Jordahl: I think we need to back up to the Local Option Sales Tax, item 7 a. We need to get this button done, colleagues. We've got to have this language ready for the Auditor's Office by next Tuesday and that means taking action to approve language Thursday night.

Stutsman: Maybe I should just report back from the Space Needs Committee. We talked a little bit about this Local Option Sales Tax and I informed the Space Needs Committee of the direction the Board seemed to be taking as far as needs. It was the recommendation of the Space Needs Committee that we not lose sight of the importance of putting some of those moneys towards space needs. The general consensus of the group was that we have language that would say 50% sales option tax that would go to jail and operations of the jail. That seems to be our biggest unmet need and is going to require lots of tax dollars to meet that need. It was their feeling that we needed to keep that in front of the voters and include that in the language with the sales option tax.

Duffy: What side of the budget? Would that be in the general or the rural?

Stutsman: That'd be in the general.

Duffy: Well see that's a little different.

Stutsman: I'm just sharing with the Board what the discussion was from the Space Needs Committee and their thoughts on language for the sales option tax ballot.

Jordahl: We appreciate that. With regard to rural versus urban here, Charlie, I think the tax is going to be collected from both rural and urban tax payers to the extent that we dedicate money to roads. What we're going to be doing is meeting needs on the rural side of the budget with money that would come, perhaps even predominantly, from the cities. It's a great benefit to the rural tax payers and rural residents of Johnson County if we put money toward roads. I'm not sure that there's a problem there. Are you...

Duffy: There is with me because this wasn't our start with the cities, Iowa City (inaudible)... Would you explain, Jonathan, to the public?

Jordahl: Sure. The County has not initiated the Local Option Sales Tax ballot issue. This is being drive by the City of Iowa City but it is incumbent upon us to have language for the County's ballot item, basically clarifying what would we spend the money on, if the tax were to pass for Johnson County. So we're trying to decide what we would spend the money on. My personal preference is that we not spend it on establishing recurrent needs, like new staff positions, for example. The tax receipts, the amount of money we get from the tax, will fluctuate with the economy. We don't want to be in the position of trying to maintain a salaried position with a varying, or as Cole so aptly put it the other day, elastic revenue stream. My basic prejudice is toward using it for solid items, roads, buildings, that people can see, that are in our clear needs. We clearly have road needs. We clearly have building needs. Staff, I think we should meet... staff, and as the Space Needs Committee suggested, operating expenses should be funded out of the general fund, out of property tax dollars, rather than (inaudible). But that's me. That my prejudice in this thing.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: This is a discussion, not a lecture.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Duffy: Jonathan, it's going to get shot down if we don't get this done right. I'll tell you that right now, out in the rural area. I looked up a lot of counties that have already passed this and indeed, we're talking about the people in the rural area now. There's a difference putting it in the general fund or the rural side.

Jordahl: We're just talking about spending it.

Duffy: Yes. But that doesn't work. I'm afraid this thing is just going to go down and we're going to be the losers. Now if we do this right, we're going to end up in pretty good shape but...

Jordahl: What would be doing it right in your mind? That's all we're looking for. What would be to do it right?

Duffy: When we talk about property tax relief, that doesn't mean that your taxes are going to actually be cut.

Jordahl: Right.

Duffy: You can use those dollars, probably some for the jail. But whatever you spend them for, it doesn't mean you're going to have a huge decrease in taxes. But it's surely going to help your taxes.

Stutsman: What does property tax relief mean? That's a good question that I need to get clear in my mind.

Jordahl: I think I have an answer for that.

Stutsman: OK.

Jordahl: Let me try and float it out.

Stutsman: OK. All right.

Jordahl: That is that we would put the money into... Now, Charlie, I don't think we have a choice here. I think I confused the issue the other day by discussing whether the money would go to the rural tax payers that voted it in or to all County tax payers. I think that has been answered. We do not have a choice in that. It would simply be tax relief to the general fund, to County tax payers across the general fund.

Duffy: Yes we do.

Jordahl: The only choice that we have is whether we designate money to go to roads. If we do that, then that will have the affect of taking care of construction needs that would otherwise be funded primarily through rural tax dollars. That's the way that there gets to be a tax advantage for rural tax payers. We cannot decide we're going to give property tax relief to rural tax payers directly. OK. That's not on the list of options as far as I understand.

Stutsman: Well I think it might be. The memo that came from Pat White...

Jordahl: Oh?

Stutsman: In one of the examples of ballot language it said, and this is from the Code put out by the Secretary of State, the language can say for property tax relief, inserting the dollar amount or percentage, in the unincorporated area of the county.

Duffy: That's right.

Stutsman: I think if we chose to, we could give just that property tax relief to the unincorporated area.

Duffy: Then if you would like roads and bridges in there, yes, that would be all right in the unincorporated areas too because we're not speaking for the Cities now. They have their own and we're speaking for these rural people, if you want it to pass. But if it's just another tax, I don't know it all. I'm not the sharpest knife in the kitchen I guess but...

Jordahl: I think that... Oh, excuse me. You were making a metaphor, Charlie...

Duffy: Right.

Jordahl: ...and I wondered if you were going to say more after that.

Duffy: But it's to an advantage if this tax passes in the rural area, if it's done right. If it's just another tax, forget it. It's not going to, I don't think.

Jordahl: Well, looking at this memo from Pat, the highlighted portion here that talks about property tax relief in the unincorporated area, I think that correlates to the language about 5 lines above it that says a local sales and service tax shall be imposed in the, and then it says, city of or unincorporated area of the county of at the rate of blank percent. If the tax were only to be imposed in the unincorporated area, then it would be reasonable and consistent that that property tax relief would go to the unincorporated area from which the tax had been collected. But if the tax is going to be collected throughout the county, in other words, if the ballot language passes in all areas of the county, then it's going to be collected in Iowa City. It does not strike me as reasonable that we would take a tax collected in Iowa City and use it to provide property tax relief to rural tax payers. That's very odd manipulation.

Stutsman: I think it flies in the face of the suggestions at some of our previous discussions about collaborative effort. It sounds like we're not working towards that direction if we just say property tax relief in unincorporated areas.

Duffy: I disagree, Sally. Did the City say if this passes that a certain percentage will go to the rural areas for roads and bridges? No, they didn't because they have to do their own thing. This is different.

Stutsman: But we're going to receive the benefits to the County from the people that buy their products in the city. We are going to really reap the benefits by a disproportionate amount, when you look at the formula. The Legislature set it up that way because they knew we, as a County, have needs that we need to address for all the county residents. For instance, the jail. We're required by the Code of Iowa to provide jail services for the county. They gave us that option but I can see people saying you have that option but you're kind of taking advantage of it because we're not going to generate all those tax dollars from businesses in the unincorporated areas. Those dollars are going to come from those businesses in Iowa City and Coralville so it seems like it's just fair that we should spread it our over all of the county residences.

Duffy: Not to put it in the general fund, it's not fair. What's going to happen here if this is a no vote, negative vote in the rural area and the city's pass this,

Stutsman: Then we're going to short $2,000,000 is what it's going to be.

Duffy: You're going to help out with coming in here it's going to be a another set sales tax whatever you buy.

Stutsman: Somehow I think we need to get across to the Johnson County tax payer that this tax will benefit all of the residents in Johnson County.

Duffy: Well then it's double-dipping by the City...

Stutsman: It's part of our role to educate people, and sometimes I'm bothered by pitting the rural against the urban because I just think go the whole community that we're Johnson County and that we have needs that we need to meet on a community level.

Duffy: I'm not pitting the County against the City Sally.

Lehman: Well, in a way you have to look at the memo we got from the City of Iowa City that broke down the estimated revenues. Just the percent taxable sales that are collected in unincorporated Johnson County is 1.5% of everything, where Iowa City brings in almost 75% of it and Coralville almost brings in 20%. What we're saying is that if this tax is going to be collected across the whole County right now the unincorporated is only contributing 1.5% and like you were saying is that we stand to collect 25% of the revenue off of this we're actually only contribution 1.5% of the sales towards that. Is it fair to give 25% back out here when we aren't contributing that much, we're getting more than we're putting in and I think that the challenge is what we do get back to put proportionally or close to it back into the County, but I know what you're also saying we're charged with doing a ballot for county residence, so we have to show them that they are going to be getting something, but maybe 25% is really out of line when you're considering what they are contributing.

Duffy: We never came up with this Mike. Somebody should have did their homework. I'm just saying in order to get this passed, I said that right at the start.

Stutsman: Well I think in order to get it passed we have to educate the rural voter how this is going to benefit them.

Duffy: If it's in the Rural Fund yes, but if that's the information I've been getting.

Jordahl: I think that the best way to educate the rural voter is you put that Johnson County, and by rural of course by far the majority of those people are rural non-ag residential are going to be a (inaudible) but people living out of the country, is the ballot language. I mean what we're here to work on today is what is ballot language going to say and the best education about this is when the media reports what that ballot language is that it says something clear that will communicate what is the fact of the matter. If we say that we're going to take receipts from this and put a proportion of it towards roads, towards Johnson County Secondary Roads, I think that's going to make it very very clear to the rural taxpayers that they are getting a concrete, so to speak, benefit.

Duffy: I would agree with that. What percentage are you talking about Jonathan.

Jordahl: Hey, let's talk about percentage. 25% was mentioned as number earlier here independent of what portion it should be. I'm open to talking a variety of different percentages Charlie. I think we need to that, let's start at 25% and see where that goes.

Stutsman: 25% for roads and bridges?

Jordahl: For Roads, roads and bridge.

Duffy: Where is the money for the Roads and bridges going to put that in the Rural Fund?

Stutsman: Charlie, you don't like 25% what is your...

Duffy: I'm just saying that there is Rural versus the general fund there's a big difference. And keep in mind as far as being far we talked about human services. It will pick up a big chunk of that Human Services.

Jordahl: I think that goers directly, the money that we, the whole idea of this ballot language this will then require to put this money toward that, and the only way we can spend money on roads and bridges is out of the Secondary Roads Department Budget which is on rural side. It doesn't go to the general fund waiting to maybe be transferred to Secondary Roads that where it would just plain ol' go, that was my understanding, that the Auditor would be required.

Duffy: You might want the think about that Jonathan, it might have to go to the Rural Fund other than I think that it's a certain amount of tax increase that you can't go over on the Road Fund.

Jordahl: This would be more like Federal Matching Funds for a project coming in, this would be additional money going into the Secondary Roads Department.

Duffy: Well we would have to ask the County Attorney or Janet or something.

Stutsman: Mike said that it didn't have any impact at all as far as his levy amount or the amount he needed. What he would use those dollars for if he got additional dollars would just be to speed up the project budget, in the 5 year plan.

Peters: The only limits that I understood it are the limits that you must levy in order to qualify for, but there wasn't any maximum amount. You could always put more money into it.

Lehman: What it was going to do is to accelerate your 5 Year Road Plan and do more thing faster, it wasn't that you were going to limit yourself. I still have a question I guess on tax relief I don't know if Cole might be able to answer this, I mean that the average person so going to think that they would get a tax credit and I don't think that's quite what we want to misconstrue to the voters.

Stutsman: Right they wouldn't get a check back or wouldn't get $10 off.

Lehman: You won't have to pay as much as you did last year, and that type thing because it will fluctuate too because I guess that I don't have a clear understanding what a tax relief means it the average person.

Jordahl: What it means to the average person and what it actually is I think is just this, that we during our budget process will set this is budget, this is what we need and this is what we're going to have to authorize as what we're going to spend as tax for, and spend in the Fiscal Year of 2000, starting July 1st, and if we have a Local Option Sales Tax pass and that's in place then we have money that will come in. When we designate it as property tax relief would then just go into the general fund for property tax relief meaning that the amount that we would have to levy for, and the levy is set by the amount that we chose to spend, and if we then don't need to bring in the amount of money that has come in from the Local Option Sales Tax for Tax Relief then the levy can go down.

Stutsman: Then it's just an infusion of additional dollars so that we don't have to levy as much to meet our needs.

Jordahl: For whatever expenses we choose to authorize. Now if we choose to authorize expenses in our budget process that are $2,000,000, let's just say hypothetically, if we chose to authorize expenditures on $2,000,000 of stuff, say for Human Services Space Needs, then we get $2,000,000 in for Local Option Sales Tax for property tax reduction, the budget would then be flat, same as it is this year, because it went up by $2,000,000 and down by $2,000,000 to the same place.

Lehman: But, we're also saying if we pick this here for property tax relief in the unincorporated areas it has to be something directly attributed or are we talking about that rural residents will benefit from.

Stutsman: Right, it would be the libraries it would be the roads.

Jordahl: Yes, we would have to, I don't understand this idea of rural property tax relief very well but to the extent that I understand it, I think that it would be, like Charlie's example of what if it passed in Iowa City and didn't pass in the County, reverse that what if it passed in the County and didn't pass in Iowa City then the property tax relief would reasonably go to the rural area because...

Stutsman: Only if we had that language in there though. If we said unincorporated, in our ballot language.

Duffy: If you put it in the rural fund you wouldn't have to worry about it.

Jordahl: But see of we put it in the Rural Fund by talking about roads and bridges, or you say roads bridges and libraries for that matter, then you've got all of your Rural Fund stuff covered and you've aren't playing a shell game with property tax relief. You're saying we're going to spend it and I just don't see with our space needs I don't see us actually taxing people for less money then we are doing now. If we get the Local Option Sales Tax passed then we have thing to spend that money on that have been put off during the freeze.

Lehman: What I'm saying is that it's misleading to the average voter in the rural that he thinks that he is going to get a credit or not pay as much taxes next year, they just have to realize that we are going to earmark things and you're going to get more for your money that we're going to continue to collect.

Duffy: Now there is, and I haven't heard these bug tax increase. If that happens I think we're going to be challenged. We were before and we won, but all it is say there was a 5% increase and you cut it down to maybe 2% tax increase if this goes to reduce property tax, I mean it wouldn't way, like Mike says, that maybe you're going to have a big windfall or that 10%-15% decrease in your taxes.

Jordahl: Yes, I don't see that happening.

Duffy: That wouldn't happen so you're right there.

Jordahl: So if it's not going to happen let's not pretend it's going to happen.

Duffy: I didn't say...

Jordahl: I'm not saying that you're saying it, I'm saying that we're all talking about this.

Duffy: I'm just saying that it's a good deal for the County than I'm glad we got a break.

Jordahl: There's Cole wanting to join in on the conversation. What do you have there?

Chamber of Commerce Representative Cole Chase: One of the things that you guys keep discussing is whether or not there is going to be property tax relief, if the Local Option Sales Tax passes then there will be Property Tax Relief in either direct or indirect because it's more money for you. Unless, unless, and this is only unless you decide that all of the money from the Local Option Sales Tax are going to new project. If you specifically say these are new monies for new projects or new moneys that are going into Human Services then there is not Property Tax Relief because you still have the budgets to man for the existing services. So, you need to resolve that little bit between yourselves there. You need to decide what portion you want to be your monies, and what portion you don't want to be new, the difference is the relief.

Stutsman: But it would still be property tax relief even if it was new moneys wouldn't it?

Lehman: But do we have to earmark that?

Chase: Only if you are saying that these are services that these are services that you would have provided anyway.

Jordahl: But, we wouldn't, I mean we're talking about accelerating the 5 Year Plan in roads, and we're talking about Space Needs that we cannot meet otherwise, we're talking about new expenses sooner expenses, we're talking about spending this money not giving it back.

Chase: (Inaudible) with your proposals to say that this is going to be property taxes, because these are all needs that you already have, these are thing that you're struggling with that you know that you have to provide already.

Stutsman: You're talking about if we decided that one of your projects for instance was a skating rink, you know we don't have it now, you know then that wouldn't be property tax relief.

Chase: Exactly, and there's no demand for, or there is not impressing immediate demand for it, it's not something you would have otherwise provided. It's obviously something you could create if you wanted to but there isn't a pressing needs for it right now there it's not something that you are already planning on doing would be new monies.

Stutsman: And I guess part of what I want to accomplish with this ballot language too, I was reading reflections and the discussion about the Sales Tax, is that it's a good opportunity for us communicate to the voters, to the taxpayers what our needs are. If we are willing to put in ballot language that we think that space needs are great enough that this is what we want to spend these extra dollars on the that is telling the voters that this is a big need that we are not going to be able to address without a tax increase or some additional revenues.

Duffy: Well that's Capital Projects and Cole I think that you probably know, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I did have a list of the ones that passed this tax and it seems like that you got into 2 complicated needs of Capital Needs it would just be plain defeated but if you had it in there someplace while having property tax relief and roads and bridges and things like that they will vote for it.

Stutsman: But, I think that we need to make it specific, but if we say Capital Projects that makes people real nervous, what do you mean by a Capital Project, but if we say the Jail, if we say Roads and Bridges then people know that's where my tax dollars are going to go.

Chase: That's something Iowa City was struggling with on their ballot language. They were afraid that the Capital Projects language was too general, so what they did in addition to their ballot language is they also voted to approve a policy statement that said how they were planning on spending the money. It's a policy by that Council, so obviously a different council could change it, that Council could change it, but that's a matter of trust. The fact that we trust you as our elected officials, we didn't think that you're going to do that, we don't think that you're going to come in and say Capital Projects such as the Jail, Health and Human Services, those needs and then a week later build a water park.

Lehman: I guess my question is that if we were going to break it down into 4 categories right now, Human Services, Tax Relief, Roads and Bridges, and Space Needs. The Tax Relief could actually be used for some of our Space Needs, or for our Roads and Bridges I think it opens it up for us, but I don't want to be sitting here 3 years from now when somebody comes in form the rural area and says I was suppose to get tax relief and my taxes haven't gone down but indirectly our ballot let us use that money for something else. We have to be clear to the voter I guess what that Tax Relief might be used for, are we redundant to say Tax Relief for Capital Improvements such as and then also have another division called Space Needs.

Jordahl: Tax relief for Capital Improvements is confusing to me. What you're saying is correct that if we put it, we could just call it Tax Relief, we could put it in the general fund and use it for Capital Projects.

Lehman: But people have to realize that, so we need more language on it than just tax relief for the unincorporated areas. They have to know what we're possibly going to use it for or else I know the average person is going to think he's getting a credit.

Jordahl: That's right and I just don't think it's honest of us to say that we're giving tax relief when in fact the whole idea of the Local Option Sales Tax, well maybe for some people it is tax relief, but it is that we can bring resources into Johnson County to benefit the people in this county that would not otherwise be here. Other than that, they elected us to decide how much money to spend on what needs to be done around here, and this is additional resources to do that with.

Lehman: I think we understand that, but more than 9 out of 10 people you stop in the street, when you mention tax relief on a ballot, they are going to think they get the credit so we need to fair to them to specify it.

Duffy: We have to have something on there to make this thing fly.

Lehman: Right, but I don't want to be misleading in doing that.

Duffy: You are right there, it's going to be Tax Relief because I expect a huge tax increase. I don't think that we've done a good job, not you Mike, but the rest of us in 1998 to protect the Tax Payer's dollars, I'll tell you that right now.

Stutsman: I guess I don't agree with that statement Charlie.

Jordahl: I'm not sure what you're talking about there Charlie.

Duffy: Wait until the budget starts. But, understand that we are speaking for the rural. There are 300,000 acres of rural farmland in the unincorporated areas.

Stutsman: What did you mean by that statement we haven't protected that tax, that's a pretty...

Duffy: I think that we could have done a better job and have been complaining the whole year we spent dollars that we didn't have to spend Sally.

Jordahl: Which were those Charlie.

Duffy: Still, Cole, again to kind of lean on you.

Jordahl: Charlie, if you are going to make statements like that we've spent money that we shouldn't have spent I think that we deserve some kind of specification of what that was.

Duffy: Well if you want to put it on the agenda some day I'll show you where some of it is.

Jordahl: Well, you raised the issue now. We're talking about our budget generally...

Stutsman: Let's get back to these percentages. We need to nail this down because it's getting later and we're just...

Jordahl: I guess I would say if you want to discuss it than you should put it on the agenda.

Duffy: Well I don't want to discuss it. I just think we could have did a lot better with the budget.

Jordahl: We're dealing with the budget now and anyone who is interested is welcome to attend those meeting. They begin this afternoon at 1:30 in this room. Where were we.

Duffy: Well what do you want, what percentage do you want for roads and bridges and where's the money going to end up.

Jordahl: It's going to end up in roads and bridges.

Duffy: Yeah but I mean which fund.

Stutsman: Well I think we've talk about this some. What do you want Charlie? What do you think is reasonable.

Duffy: Roads and bridges should be something like 50%.

Jordahl: OK, 50%, what do you want to do with the other 50%?

Duffy: The other 50% I do think in the rural area to get this thing done there should be something about property tax relief, unless it is explained to these people anything from property tax relief is it goes into the general fund forget it. There won't be that much speaking for the rural people in the general fund. If it be on the rural side you have like libraries was mentioned thing like that we can spend it wherever we want to spend it.

Stutsman: So you want property tax relief for the rural side.

Duffy: I want to make sure that this is rural.

Jordahl: Now we could say 50% for libraries, now that would include the Iowa City Library, the Coralville Library, and the Solon Library.

Duffy: I don't know if you just get it on that side of the budget, I think, and we'd have to ask the County Attorney I would say 25% and the other 25%, but that goes to the rural side and then you could have 25% for building needs if you want to put that in there.

Jordahl: Now you know that rural side what you're talking about there, most of that is for folks living in big fine houses out in the country and not farmers.

Duffy: Well this isn't a whole farmer thing.

Jordahl: I'm just saying that when you're talking about the rural side of the budget and you're talking about tax relief for those people, you are talking about... Yes about people involved in agriculture, but most of the people you are talking about are people who are just living out in the country, some of them in houses that are worth $500,000.

Duffy: Maybe they are coming in to places like Iowa City, not to slam Iowa City, and everyday are buying probably furnished their house here, but again Jonathan and I'm going to shut up about this we have to have something on there that the people will vote for.

Jordahl: Well I think 50% for roads and bridges is pretty voteable for.

Duffy: Be the goat.

Jordahl: What would make a person a goat?

Duffy: A goat?

Jordahl: Yes, what would be the problem... What do you want for the other half of this you want property tax relief for rural people.

Duffy: No, I said at least you could 25% on that side and then 25% for I really don't like the word building needs, it's kind of...

Jordahl: Space needs, capital projects?

Duffy: Space needs I think we ought to figure out on the 25% what's (inaudible) you probably could say building or capital improvements or thing like that.

Jordahl: OK, then capital improvements.

Duffy: I wouldn't say that.

Jordahl: Well you said you probably could, then what would you say?

Duffy: I mean you could, but again people want to now exactly what its going for, and that should go toward the jail.

Jordahl: All right jail.

Duffy: Now, what happens if this gets voted down, what's the procedure for next year to do the same thing.

Lehman: Unless we put a sunset clause this will be ongoing, and I don't think any of the other communities have put that sunset clause that we are aware of.

Chase: None of the communities are currently proposing a sunset.

Lehman: Which would limit the term of this.

Chase: More after tonight, it's on everyone's agenda for tonight. It'll be busy.

Welsh: Jonathan, Mike made suggestions at your last meeting and I'm so lost in probably not doing this. Mike I thought suggested and I thought there was agreement that each of you were going to some today with your suggestions for procedures. Each of you would say what those are, you would then see what your discrepancies are and then (inaudible).

Jordahl: We're headed there. We've just gotten Charlie's now, and so now we're going to go over here and just gets Mike's if he's got a suggestion to make.

Lehman: I'm kind of keeping tabs here, but my breakdown just for sake of argument was 5% Human Services, 30% Roads and Bridges, 15% Space Needs, and I would encourage to label it as Johnson County Jail or something like that, but the 50% Tax Relief and I would like see some type of description there for Tax Relief for Operating Budgeting or General Fund or something that we have to ear mark it and I don't know how we're going to sell that but I don't want to short change people and have them think they're going to get a tax credit.

Stutsman: So you're talking about tax relief for all County voters not just the rural?

Lehman: Well I guess that's what I have to decide on, and I think that Charlie wants to push it all towards the rural, and I think that on this ballot we almost have almost have to do that.

Jordahl: I disagree but you are free to have that opinion.

Lehman: To sell our ballot we have to but I know that for the benefit of the money that we are going to receive it's going to be better spent and not close the door on us. We need to open the door to where we can spend it everywhere but I guess those are the percentages and we've got, Sally kind of threw her 3 in.

Duffy: What do you have down there again Mike?

Lehman: I've got 5% Human Services, 30% Roads and Bridges, 15% Space Needs, and 50% Tax Relief.

Jordahl: For the rural area.

Lehman: I'm still open.

Stutsman: He hasn't decided yet.

Jordahl: I'm not trying to push you there but I want to know what your position is, and you're open, OK.

Lehman: I guess I would, Roads and Bridges are pretty much rural I guess I would have Tax Relief for the complete County.

Stutsman: Yes, I guess.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: I guess I would propose 35% for Roads and Bridges, 25% for Tax Relief f for the entire County, 5% Human Services, and 35% Space Needs.

Duffy: See we're not doing much for the rural area.

Lehman: Well the Roads and Bridges.

Stutsman: I think we are.

Jordahl: Yes.

Lehman: People are going to assume that they are going to get a tax credit and if we can't keep their Roads and Bridges fixed they're not going to town to spend that money but they are going to get cash back or credit.

Duffy: Well I'll agree with you I would like, how much for...

Stutsman: When I look at this Charlie, roads and bridges is strictly rural but then when you look at Tax Relief, Human Services, and Space Needs, that all is rural and urban, you know, it's just not.

Duffy: I won't weigh that Roads and bridges is all rural because all of the money that is being annexed in.

Stutsman: No, but that some out of the rural side of budget.

Duffy: But what do you say for Property Tax Relief.

Stutsman: Oh, I said for Property Tax Relief I said 25%.

Duffy: What did you say 50%, and I guess after Jonathan pinned me down I would revert back here that Iowa City is going to contribute almost 75% of this tax, and their sales Coralville is going to be 20, and we contribute 1.5, but we're going to receive 25%.

Duffy: Good deal.

Lehman: Well yes, but I'm think we need to give it back where we got it from too in a way.

Duffy: You want that then in the general fund instead of in.

Lehman: We shouldn't have shown Jonathan, then he gets to see everyone else's first.

Jordahl: Yes, it makes it much much easier.

Grace Shim: Was that rural, that Tax Relief that you mentioned Mike, or was it just open.

Lehman: County-wide.

Jordahl: Cole what do you want to say. I get to wait until everybody talks else, then I get to schedule this thing so that my opinion looks really reasonable.

Chase: I've been struggling with this discussion whether or not tax relief should go County wide or just to the rural residents. Personally I would like to see it stay with the rural resident but in terms of the success of the ballot, what you have to consider is that only County residents are voting on your ballot proposal, the city residents contiguous vote is voting on a big hunk of money, and if they're not going to see, basically if you offer Property Tax Relief to the county then they are going to get apiece of that Property Tax Relief, there's a little more (inaudible) so they kind of are voting on the County's proposal. That just occurred to me as I was sitting back here and listening to you.

Stutsman: There has to be a buy in for the urban residential.

Lehman: Collaboration.

Chase: Or you won't see all of that money. If they think we, the County's just going to take our money and spend it in the County they're not playing as part of team, and that pisses me off, I'm not going to vote for it than all of that money is gone.

Jordahl: I feel that that is a pretty reasonable argument. I think that the first of all we've talked before and you made a very good case. I think that about a week ago we were talking about this Cole, that and Charlie and the same point, that people want to be able to see something like what am I going to get if I pay this tax and Roads and Bridges say that you're going to get roads and bridges and you can look at that OK?

Duffy: I would agree with that.

Jordahl: Buildings in my mind is the same way. What are we going to get? We're going to get a new jail, well this isn't going to pay for a new jail but at least this is a concrete thing you can look at. Tax Relief I think is smoke and mirrors it is, yes it's real, I mean we're going to actually put that money into the budget of the County in such of a way that it would pay for things that we would other worse property taxes for but our needs for Capital Projects for space for building and staff that we see in our current budget requests from all of these various departments that want new staff would easily consume, you know the jail by itself would consume the entire of the Local Option Sales Tax receipts for perhaps 10 years, and so I don't think it is at all forthcoming of us, and I don't mean to malign any member of the Board for their choices here, but I don't think that it is honest of us as a body to say we're going to give you Property Tax Relief when in fact what we need to give you is a new jail.

Stutsman: And the only argument I would make for Property Tax Relief is the first thing on the ballot and it's a psychology issue with the voter. They relate to Property Tax Relief even if they haven't thought through what this actually means I think that it would actually have an appeal to do something with property tax relief.

Duffy: Well they are getting Property Tax Relief, Sally.

Stutsman: Pardon me?

Duffy: What if we had to finance the jail, Human Services, and other space needs...

Stutsman: Yes.

Duffy: ...and did it with a huge tax increase. Of course, it decreases their taxes.

Jordahl: Well let's play...

Duffy: I still didn't get Mike's whole things here.

Stutsman: Oh.

Duffy: 5% Human Services...

Lehman: Yes.

Jordahl: And15% space needs.

Duffy: 15% space needs, see right there the City's 20% they gain on that. Evidently that will go...

Stutsman: But they're paying most of the tax, Charlie.

Duffy: We're talking about the rural area, Sally, because they have their (inaudible).

Jordahl: Yes, but the point is...

Duffy: What are the other... again, Mike.

Lehman: 50% for tax relief...

Stutsman: Should we just make copies of this to hand out to the Board and maybe that'd just be a good worksheet to go from. Carol, were you going to make a point?

Peters: When you refer to expenditures that are going to be only utilized for the rural area and expenditures that are going to be used for the unincorporated areas, we have to remember that when the tax levies are set, when you look at your total budget, the people in the unincorporated area pay towards a lot of the services that are in general services.

Duffy: They certainly do.

Peters: So actually when you talk about... Well, there you go with that rural property tax relief. Any money that is used to offset general County spending helps everybody.

Stutsman: Yes, right.

Peters: Both the city dweller and the rural resident.

Stutsman: Are we any closer to kind of nailing down some of these...

Jordahl: So I haven't finished giving my numbers, I guess. Of course, Cole's left the room. I don't know if that's convenient or not. I guess I failed to make quite enough copies of this. But you're right. Property tax relief is right there on the ballot first thing.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: So you say oh yes... I want Cole to hear this.

Duffy: I'm going to have to leave pretty soon.

Jordahl: I want to make sure you hear what I'm going to say.

Stutsman: It's profound, Cole. We don't want to miss it.

Jordahl: That's right. I'm going to say this giant thing here. One way of approaching this would be to talk about giving people what they want, which they will put 100% of this to property tax relief. If you like property tax relief, OK, let's put it all there. I think it's very clarifying in a discussion like this to say what does it mean really to say all right, it all goes there. What does that mean?

Duffy: I know what it means. It means they're going to vote yes.

Jordahl: All right, everybody votes yes, 100% property tax relief. Then we get to spend it however we want.

Stutsman: Right.

Duffy: Right.

Jordahl: If that's what animates people, say hey, we're going to give this all back to you in property tax relief. Then, OK, we get to spend it the way we want, but we're going to have a whole bunch of people that are thinking their property tax relief bills are going to go down and these same people are in a county that's going to have to build a jail. They're in a county that has huge requests coming in, in our current budget cycle for additional staff that we're going to keep paying for indefinitely.

Duffy: Now I wonder if it doesn't pass then. We're going to need to...

Jordahl: It does or doesn't. You know we have the same needs to meet.

Duffy: I think Mike has... There are some things that I think we kind of give away a few acres of the farm but Mike has pretty good ones on here. Roads and bridges 30%, tax relief 50%, Human Services 5, Space Needs 15. You're talking about a lot of dollars. That might pass but I'm not so sure.

Jordahl: Well that, and I think you phrased the question in such a way, Charlie, a couple times here today, that you're talking about wanting it to pass. I think that's another piece of this. Do we want this to pass? I see this...

Duffy: If it's done right, I would say yes.

Jordahl: All right.

Duffy: If it's not done right, I'm not the author of it.

Jordahl: Well you are.

Duffy: No, I'm not the author of it.

Jordahl: You're the author of it right here. We're writing it.

Duffy: No. The City started this.

Jordahl: They started it, but we have to write it.

Duffy: I should get going. I have an appointment at...

Stutsman: So what do we want to do? Do we want to accept Mike's proposal? There's 2...

Duffy: Now what are we going to do about the tax relief, Mike? That's a very important issue.

Jordahl: Charlie, before we go to Mike, we haven't really finished with you.

Stutsman: And we haven't talked about yours.

Jordahl: And we haven't finished with me either. Now I had you down at 25% for capital improvements or space needs, is that correct? You said you'd be OK with 25% for...

Duffy: I don't think I said anything.

Jordahl: You were just looking for a name to call it but it was basically the same thing. Buildings, space needs, capital improvements, however you phrase that, you're still talking 25%. I've only got you up to 75% so far.

Duffy: We could do some changing here on it. I think Mike's is pretty good. I'd rather go with Mike's.

Lehman: I don't think you realize that if this thing flies across the whole county, the county residents stand to pick up more than they're going to ever contribute collected through county sales. It's a windfall, if it passes, it's a windfall to the county residents.

Duffy: Absolutely it is. That's why I say I'd like to see it pass. But keep in mind too, Mike, those kind of residents have to do some shopping.

Lehman: Yes. We have to pass it in the county before we get anything.

Duffy: That's the whole thing that I started on. I hate to use the word I but if you don't get something that's going to pass, forget it. We're going to lose.

Jordahl: So what's going to pass, Charlie?

Duffy: The property tax, I think, had a better chance of passing but...

Jordahl: How about 50% roads and bridges and 50% property tax relief? You like that?

Stutsman: Now let's... I think we need to make a bigger argument for the space needs. There again, I think that's being very up front with the voter. We can talk about property tax relief. What are we going to use that property tax relief for? We're going to use that to build a jail. By saying we've got to meet the needs of that jail, we're going to take 40% of that money, I'm redoing my figures here, to pay for the jail. I guess I would throw out roads and bridges 30, tax relief 25, Human Services 5, and 40% for space needs.

Lehman: Well is space needs being redundant with tax relief then in a way? In a way it is.

Stutsman: Well yes. Stick with that tax relief just...

Peters: What was that again, Sally?

Stutsman: Oh, I'm sorry. 30% for roads and bridges, 25% for tax relief, 5% for Human Services and 40 for space needs.

Duffy: Where does that go when you're done?

Stutsman: What worries me about if we say all this for tax relief and then we turn around and breeze in a big bill for the jail, people are going to come unglued.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Duffy: No, that is a different thing.

Stutsman: They're going to say what are you doing. You said you were going to give me tax relief. My bill has gone up.

Jordahl: That's where I'm at. Now let me read my numbers off here.

Stutsman: All right.

Jordahl: I've got 35% for roads and bridges, 0 for tax relief because I think it's dishonest...

Duffy: No, it's not dishonest.

Jordahl: ...Human Services 15% and space needs 50%. Now understanding that this is kind of an inperpetuity decision that we're making here, I...

Stutsman: What does that mean?

Jordahl: As long as we're going to continue to have to put this money into these areas...

Stutsman: OK.

Jordahl: ...indefinitely, as long as this tax continues. I don't know how we alter the distribution formula. I think we probably have to go to a vote of the public again to change this distribution of funds. So that's where tax relief is a conveniently flexible thing but I think the people are going to be looking for the reduction in their tax bill. Given the current needs in the County, I don't think they're going to see it, therefore, I don't think we should say it. I think we should just say, no, this is not going for property tax relief. This is going to our real needs that have built up and the sales job is going to be to say we have been under a budget freeze and we have a lot of pent up needs. We're going to use the resources that are coming from outside of Johnson County in significant proportion in addition to this sales tax levied on local residents to help in meeting those long postponed and currently critical needs.

Duffy: Write on there that taxes will be regardless if the taxes are increased or not, it will say property tax relief so much like it did (inaudible).

Jordahl: But if the bill is $100 larger than the previous year, I don't know how they're going to...

Stutsman: Do we need to continue this discussion another time now that Charlie is leaving?

Duffy: I go with Mike.

Stutsman: What if Mike changes his mind?

Lehman: I might sell out here.

Duffy: I'll be back. It's not set in stone.

Jordahl: No, but it's going to be set in stone on Thursday.

Duffy: We start at 1:30, do we?

Stutsman: Yes. I'm not going to discuss this anymore until Charlie's here.

Lehman: Reverend Welsh had something.

Welsh: I was just saying I agree with what you're saying, just as one person. The tax relief is a shell game.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Welsh: But I think the others are also right in saying it's a sellable item. I'm sort of caught. If you just took your 4 statements that you've made and say let's not do like a 7%, let's got to 5%. You know, let's keep them in 5% increments, and just took your averages across, roughly you'd end up with 5% for Human Services. I realize Charlie didn't have any there and that you had 15, but if you take them across you end up with 35% for roads and bridges. You end up with 35% for space needs and you end up with 25% for tax relief. Now if that doesn't please any of you, except Sally, because interestingly enough...

Jordahl: Because she's so reasonable.

Welsh: No, but that was what Sally...

Stutsman: Bob, you said no.

Welsh: That's what Sally originally proposed. But when you take your extremes and bring them together, it does happen to match what she said, by coincidence.

Stutsman: Yes. You're right.

Jordahl: You're just so good, Sally.

Stutsman: Well I don't know. Keep talking, Jonathan.

Welsh: Just as a friend of yours, I think that's where you might be from a consensus stand point.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Welsh: Philosophically, I think that what Jonathan said makes some sense, personally.

Stutsman: Yes, and I...

Welsh: And the Human Service aspect... My feeling is that if you put in, again Cole said 2 things, using the words laporation, and using examples such as. I guess I hope you don't lose sight of those 2 kinds of phrases. I think you also have to make it clear if it passes in the county, but not in the cities, you're going to rescind it the next day.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Welsh: You're right up front.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Welsh: You tell them that so you don't have the play that scenario. But if it passes here and not in the cities... I think if you wanted to increase the percentage, like Jonathan has with Human Services to 15%, I think you could make a real case, from my perspective, and you know this is the area where I'm most concerned, we do not have equal treatment to the rural areas in Human Services. Part of that is transportation, part of that is housing and you make a very strong case that those are dollars that really could be used to help benefit those rural citizens.

Jordahl: Human Services in the rural area... we could specify that, that one for rural.

Lehman: Yes, dictate it.

Stutsman: No, I don't think we want to do that.

Welsh: Well I'm just saying... I'm trying to listen to what Charlie has also said about the rural area. I guess all I'm saying is that in terms of the Human Services dollars, from my perspective, we do a far better job. A lot of that's your transportation...

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Welsh: ...and the accessibility in housing. You know you're doing a housing study. There's a lot of needs there. So for what it's worth, I agree with Jonathan philosophically. If you're looking for a compromise across the Board, you've almost come to Sally's proposal. That's the way it works out.

Jordahl: But now that numerically hasn't yet answered the question of whether that tax relief is specified as rural or general.

Stutsman: I think there was consensus, or at least 3 votes, that it would be across the board.

Jordahl: OK. All right, good.

Stutsman: I guess, as far as Human Services, I would support the 5% in saying Human Services such as the Juvenile Justice Grant and that does include the whole county. I'm worried about earmarking it for rural because then how do we get into that whole accountability, that it's just rural areas that are getting...

Jordahl: OK, that's reasonable. I like the Juvenile Justice Grant language because that's something that people are going to relate to. It counter-balances the jail problem.

Stutsman: Uh-huh. Right and it's a preventative program, which are something's that always seem to get shortchanged.

Jordahl: Instead of calling it Juvenile Justice Grant, we could call it Juvenile Crime Prevention, or something like that.

Stutsman: We could, yes. Pat had language.

Welsh: You could use such as and put a couple of examples in.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: Such as Juvenile Crime Prevention...

Stutsman: Yes.

Welsh: And something else.

Jordahl: Neighborhood centers...

Welsh: Transportation.

Lehman: Transportation. Not necessarily... but rural transportation. Do we need... in our ballot maybe we need to leave it rural. That may be misleading. They may think it's roads and bridges.

Jordahl: Yes, right, SEATS. But SEATS isn't technically under Human Services.

Stutsman: Well, we could.

Welsh: Again, if some how in your... I guess what I suggest is that you look at your percentages and then you have your legal staff look at your wording. But again, I relate again to what I heard Cole say, I think the terms collaborative projects is a good phrase (inaudible).

Lehman: Well I think that's why we have to limit our roads and bridges because they're going to get... If this thing flies county-wide, they're going to get more than what they need from what they collect. This is really a windfall for the county's people that everyone's aware of. I don't think we need to shove it all into the county area, no disrespect to Charlie's interests...

Stutsman: I agree.

Lehman:...but we need to be giving it back to the people who gave it to us too.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: I agree. I encourage the thought of it's county-wide.

Lehman: I think if our...

Stutsman: We're all in this together instead of... So are we comfortable with the 35 for roads and bridges, 25 for tax relief, 5% for Human Services and 35 for space needs?

Jordahl: We've seen a lot of growth and need in the Sheriff's Department outside of the jail, I wonder if law enforcement is something we want to throw in here somewhere.

Stutsman: Say for space needs such as the jail and... it was brought up at the Space Needs Committee and Pat White talked specifically about wording such as jail and operations of the jail.

Jordahl: Yes, I think we ought to fund the operations of the jail out of the general fund and not out of sales tax because we can build a jail once.

Stutsman: Should we say space needs such as jail then?

Jordahl: But we can't keep the jail running out of money, at a fixed or increasing cost, out of money that may go down.

Stutsman: Well and I think that's what Pat was referring to is that we are going to have to fund the jail out of the general fund. This is not going to be the only source of funding but this will be supplemental funding, additional funding, that we can draw on because we know we're going to have continually growing operating expenses with the jail. This will earmark some of those dollars from the Local Option Sales Tax to address some of those ongoing needs of jail expenses. We know it's going to fluctuate but this is not to say this is going to be your only source of funding for the operation of the jail is the Local Option Sales Tax.

Jordahl: I could live with that.

Stutsman: Yes, the problem with the space needs is how do the voters say that. Yes, right, you're going to pay for the jail and then you're going to fund a skate board park in the county.

Jordahl: Well instead of calling it space needs, the idea of capital or building, the idea of capital budgeting is the sales point here. We're going to be... as part of a plan, we've got the Space Needs Committee working on what the outcome of that should be is not just how do we address the current space needs, but how do we continue to be planning for the evolution of the space needs over time so we don't find ourselves in 20 years having to take another snapshot of the problem, but be budgeting now on an ongoing basis for things that we're going to need in 20 years. What do you say, Cole?

Chase: I didn't want to interrupt but I was just curious in terms of a definition for yourself, would you consider the Human Services proposal to renovate facilities, that expenditure, would that be considered a capital expenditure?

Stutsman: Space...

Chase: Would that meet your requirements for a capital expenditure?

Lehman: In Human Services could we use that for some buildings or rent or remodeling?

Chase: When you budget for capital projects, what do they tend to be? That's what you should consider when you...

Stutsman: Vehicles.

Jordahl: No, that's capital expenditures.

Stutsman: Oh, capital projects, I'm sorry.

Jordahl: Capital projects would include the renovation, I would think.

Chase: Would include the renovation, which obviously meets a space need. But does it address other things that might be space needs like partitioning additional space if you adopt a building code? Would it include the little cubicle walls that create space? I don't understand. I think what you've indicated is, and I see the same problem, I'm not exactly sure what is covered under space needs and what is covered under capital projects. I believe Janet suggested that you look towards your budget line items to steer you in those. Heck, she's your attorney. That may be one way to frame the language is think about the projects you'd like to be funded because you obviously had something in mind when you said space needs, Sally.

Stutsman: Oh, sure.

Chase: You have an idea of where you think it needs to go.

Stutsman: Right. The jail, the Department of Human Services, we could go on down the list, Health, the County Administration Building, the Courthouse...

Chase: Now are those all new facilities that are needed or... I'm just trying to find the word or phrase that captures that need because the need is already there.

Jordahl: I'm wondering if GIS would come under capital projects.

Stutsman: Well we haven't committed that this is the direction we're going to go so I'm hesitant to put that on the ballot.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Well, could we say capital projects such as the jail, Human Services Building...

Chase: Health, etc. You certainly could do that.

Stutsman: ...start listing all those that we've identified so far in our Space Needs Committee.

Chase: I'm not saying list all of them. Instead just list those 3, just a few... If you start listing them all, you're going to be saying stuff like the renovations for the Income out at...

Jordahl: Yes, what was the third one, Sally? Jail, Human Services and...

Stutsman: And Health would help.

Welsh: And Health could appeal to Charlie.

Jordahl: Yes.

Iowa City Press Citizen Reporter Katie Phillips: When you list those 3 are you still saying jail and operation costs?

Stutsman: No, we've kind of agreed to take operational costs out.

Lehman: The nice thing about having this jail under the space needs in presenting it, there will be a lot of information hopefully available before election day on what our needs are, maybe a dollar amount.

Stutsman: Yes.

Lehman: I realize you have early voting and all that kind of stuff but hopefully we'll be able to sell that idea of space...

Chase: (Inaudible).

Stutsman: Yes, and that was part of why we are moving ahead with this consultant is that he has agreed that he would have that information available if in fact we did put this on the ballot.

Lehman: In 2 months, 60 days?

Stutsman: Yes.

Lehman: OK, good.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: Great, that's an important point.

Stutsman: Right, right. Yes, he was informed of the March ballot, that we need this information before that if we are going to go ahead with this.

Jordahl: All right. Well you know, Bob, we have any empty chair up here. I wonder... You made a significant contribution to the discussion this morning, thank you. Questions? Yes?

Phillips: I have another question about Human Services. If you put Human Services, buildings and space needs, is the 5% designated in Human Services for programming or...

Stutsman: Yes.

Phillips: Or is it open?

Lehman: We had that as such as juvenile crime, rural transportation...

Stutsman: Yes.

Lehman: Anything else more specific?

Stutsman: Maybe we should say Human Services programming such as Juvenile Justice Grant...

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Because that is a good point.

Jordahl: Yes.

Lehman: Space needs being more physical as buildings and stuff...

Stutsman: Can we present these ideas then to Pat White to come up with...

Peters: I was going to say I'll get a document typed up...

Stutsman: OK.

Peters: Or drafted for your review before Thursday.

Stutsman: Very good.

Jordahl: Actually, we have a joint meeting with Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and the school district and so forth tomorrow afternoon at 4 o'clock and the Local Option Sales Tax is on the agenda so it'd probably be a good idea if we had something typed up before that to hand out and discuss. Not that we've finalized it but it's kind of like here's where we're at. Not necessarily a hand out but at least so we can have something to refer to.

Welsh: Again, a broken record, don't forget in your wording the value of what Cole suggested. That is using the term collaborative.

Jordahl: Yes, I'd have to agree on that.

Welsh: I think that word says something.

Lehman: Do you think we can get that on the ballot?

Stutsman: Why don't we have Carol work on some language so that we can respond to that...

Lehman: Do we want to refer to that if we can in the general area?

Jordahl: I wonder about roads and bridges because that's what animated Coralville. You haven't been party to all those discussions but CV is very reluctant to support this ballot initiative if we don't...

Lehman: Don't give something back to them.

Jordahl: ...if we aren't giving something back. What they specifically wanted was 965 and we, in having our discussions about that here, before you come on the Board, had sort of said no.

Stutsman: I think we better leave roads and bridges as is.

Jordahl: But can we... so not say collaborative in roads and bridges.

Stutsman: Yes, I would discourage that.

Lehman: We could do that in the tax relief, general.

Jordahl: It would be nice if we could point to a specific thing that is collaborative amongst the entities. I recognize that we are not at the point of decision on GIS to do that but as an example, GIS would be a fine thing to point to and say they have one, we're developing one, CV's got one, we want to make sure we're all on the same page.

Stutsman: Well and I guess...

Jordahl: Anywhere we put it here, it's going to benefit everybody. That kind of project that has obvious mutual benefit...

Stutsman: But I don't think we have reached agreement up here about 965 and I hesitate to put that in here when we haven't finalized that discussion.

Jordahl: So is there something that is on the list that we can characterize as equally collaborative?

Stutsman: The jail. Juvenile Justice is collaborative. You know there's...

Jordahl: Yes, too bad it's 5%.

Welsh: Jonathan, you could, rather than what I was suggesting, rather than saying collaborative efforts for each of these, you could either make a policy statement. I just checked this.

Jordahl: Yes, very good.

Welsh: (Inaudible) on the wording after you have all these 4 listings, you could say that Johnson County is committed in all these areas to seek collaborative efforts. Period.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: Very good.

Chase: I'd like to point out that I already see that from this Board. Particularly in the last 18 months or so, this Board has made a real strong effort towards working with the other jurisdictions. It's heartening for me.

Lehman: I thought he was going to say the last week.

Jordahl: I think Cole probably likes you too, Mike.

Stutsman: Not as much as he likes me, Mike.

Jordahl: Well very good. I like where we're at now. Should we quit while we're ahead?

Stutsman: Well I would suggest that we need to run these by Charlie. He needs to...

Jordahl: Yes, I like the summary. See what Charlie does with that. See here... What else do we have going on here?

(Continued in Part 4)