zone.
Jordahl: For a long period of time.
Foster: For a very long period of time.
Jordahl: What kind of period of time are we talking about?
Foster: I haven't heard how long it's going to take.
Bolkcom: When did it start?
Jordahl: 6,8 months or a year?
Foster: I heard about a year.
Welsh: A year or 16 months is what I heard.
Stutsman: A year and 16 months?
Welsh: A year or 16 months.
Stutsman: Oh. And you'll keep the kitchen there. It's just the dining...
Foster: The food would have another satellite facility.
Bolkcom: Would we still have a dining room at the Center (inaudible). Maybe Coralville could come through with something.
Foster: I think we need to make reasonable accommodations for these people.
Stutsman: Oh sure.
Foster: Coralville might be an option. Yes.
Welsh: If I can interject, I think this is... Board of Supervisors in connection with the City Council has to make sure there's an extremely good shuttle system involved to get people to the Senior Center. One time they were talking about making parking available on all of Iowa Avenue in the 300 block. I indicated to (inaudible) at that point that people are not going to walk up that 300 block incline around construction to get to the Senior Center. That is just not a realistic expectation for persons the age of many of the participants. I think that becomes a real key in terms of your involvement in that whole process of saying a shuttle system is imperative, and a very convenient shuttle system.
Bolkcom: So maybe have some satellite parking with some SEATS support or something, supported by the City and Johnson County in some way. That may be more preferable than a second site, and cheaper probably.
Welsh: You think the shuttle system that the City now has, which accommodates... I think that runs about $88,000 a year, (inaudible) the City was considering a shuttle system to the Senior Center and had a figure of a little more than 100,000. (Inaudible).
Jordahl: If we had a second site, wouldn't we need more staff to run it?
Bolkcom: Yes, we would.
Foster: Potentially one. Ideally, you'd want to have volunteers. Obviously, that's the idea but that doesn't always come to fruition but you'd more than likely need a site manager, yes.
Jordahl: I think it's more efficient to move food to a site than it is to more everybody to the same site with the shuttle system but if we're going to have that central site operating anyway, then we're duplicating staff. Where is the economy here? What's the more efficient way of doing this or the more satisfactory way of doing this?
Foster: Well, given rent free and given utility free, I got to believe the site would be cheaper. I agree with Bob that we need to have both.
Stutsman: I think Jonathan brings up a good point. I think we have to do an analysis of the alternatives and decide what's going to be the... I hope that's in the process. I don't know when the plans are for the City to begin their construction work, when that's going to start, but...
Foster: It's already started. They've taken soil samples already, taken down wires. It's commenced already.
Bolkcom: I think it would be helpful, Mike, if you were to meet with the SEATS Director. We've got this Advisory Committee. We need to see some numbers on what the cost would be to operate a shuttle from some remote location to the Senior Center on a daily basis over whatever period of time people think makes sense.
Foster: We'd even have to address where that would be coming from. We'd have to get a City agreement.
Bolkcom: We'd have to get the City to help pay for it. Maybe this would be one of the first things our Advisory Committee could take up when they get together with everybody is this project. Maybe some rough idea on what a satellite site would cost in terms of staffing up a second location. So we can compare those 2 things.
Welsh: My suggestions to you would be that you encourage the City to adopt the shuttle system and put that in place for the whole Senior Center.
Bolkcom: For the whole Senior Center... That's a good idea too.
Welsh: That could be your first emphasis. If they (inaudible), then I think its appropriate for you to address how do you get persons to the Senior Center.
Bolkcom: OK. I could make a call to the City Manager. We could send a letter on behalf of the Board to the Council.. What would the Board like to do on that to strike up a broader conversation? I think that makes sense. I think the Senior Center is also going to suffer, their programs are. Just to see what they're thinking...
Lacina: The City Reps are O'Donnell and who?
Stutsman: For the Seats Advisory?
Bolkcom: Dee Norton.
Lacina: I'd be tempted to call both of them as a courtesy call and then Atkins, if I were you, just to give them a heads up and see what we can do for discussion.
Bolkcom: OK. Good point.
Lacina: The other thing we have to be careful of is resources that she has available.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: All right. Anything else?
Foster: So Joe...
Bolkcom: Yes.
Foster: You just want me to find out what the satellite cost is versus (inaudible)...
Bolkcom: Yes, get some sense of staffing it out and other costs associated with the satellite site.
Foster: Rather than meeting with the SEATS Director at this point in time?
Bolkcom: Yes, why don't we hold off on that? I'll talk to the City Council people and see what their thoughts are on it and how we should proceed.
Lacina: If we're serving 274 meals at the Senior Center a day, even a small percentage wise could take a lot of our capacity with people moving around the city further on lunch time breaks.
Bolkcom: OK. Any other questions for Mike this morning? Thank you.
Foster: Thank you.
Bolkcom: We'll look forward to hearing back from Heritage.
Bolkcom: All right. Board, we're at item number 8 and it's time to keep moving. A view of departmental revenues and expenditures through September 1998. Good morning, Rosemary.
Stratton: Good morning.
Stutsman: Morning.
Stratton: Actually it's going to be through October because we just got the reports out for that. OK, at this point in the year we're a third through on the revenues. I've highlighted those line items that fall below that. First of all, Information Services is at 6%. That's due to budget line items of 10,000 each for the City and County Assessor. DP fees, which our building collected in the last quarter of the year. The Medical Examiner is also highlighted. The reimbursements from other counties is down. Nutrition is highlighted. That's a timing issue. We haven't received the Heritage reimbursement for the month of October. Mike indicates that we'll probably receive 2 in November. Auditor elections... that's due to the reimbursement of the school election line item, which is a budget of 11,500 we have not received yet. Overall, the County is at 42% of the year's budgeted revenues. 2.6 months of budgeted revenues were received during the month of October.
Bolkcom: Any questions on revenues? Expenditures...
Stratton: OK, at this point in the year, we have 18 of 52 paid, accounts payable and 9 of 26 payrolls. Anything is highlighted that falls above that. Workers unemployment, that's the annual insurance premiums, which were paid in October. Juvenile justice... Brandon has indicated that detention is way above where he thought it would be at this point in the year. He's at 58% on that line item. He's thinking at this rate, he's probably going to need an amendment. That line item was budgeted at 290 and he thinks he's going to need at least 400,000.
Bolkcom: Wow.
Jordahl: Whoa.
Stratton: He said there's just a lot more kids in the shelter than they thought there would be. Special Resource Enhancement, that's due to building construction of the Johnson County Conservation Education Center. Recorders records management, there's a line item there... records conversion, which is at 54 percent. SIH Consortium, 200 dollars came in on the revenue side and they expended out of this line. That is how that is handled so that's not unusual. Then overall the County's expenditures are at 34%.
Duffy: That's pretty good.
Bolkcom: Right on target.
Jordahl: Aren't we in a... This is 27 pay periods this year?
Stratton: That would be fiscal year 2000.
Jordahl: That's 2000. OK.
Bolkcom: Any questions? Things appear to be in pretty good shape.
Lacina: The budget amendment... Will they hold off until spring, you think, on that juvenile detention... the 200 grand?
Stratton: He wasn't sure. It depends on how many more kids they get in.
Lacina: Wow. We're going to need appropriations somehow so you'll need to advise us when we need to make that adjustment.
Stratton: OK. All right.
Bolkcom: OK. Thank you very much.
DISCUSSION: DESIGNATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY'S REPRESENTATIVES TO THE JOINT FUNDING PROCESS.
Bolkcom: We're now at business from the Board of Supervisors, discussion of Johnson County's Representatives to the Joint United Way Funding Process. Any volunteers?
Stutsman: Jonathan and I will volunteer right?
Jordahl: That's right.
Bolkcom: Thank you very much.
Stutsman: Unless somebody else... Charlie, you want to do it?
Bolkcom: Charlie's (inaudible).
Duffy: No, thank you.
Bolkcom: Thank you very mush for doing that. Reports... We don't have any reports probably, I bet. We need a County Attorney. Any reports? They're on their way.
Lacina: Given our time constraints, maybe we ought to just hold off on that.
Bolkcom: OK. Is Lora available?
Peters: (Inaudible).
Bolkcom: Great. Go to that directly, maybe and... Everybody's on their way, huh?
Stutsman: You want a motion to go into an executive session? Motion to go into a...
Bolkcom: Yes. Casie... I think we're already... I think we just continued from yesterday and we're still in session.
Recording Secretary Casie Parkins: (Inaudible) you probably need a separate motion to go into the one...
Stutsman: For the sheriff?
Bolkcom: We'll need a separate for the one on the agenda today.
Duffy: That's right.
Lacina: Why don't you ask for public input?
Bolkcom: Does any member of the public wish to address Board this morning? You have a big meeting tonight. Good luck with that. OK. We're in kind of a limbo here.
Jordahl: A momentary pause?
Lacina: We can do the motion for the grievance.
Bolkcom: Yes, lets do that.
Recessed at 11:15 a.m.