Jordahl: Moving on to item 4b, discussion regarding agenda items for joint meeting with the City of Coralville on December 8th. It says Carol here, Deana, do you have information that Carol has left?

Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard: I was supposed to just get what items you wanted on the agenda and then I was supposed to call Coralville and let them know because as I understand it, they're in charge of the agenda.

Jordahl: OK. Members of the Board have items have items they wish to suggest for agenda on December 8th?

Stutsman: We are meeting with them at a different meeting to talk about the Fringe Area Agreement? Is that correct?

Jordahl: I've got a joint, yes... I've got Iowa City discussion on the Fringe Area Agreement pertaining to that commercial rezoning on Monday the 7th and then our joint meeting with Coralville on the 4th. Do we have a separate Coralville Fringe Area meeting? Yes, on the 16th, at 7:00 is the public informational meeting.

Stutsman: This meeting with Coralville is on the 8th?

Jordahl: Yes, 4:00 on the 8th, I have. Is that right, Deana?

Pillard: (Inaudible).

Jordahl: I would suggest that we at least make the Fringe Area Agreement an agenda item there so that if there are questions, we can get into it. I realize that runs the risk of becoming the dominant theme of that meeting however in view of the upcoming informational meeting on the 16th, where I think the essence would be getting public awareness...

Stutsman: What would we talk about with the Coralville people that wouldn't be covered in the informational meeting on the 16th, or the public meeting on the 16th?

Jordahl: Well it would be the first time that we have sat down as 2 Boards to look at the document itself and to discuss points of agreement and disagreement. Coralville has addressed their concerns about it in a public meeting but we have not jointly discussed the document. If members of the Board think it would be preferable to delay joint discussion of it until after the public input session on the 16th, then that's certainly... We could do that.

Lacina: An old saying of airing one's dirty laundry in public... I don't know what you want to do. You might want to sit down and take... Coralville sent us a letter specifying some concerns. We might want to just informally flush those out and decide what the problems really are before we have a meeting and all of a sudden get sideways with them.

Stutsman: All right.

Lacina: It's better to negotiate some of the things.

Stutsman: OK, so it'd be good to have that on the agenda for out joint meeting before then.

Lacina: I would talk to them.

Jordahl: Before the joint meeting, informally?

Lacina: Whatever you wish to do, I guess... It doesn't make...

Stutsman: Before the public meeting, you think it would be a good idea to have it on the agenda for the Coralville/Johnson County joint meeting.

Lacina: I wouldn't. You've got one set up for the 16th. I would just informally make some contacts to find out more detail on the concerns and see if they can't be worked out so that on the 16th you present a unified proposal to the public. Right now, I have concern that the public will not like any proposal because you have individuals concerned about growth. Individuals pushing growth. You have a lot of players out there. You have also... the 2 governing bodies aren't in agreement on what's going on. I'm afraid you'll have a real mess. But again, it's up to you. Maybe you can work these out in this meeting.

Jordahl: Well there have been a number of informal meetings at the staff level discussing what the character of the document should be. Coralville has discussed it amongst themselves. We have not had that item, that whole draft agreement as an item for the Board to discuss. Perhaps what we need is a work session of the Board to sit down and go through that thing and find out where we stand on it.

Lacina: I think that would be good.

Stutsman: I thought we did, didn't we? Didn't we talk about it?

Lacina: Well not... I don't think the final form that they've got, that Coralville responded to.

Stutsman: Oh.

Jordahl: Yes, I don't think in response to their having discussed it we have.

Stutsman: So there were changes from the draft that we reviewed at our informal meeting.

Jordahl: Yes, there was a response to the item on trying to limit the impact of assessments on rural residents that would be taken in as part of the 20% non-consenting portion of the so called voluntary annexation. They wanted that language, I think the motivation that... I did have some informal conversations with a member or 2 of the Coralville Council about that afterward and it seemed like the motivation was they wanted either clarified or removed. But I think their immediate preference was removal. The purpose of putting it there, as I was part of those informal discussions, was to initiate discussion between the 2 bodies about what could be done there, not necessarily to come up with a final answer as to what should be done there. We haven't had that conversation jointly, as 2 bodies. We've had it at an informal level, but we haven't sat down and done it.

Stutsman: Are you suggesting then that we have the Fringe Area Agreement for the joint meeting between the County and Coralville?

Jordahl: Yes, I am. At the risk of having it turn into quite an interesting meeting with a large number of members of the public attending and being very concerned about the agreement. I think we do need to have a conversation about it, as the 2 bodies and something (inaudible) done in public.

Stutsman: (Inaudible). Yes, I would agree with that too.

Duffy: Well some of this though is State business, isn't it Jonathan?

Lacina: One of the big concerns, Charlie, is that we're talking about the impact of the assessment financially on individuals that may hit an assessment in excess of the value of their home. But Coralville is sitting there going if you start talking about assessments and values, the flip side is you've got an attorney starting to talk about the taking and impact financially of a lawsuit then. If we sign into that contract, we're also in that because we've negatively impacted that. There are some legal questions. I don't know if the 2 Boards sitting down in a public setting can really resolve those. It almost needs to be a legal question of figuring out where we need to be and how we get there to protect the home owner. But at the same time, being careful so that we don't set ourselves up for a lawsuit.

Duffy: Well I was going to say about the same thing, Steve, because it will be on the agenda again. I'm sure. Last year, in order to be annexed... The way it is now that the folks... say there's a dozen rural residents farms that are going to be annexed into a city. They vote with the City. One big vote if they don't want to do it.

Lacina: They don't.

Duffy: Yes, they do. They vote with the City. If it comes to litigation, now what it's proposed at, that the land that's involved and these homes in the rural area vote and then the cities vote by themselves. They both have to approve it in order to get it annexed to the city.

Stutsman: Maybe we should stay focused on whether we should put this on for an agenda item or not.

Duffy: Well, we're kind of getting like Steve says. We're kind of getting in... kind of doing it locally, I'm not so sure that...

Jordahl: It's...

Lacina: I think you want a work session. I think Jonathan's right.

Duffy: Yes, I think so too.

Stutsman: Then we won't suggest it as a agenda item for the joint meeting.

Jordahl: We could do that for the agenda item for the joint meeting, but perhaps we need to clarify some of these questions among ourselves.

Lacina: Right.

Jordahl: Our week, however, that we have between now and that joint meeting on the 8th is full of budget meetings, department heads meetings, department head evaluations, and so forth.

Lacina: I may be in Des Moines on the 8th. I've got a conflict.

Jordahl: At 4 o'clock?

Lacina: I'm trying to set up something with a conference call, but if it doesn't work then I'm going to have to go into Des Moines.

Jordahl: So I'm wondering when we have time to schedule a work session. Monday the 7th in the morning looks like a possibility, Friday afternoon the 4th.

Stutsman: Friday afternoon, I could do it between one and 2, but I have the rest of the afternoon... not good for me.

Jordahl: I wonder if we can resolve the questions...

Stutsman: What we need to decide now, are we going to put this on as an agenda item for Coralville.

Jordahl: I think we should put it on as an agenda item, at least tentatively at this point, because it would be profitable to have that joint discussion. My hope would be that at that time we would have some of the questions resolved through informal contacts and be able to come to an agreement about what we believe the document should say, that's presented in a public informational session on the 16th.

Lacina: And if not we just refer to the meeting upcoming on the 16th and move forward.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Lacina: So I guess in that case it doesn't hurt to have it on.

Duffy: What time is it on the 16th, Jonathan?

Jordahl: It's 7 o'clock in the evening.

Duffy: OK.

Stutsman: Anything else that we need to put on for...

Pillard: (Inaudible).

Stutsman: I'm just thinking out loud.

Jordahl: The SEATS Advisory Committee question, I think that's been resolved again informally.

Stutsman: I think it's been resolved. I don't think that needs to be an agenda item.

Lacina: It's not necessarily something for the Coralville, but we also need a work session on the local option tax if we're going to do something there, but that's not for this.

Duffy: Yes, that's right.

Jordahl: I think the...

Lacina: Coralville...

Jordahl: ...local option tax might very well be an appropriate agenda item. I mean that's coming right around the bend here. We've got to have language on that thing promptly by the first week of January, isn't it, we have to have language.

Lacina: But that's our Board... probably another work session.

Jordahl: We should do that as a Board, however in our joint meeting, unless we schedule another one this will be the last joint meeting with Coralville before we have to have ballot language. It has been a very big issue to Coralville that there be agreement between our 2 bodies, actually and with Iowa City on some kind of joint project.

Lacina: Do you want to propose that and you could put a limit, not to exceed X amount of dollars or something to that effect?

Stutsman: Do we just want to have an agenda item, the local option sales tax, Deer Creek Road.

Pillard: Do you want Deer Creek Road also?

Jordahl: 965/Deer Creek, I think the focus is really on 965 at this point, isn't it Steve? Can you give us an update on where we're at with that.

Stutsman: What will we talk about with 965/Deer Creek Road?

Jordahl: Whether we want to have any statement on... in ballot language or whether we want to take any action as a Board to... really basically affirm that on the 8th, take any action as a Board to strengthen or support the idea that this be a joint project. Do we want to commit to...

Stutsman: Can that discussion then come in with the sales option tax? Do we need 2 separate agenda items?

Jordahl: We could certainly do it as 2 separate items. We could talk about 965, then we could talk about a local option sales tax following that. They're clearly related, in that Coralville is interested in having that project be one of the things that's funded by the local option tax. Our participation in that is kind of a hanging question for both Iowa City and Coralville. We've said things about using other sources of funding, but basically wanting to do the project. What we need to do to help our neighbor governments here, is to say something clear about where we are at on that.

Stutsman: Are we ready to say something clear?

Jordahl: Well we've...

Stutsman: I don't know if we've made that... have had that discussion. If we're...

Jordahl: I think it ought to be... our discussion on that ought to be part of the 5 Year Road Plan discussion. It would be nice if that preceded the Coralville joint meeting. I don't see another 5 Year Road Plan meeting in the week coming before that. Do we have another one scheduled?

Stutsman: I don't think we do. It's one of the...

Lacina: Not until January, you don't.

Jordahl: Not until January. So it seems like we need kind of a preparatory work session for the Board on those 2 items.

Lacina: It actually doesn't need to be in the 5 Year Road Plan since you're not using Farm to Market money. You're using local option tax and if it's collaborative with the Cities, you're probably going to be using their engineers with our oversight with the exception of the piece that's ours. So as long as we conform with DOT and you can put it in there, but it's not like we have to have the DOT really authorize the funding.

Jordahl: What has been discussed up to this point is that, as you may recall, that our preference or our priorities are with space needs and not with this road project.

Lacina: Right.

Jordahl: Which is not to say that we don't think the road project is important, but rather that our source of funding would not be local option sales tax for that road. Unless the Board has other thoughts on that matter than have been expressed previously, that's where we're at. So what I'm talking about is making some sort of statement to them about what we do think about that project, where we would fund it. That seems to me an appropriate part of the 5 Year Road Plan discussion.

Lacina: I misunderstood. I thought that statements had been made to the reverse, that we would not be involved in the reconstruction of 965 with our rural funds. That the only way that we could work out that massive of a project, which is going to be multi-millions, would be through the local option tax.

Stutsman: I think that's the problem, I don't think we've made a clear decision here, first. I don't know if it's appropriate to start talking with Coralville until we really know where we're going with that. Maybe it would be just appropriate to put down, update on the local option sales tax. Let people know what we're...

Jordahl: Instead of focusing it on 965.

Stutsman: Yes, yes.

Jordahl: This is in the spirit of cooperation and helpfulness that I think we've given evidence of, in our joint meetings and in the Housing Needs Assessment county-wide, for example. That this kind of joint planning is something we really want to foster, at least for my part I do. We have really a request on the table from Iowa City and Coralville to give them an answer about this.

Duffy: In other words, they want us to help fund their road. I might have a problem with that, Jonathan. I think we better go slow here because we're in trouble on the budget. We all know it, I think. You're going to see probably a tax increase. I noticed the State, they're going to try to knock off, what $200 million, in a few years, off the taxes. The Feds, 77 billion they don't know what to do with. I think we better just go a little slow. Cooperation is one thing, but if it costs a bundle of money that we don't have, then I've really got a problem. I think Steve and Sally are right, let's see what happens on this local option tax.

Lacina: We need a work session on that...

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Lacina: ...very issue...

Duffy: Yes.

Lacina:...because if we try to fund 965 out of rural funds... I mean we struggled with the Kansas Avenue bridge and some of these other bridges. You're not going to be able to do anything in the rural areas. This is going to be, what is it, 5 million for the bridge, potentially, over the Interstate. It will take... you will not be able to do anything in the rest of the county. You're just going to deteriorate all the rural roads.

Jordahl: Of course nobody wants to see that happen. We need to have a discussion about what it means for us to participate in this project. If the 965 project were not to go forward then we have the question of what are we going to do with Deer Creek Road and that's very much a Johnson County question. I think the 2 are so intimately connected that we need to sit down and hammer this out. You've been participating in conversations with JCCOG and Coralville about this. We need to get a report from you on that.

Lacina: You have it.

Jordahl: We need to see it hammered out.

Lacina: You had it a month ago in writing, spells it out that we do not want to duplicate the efforts out there. We want one road not 2. They would like us to kick in several million dollars, realizing that they're going to annex it then after we're done building the road. So you have it, you just have to decide if you're going to build a road that the Cities are going to then annex as Coralville did with 12th Avenue extension.

Stutsman: I agree we do need to have a work session, but I don't think we're ready to enter into a discussion with Coralville until we have that work session and we're clear on that...

Jordahl: All right. Well then so we'll...

Stutsman: ...which direction we want to...

Jordahl: ...the agenda item for the Coralville meeting would be local option update. It seems like the content of that, unless we schedule 965 funding work session prior to that meeting... Again, have we agreed on a work session for the Fringe Area Agreement, then, for, is it one o'clock Friday?

Pillard: This Friday or...

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Duffy: This Friday at one o'clock?

Stutsman: That would be to... Have we...

Lacina: We're doing evaluations Friday morning.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: Right, 9 to 12.

Stutsman: That's a work session on those evaluations.

Duffy: 9 to 12 on the evaluations.

Stutsman: Fringe Area Agreement work session then, Friday afternoon at one?

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: Will we have a copy of Coralville's latest draft by then, that we can read?

Jordahl: I assume so. I'll have to contact them.

Lacina: The specific topic, was what again? Work session on...

Stutsman: Fringe Area Agreement with Coralville.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: That's... be a work session for us.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: I have to leave at 2 that day.

Lacina: OK.

Jordahl: So that's simply a very tight one to 2. Now what about the 965 funding question.

Stutsman: Maybe we should put this on when Joe gets back.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: To talk about...

Jordahl: Joe will be back on Thursday. If we scheduled a work session for Monday morning, the 7th, and Joe were not content with doing that at that time or didn't want it for some reason to delay it, we could reschedule it. But I would suggest that if people are free Monday morning, the 7th, we ought to get it on the table.

Pillard: I'm sure Arlys is wanting to get this out to the people if you're talking about...

Stutsman: He's talking about a work session for...

Jordahl: Work session for the Board.

Stutsman: ...us.

Pillard: OK.

Jordahl: We could cover it under local option update.

Lacina: Monday the 7th we start at 9 with evaluations and we're up through noon.

Stutsman: I think we did schedule it that we were going to have the work session on Friday. Deana you probably need to be aware that we need to have an...

Lacina: Agenda.

Stutsman: ...put for...

Jordahl: I don't have that down.

Stutsman: I don't either and I know we threw around a lot of possibilities. We're getting all confused here, let's stay focused on the...

Jordahl: Well the...

Stutsman: ...agenda for Coralville and worry about these work sessions at another time.

Duffy: We've got so many meetings...

Stutsman: Maybe when Joe comes back on Thursday we can nail down when we're going to have these work sessions and these regular sessions.

Jordahl: All right. So we either need...

Lacina: Update our little planner thing.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: Monday morning we've got... I think we're going to do something either it's department head evaluations or a work session on 965. But I think members of the Board ought to block that out for something. We'll get clarification on what we have scheduled there, we have people coming in or not.

Stutsman: Is there anything else...

Duffy: I think we ought to go ahead with...

Stutsman: ...for Coralville. I guess I can't... I'm just trying to think about any things...

Lacina: SEATS is in good shape.

Stutsman: ...that we have joint interest or concerns. We just finished the library.

Lacina: We're not ready to...

Stutsman: Contract.

Lacina: ...the ambulance relocation for that permanent site at Heartland. So we're OK there.

Stutsman: Yes. Sometimes I worry when we seem to just look for agenda items just to put something on and don't really have a clear idea what we want to discuss, what the issue is on the table. Rather than putting things on for the sake of putting things on, I guess I'd rather just keep it...

Pillard: OK, so you just want Fringe Area Agreement and then Local Option Sales Tax Update?

Jordahl: Uh-huh. The other thing that would interest them I think is a question of what's going to happen with the vacant supervisor seat in January but I don't know that we're really in a position to say anything about that.

Stutsman: They and everybody else.

Duffy: Yes, we don't want to...

Stutsman: Unless we have the Auditor come and give it (inaudible). I don't know if that's particularly a specific concern to Coralville. I think everybody is interested in what's happening with that. The inside scoop.

Jordahl: I really think the Fringe Area Agreement discussion might be more involved than we now anticipate.

Pillard: Then Linn County agenda items.

Jordahl: All right, yes. Agenda items for joint meeting of Linn County Board of Supervisors on December 17th, 11:30, and we are meeting...

Lacina: (Inaudible) the issue resolved.

Stutsman: We're working on that. Pat has to review that contract. No, that's more with the Airport Commission. That's not really with the Supervisors.

Jordahl: December 17th at...

Stutsman: I guess I would be interested to know where they are on their comp plan., just kind of an update, to hear how their process is going. Anybody else interested in that?

Jordahl: Uh-huh. I would.

Lacina: It would be good one for Mike to attend if you could, Mike. We meet the Sups up there and we do a lot of ISAC together with them. Good people.

Jordahl: That's McCright's in North Liberty. It's part of the that new development just west of 965, kind of behind Casey's there.

Stutsman: I guess I did talk to some of the Linn County Supervisors during ISAC about how they handle evaluations. I don't know if we have a discussion on...

Lacina: Probably Lora and their HR person could... Well I don't know, it's up to you.

Stutsman: Oh OK. That's probably a good idea. Get feedback with that.

Jordahl: Uh-huh. The merit pay question too. I don't know what they do about that. It would be interesting... I think Steve is right. It would be fun to have Lora make a contact there to see what kind of substance there might be for that item.

Lacina: Well it's interesting. Muscatine County went to merit pay and it was such a disaster, they dropped it. Some gave it to all, other ones would give it to no one. They finally abandoned the practice.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lacina: So there's a lot of education that needs to go along with that to the department heads as far as expectation.

Stutsman: Any issues are far as...

Lacina: Juvenile detention contract... We might just bring that up.

Stutsman: That's a good idea.

Jordahl: Yes, I was going to say that.

Lacina: There's been a long time discussion about the road we share with Linn County and the quarry up there. Every spring when the quarry really fires up, there's a tremendous amount of dust on the County Line Road. We need to check with Mike Gardner to make sure that we did work out a contract for dust alleviation on that. Our residents get a lot of dust and the rock... a lot of it goes to Cedar Rapids. That's just something we check with Mike for that. If he wants it as an agenda item, then we go forward, if not...

Stutsman: Yes, I'm not aware of that.

Lacina: A mutual road agreement with Linn on that track by the quarry.

Stutsman: Do we want an update on the landfill siting, to see where they are on that?

Lacina: Yes.

Stutsman: Yes, I think there was a lot of interest from Johnson County residents as far as how that was progressing. I think it would be a good idea, to know if they've made any progress in making a decision on that.

Jordahl: Well all right. If there's nothing else for that meeting or if there is, we have a couple weeks before the 17th. We certainly have a few days to add items if something else crosses people's minds. I think regarding that dust alleviation question, we should check in with Mike and see...

Lacina: Mike first and see. If he doesn't want that as an issue, then don't bring it.

Jordahl: ...whether...

Lacina: You want to discuss the coupon?

Jordahl: Oh yes.

Lacina: The system with Linn County as far as SEATS, their Lifts program.

Stutsman: Oh yes.

Lacina: We can just ask them how they feel about it.

Stutsman: We have a staff meeting scheduled for Thursday. Maybe we could ask department heads if they have any issues that they would like to be brought up for the Linn County meeting. I‘m thinking Mike will be there. That might be a good time to ask him or if Cheryl Whitney is not going to be able to be at that meeting... She's going to be at Des Moines. There might be some issues with Craig Mosher and MR, MH/DD. Maybe that would be a good idea.

Lacina: Linn spent 94,000 on a computer system to track paroled serious offenders, to work with (inaudible) County. Carpenter and some of the rest may have some input on that also.

Pillard: When's the Department Head meeting?

Stutsman: Thursday afternoon. Don't we have...

Jordahl: Yes, 2:30.

Lacina: Yes.

Stutsman: Let's just ask if...

Lacina: Yes, 3:30 is Legislative. 2:30 is the Department Head Staff Meeting.

Jordahl: Now this, as I have it specified here, that's the appointed department heads as opposed to everyone.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: OK. What was the agenda item we wanted to cover there?

Stutsman: I was just going to say ask them if there's any issues that they would like us to discuss with the Linn County Supervisors because there is some... There might be some MH/MR/DD issues or like Steve mentioned, the Secondary Roads, and with Mike... I don't know if Zoning might have some items but we could just ask if they have anything they would like to have us discuss.

Jordahl: OK, all right then.

Jordahl: Moving on to item 4d. Discussion regarding sending a letter congratulating the West High Girls Cross County Track Team for winning the State Cross County Meet.

Lacina: There's one omission. City High also, the Volleyball...

Stutsman: Oh that's right. I knew that there was another...

Lacina: We need to add that.

Stutsman: ...championship in the County and the track runner from City High too was the State...

KCJJ Reporter Terry Muhlenbruch: And Regina.

Stutsman: At Regina?

Muhlenbruch: No, the Regina boys won cross country. Michelle Lilienthal from City High was the individual state champ. The City High girls just won volleyball.

Stutsman: All right. Very good.

Lacina: Wow.

Stutsman: So let's include... It's pretty impressive what...

Muhlenbruch: 4 out of the 5 fall championships came to City High, I mean to Iowa City.

Stutsman: To Iowa City.

Lacina: Iowa City, yes.

Muhlenbruch: The only thing they didn't place in was swimming.

Stutsman: Next year.

Lacina: Next year.

Stutsman: Put the fear throughout the state. Can we include those in?

Jordahl: I'm certainly fine with that... I think it falls handily under the agenda item., similarly with item e. Regarding sending a letter congratulating the West High Football Team for winning the Class 4A State Championship. That should all occur on Thursday.

Lacina: So we'll add Regina.

Stutsman: And City High Volleyball and then Michelle Lilienthal.

Pillard: And what?

Jordahl: Regina Boys Cross Country.

Stutsman: Michelle Lilladell.

Jordahl: Lilienthal.

Stutsman: Oh, Lilienthal? We'll check spelling, if you could help us with that, that'd be great.

Muhlenbruch: It's in the paper this morning.

Stutsman: Oh it, was? OK.

Muhlenbruch: Front page, Sports, left side. She just competed at some national too.

Jordahl: Wow. Who needs a professional sport franchise?

Muhlenbruch: The University.

(Continued in Part 3)