Moore: We do so can I mention something right now. I received a call from Tim Shanahan, he's the City Administrator for the City of North Liberty. Tim and our staff has been working the past few months on a draft of the Fringe Area Agreement with North Liberty, and he asked today, I mentioned to him how our process is going with Coralville and there's January 5th and 6:30 p.m. their Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting and I had mentioned to him that maybe a couple of Supervisors could attend and he made that request this morning that our staff plus one or 2 Supervisors would come up and sit with their Planning and Zoning Commission and kind of discuss some of the proposals that the draft has, and I will provide your with copies of that draft this afternoon.

Duffy: I would like to be one of the Supervisors, if the rest of you don't care.

Stutsman: I've got another meeting that night.

Jordahl: I'm pretty familiar with that area too so I would like to volunteer. Awful lot of development up there.

Moore: Well I'll get the copies to you this afternoon of the proposed draft that we have on the table right now with staff, a and then Jonathan you can just let me know who's going to go up with us on Tuesday January 5th.

Jordahl: OK, thanks for bringing that to our attention, speaking of the Coralville progress what's an update on that.

Dvorak: We have just gotten the revision that we have discussed at the last meeting, I think Rich got you folks a copy, if not I'll check with Carol and I'll get you copies of what transpired from our last meeting. another thing I wanted to talk about, you're aware that this document does not address the community builders plan, that was addressed in the '97 version of this by JCCOG, and we built that we built that into our contract, so I will probably be coming back to you next month if this gets approved, and I believe that in a year and a half or two...

Moore: We're a couple years behind.

Dvorak: A couple of years we haven't had a Community Builder's Plan in place because that one died, so we will have revisit that and discuss that maybe sometime next month.

Jordahl: Is it you're opinion that the requirements for the Community Builder's Plan are not met by this current document.

Dvorak: Correct.

Moore: Right.

Jordahl: All right, I would surely like to see some specification of what it is that's missing from this and specifically it could something relatively easy be added to this plan to meet these requirements?

Dvorak: Not by Thursday. It could be a separate document but a lot of the information that was created in ECICOG's proposal can be transferred to a new document. We're not ready to say how much of that has to be done at this time, this is why I'm saying I'd be glad to come back next month and discuss that with you, but to add that to this document I think would physically would be impossible.

Lacina: And it is an important document. Bob, remember when we did that first one, I think it took a year just to go through the public hearings and I don't think we have to create all of that, but I do think we need to update it.

Jordahl: why ...

Stutsman: Jonathan can we hold this discussion until Rick comes back, it's already 12 o'clock and we haven't even started the executive session yet.

Duffy: We better get going we got other thing here to do.

Jordahl: All right, let's do that.

Dvorak: Thank you.

Jordahl: Continuing on the other side of the Board the Supervisors note received minutes concerning voluntary annexations form the City of Coralville, minutes of the Johnson County MH/DD Planning Council, and the Senior Center Commission. Board members I wish to report briefly on the matters of interested significance?

Lacina: Nothing.

Stutsman: Nothing.

Jordahl: I just want to note on this afternoon on 3 o'clock, is that right Carol, 3 o'clock in this room, there's going to be a retirement party for out going elected officials.

Stutsman: Is that 3 o'clock?

Lacina: 3 until 4:30

Stutsman: Gosh, I thought it started at 1:30

Jordahl: Yes, there was some difference of opinion out.

Peters: There was something in the party that...

Stutsman: I was ready to Party at 1:30

Jordahl: We have Crisis Center Funding Meeting at 1:30 here.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: OK, so other than that, business from the County Attorney, discussion regarding the planned document for the deferred compensation plans and provider's performance with a plan.

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: Good morning. Basically what this is, it's trying to bring us in conformance with a new requirement from the Internal Revenue Service. They passed actually in 1996 a revision to 457 of the Internal Revenue Code that is based upon a situation that happened in Orange County California where it was deferred compensation for the employees for Orange County and when they went bankrupt, the creditor's went after the money that belonged to the employees that they had with the deferred comp plan, and so the Internal Revenue Service to try to protect employees deferred compensation plans has made it so that all Counties who have these plans and the companies that are providing them basically have to hold that money in trust and it's for the benefit of the employees and the beneficiaries, the participants and the beneficiaries, so what they have required is that all of the companies that are providing these deferred compensation plans, and jump in any time Carol if I'm not saying it correctly because I've been working with Carol on this, is that we have to make sure that they are holding these in trust, and that they will be held in trust for the benefit for the participants and their beneficiaries and so that creditor's of the County cannot go after these plans. So we have to have to come up with the specific plan document. That should be plan document, Carol pointed this out to me, as opposed to planned in the past tense document, so it's a plan document. So, what I have here is basically a draft for you to look at, it is based on what NACO presented, so this is basically theirs, I added some thing that I got out of (inaudible) Counties and Linn County and kind of took out what didn't seem to be applicable to Johnson County and left in what seemed to be really good language in there. We actually now that 4 of the different companies that we use for deferred comp, well 3 of them are in compliance, I think, PEPSCO, SAFECO, and EQUITABLE are all in compliance. I wrote to farm bureau and I haven't heard back from then whether they are in compliance, and they are suppose it be in compliance by January 1, of 1999 so if they aren't I think we have one employee that's using Farm Bureau and you will end up having to transfer those funds to another company that does have the money in trust, so what this document tries to do is try to set that out, that the money is held in trust for the employees and their beneficiaries benefit, not for the County, the creditor's can't get it, and to protect those funds that are being held in the deferred compensation plans by the different companies.

Lacina: Does the document refer to companies that have been designated by the State, it think there's only 10.

Lyness: I think there may be 11, there may be 11. I think there's 11 by the State. It doesn't refer to them specifically in here.

Lacina: Should we, I guess is the question. OK company number 15 who applied and didn't get the designation, technically we cannot allow them to come in utilize our Deferred Comp Plan is that correct.

Lyness: I think we have the authority to say, to limit how many we want to deal with.

Lacina: Right, and just quickly skimming through this I didn't see where we...

Lyness: I know it's not in that we don't specify which companies.

Lacina: Should we at some point in the future maybe consider...

Lyness: We can do that, sure. This is a plan and we can amend it if we need to too. This doesn't have to be the final document, of you want me to get hose companies and include it in here I can certainly do that too.

Lacina: I know that 6th Judicial went through this and we went down to 3 that we authorized because we're being deluged with everybody that was certified and not certified, and so we went to 3.

Lyness: And I think that was recent change too, where you can limit how many companies that you want to deal with, where as 6th state used to deal with 50 or something like that. Like 8 or 11 or something like that.

Lacina: Probably for future reference you might consider that.

Lyness: I bring it you up to you today and I put it on the agenda for Thursday because we're suppose to have a plan by the end of the year so we're doing it kind of at the end of the year obviously. If there's changes or you have questions give me a call. I know it's kind of a long document. There is an attachment too which unfortunately only the backside of those copies so I'll bring those over this afternoon for you too which is just the appendix or exhibit that's referred to that is the section 457 Custodial Account Accruement, so you can see what that looks like too.

Jordahl: It's clear to me that there is a legal finery to this. The Human Resources Administrator has been involved in this process at some point?

Peters: She has been brought up to speed as to what has transpired in the past and then with the change in the IRS ruling, that's when the County Attorney's Office, Janet really looked over the plans and brought it into compliance where we have only the one plan, there will be the letters of agreement with the different companies and will be participating, and then the thought is that we'll send the transition over to (inaudible). And the only reason I've been hanging on is just because my past experience with it and knowing that the one plan had to be in compliance. Before that, we had agreements with the various companies, and the agreements that we had actually were reflected of a plan, but it was like each one had a plan, now we got a plan of which they will participate.

Jordahl: That's good. Read it once.

Lacina: Good Work.

Lyness: If you think of other things that you would like to put in here, just let me know and I will get some language, or if there are thing you think should be excluded, let me know that. Part of the reason I took NACO's it seemed to be the clearest of the other ones that I read, and the simplest and we could get very complicated and much more detailed if we want , and we certainly can do that, but this would be a good start,

Peters: And NACO and PEPSCO are the only ones that we have a lot of participants in it and so it seems like the employees are pretty happy with that. One of the things that happens is in talking to a financial advisor and then the financial advisor will say well do I have a 457 for you, but basically we have 3 people, well after January 1, we will not have any employees participating and (Inaudible) and those people will have left the County but there will still be funds in those accounts but they're in compliance and in Farm Bureau we have one and in equitable we have on maybe 2, I think we have 5 in ICNA, and ICNA is in compliance also.

Jordahl: All right. Any comments from the public. OK. Thanks Janet, was there action on this.

Lyness: no, not for today.

Stutsman: Thursday.

Jordahl: Yes, Thursday. Yes that's what I mean (inaudible). OK, item B, report and discussion regarding disciplinary grievance from Johnson County Sheriff's Office, I'd entertain a motion for executive session, perhaps before we do that we have item 9 discussion from the public. Are there any items that members if the public would like to bring before the Board before we go into executive session? All right, at this time. Yes Carol.

Peters: I'm not actually the public but I'd just like to remind the Board that you do have a joint meeting on January 13th at North Liberty with the City of Iowa City, Coralville and Iowa City School District, and they would like the agenda items no later than the 4th of January, so just kind of...

Jordahl: So in other words Friday.

Peters: Well plant that seed in you hear.

Jordahl: Or Thursday.

Peters: Thank you very much.

Jordahl: OK, I'd entertain a motion for movement to executive Session.

Motion by Stutsman, second by Duffy, to enter Executive Session at 12:10 p.m. to discuss a disciplinary grievance for the Sheriff's Department under section 20.17(3), Code of Iowa: "negotiating sessions, strategy meetings of public employees... shall be exempt from the provisions of chapter 21 (Official Meetings Open to the Public)." Roll call: aye: Jordahl, Stutsman, Lacina, Duffy; absent: Bolkcom.

Recessed at 12:10 p.m.; reconvened at 12:14 p.m.

Motion by Stutsman, second by Lacina, to leave Executive Session at 12:29 p.m. Roll call: aye: Jordahl, Stutsman, Lacina, Duffy; absent: Bolkcom.

Recessed at 12:29 p.m.; reconvened on December 31, 1998 at 12:25 p.m. with Bolkcom present.

(Continued in Part 5)