Reconvened on January 21, 1999 at 9:12 a.m. with Mike Lehman absent.

Jordahl: Convene the informal meeting. Discussion regarding meeting date with township trustees.

Peters: This is your once every 2 years meeting with the township trustees. In visiting with the Supervisors, he did express an interest of meeting with them again. I have checked with the County Attorney's Office to see what their available evening dates would be. So if I could get a couple of dates from you folks along with (inaudible) dates and I'll get back to Mr. Molling and the Ag Extension who has graciously agreed to accommodate this meeting again.

Stutsman: Were there some suggested dates Carol? I know we always have to work around Pat's schedule.

Peters: Janet has March 1st and 2nd, the 4th, 9th and 10th, 15th and 16th. And then the week of the 22nd: the 29th, the 30th, and the 31st.

Stutsman: Now March 2nd is Prairie Preview and that's at the Montgomery Hall. I think we just need to cross that date off because there's a lot of people that attend that and especially people that may be involved with trustees.

Jordahl: That's in the evening?

Stutsman: Uh-huh. 7:00.

Jordahl: And the week of the 15th and 16th is spring break.

Duffy: That's right.

Stutsman: OK. Well. Now what do we have left? How about the 4th, March 4th?

Peters: If I could have a couple of dates to get back to Gene it would sure be helpful.

Duffy: I think I might have to be in Des Moines on the 5th. If I do I'll go up on the 4th for economic development.

Peters: The 4th is your budget hearing.

Duffy: Budget hearing.

Peters: (inaudible) that kind of set aside.

Stutsman: Oh. OK. The 22nd, was that... Carol that second week, I'm sorry I didn't write down these dates, were there any available that week of the 8th?

Peters: The week of the 22nd or the 29th the 30th or the 31st?

Stutsman: I would say the 29th.

Peters: That's a Monday.

Stutsman: That's a Monday. Or the 31st.

Peters: Charlie?

Duffy: I want to try the 31st, that would be better for me.

Jordahl: 31st sounds good.

Duffy: And is this going to be in the evening?

Peters: Yes, this would be in the evening.

Duffy: OK.

Stutsman: Were there times in the week of the 22nd because you asked for.

Peters: Well it would be an evening meeting.

Stutsman: Right.

Peters: Oh you mean specific dates. No, she just said the week of the 22nd.

Stutsman: OK. Well the 29th and 31st I guess we'll... First choice being the 31st.

Jordahl: Sally had asked about the week of the 8th. Were there dates then?

Peters: On the 9th. The 9th and 10th.

Stutsman: Either of those dates would be OK with me at this point.

Jordahl: As an alternate too. Charlie does that work for you, the 9th or 10th?

Duffy: Wednesday would work better I believe on the 10th.

Jordahl: 10th would be better.

Stutsman: Sometimes the earliest we can move it in March before people start thinking about.

Jordahl: Yes that's right.

Peters: OK. So the first choice would be the 31st, the second would be the 29th, and the third would be the 10th.

Jordahl: Maybe Sally talking earlier, maybe the first would be the 10th. If that's not confusing enough for you to put numbers that way.

Peters: OK.

Jordahl: 10,1... 10, 1, 31, 2, 29, 3?

Stutsman: Yes that'd be mine.

Peters: OK. Thank-you very much and I'll get a memo back to you as soon as I can on this.

Duffy: OK.

Jordahl: Thank-you. OK then. Boy, we're still looking for reports from that County Attorney. We haven't got... Inquiries and reports from the public? Members of the public are quiescent this morning.

Reverend Bob Welsh: Let me again... Maybe I should say this when you have all the Supervisors here, in your budget. So I'll probably repeat this when others are there. As you look at your budget and your personnel costs, I would again encourage you to look at 2 possibilities. Number one, making it clear that you pass a resolution that personnel items are used only for personnel purposes. And number 2, that you lift from your budgeting at budgeting like 98% rather than 100% of your personnel items to take advantage and to recognize that there is going to be turnover, unpaid sickness, leaves and all. So that your rarely spend 100% of your personnel items. I was interested in the paper that, although I've been mentioning this to you now for at least the last 4 years I think, I was interested that the city manager in Iowa City suggested to the city council that in their budgeting this year that they could budget at 97% of personnel items.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Welsh: When you recognize that personnel is a huge expenditure in all the areas I think those 2 steps, if you saw fit to take them, would free up some dollars for some very needed items in the county.

Duffy: In other words they'd be switched to a different line item if there's extra dollars, that's really what you're saying.

Jordahl: Well we could put it in the...

Duffy: Some departments that... Somebody say retired or moved and then to replace that person probably at a lower cost than the person that's been there all those years.

Jordahl: Well anybody's talking about is something like what we're doing with capital budgeting where you wouldn't simply be able to say oh well we won't buy this $35,000 piece of equipment that's budgeted this year, we'll just hire somebody new. And then that person will be there as a permanent line and then next year we'll request that item and things kind of snowball.

Welsh: But the reverse is also true.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Welsh: You would not be able to take personnel items and buy computer, snowplow or...

Jordahl: Sort of maybe over staff yourself and then have a slushy, or whatever, or however this happens to wind up with extra money that we didn't approve expenditure for certain items. Yes that's...

Stutsman: And I don't think it's always a case of over staffing, it's just that positions don't get filled.

Welsh: Well that's right...

Jordahl: No, I retract that comment. That was bad to say.

Welsh: There's nothing that I'm implying mismanagement in that way. But what I'm suggesting is a management tool that I think faces reality, and that is that you do normally spend less that 100% of your budgeted items. Take that into account. Second thing is, if you budget for personnel, don't allow those dollars from personnel to go into non-personnel items.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Welsh: Now if there's a situation where the department head needs to come to you and say hey I have this need that I did not reasonably, was not able to project during the budget period of time, I would like to transfer some personnel item. Yes, you do that. But that would not be done at the discretion of the department heads, it would be done with the concurrent approval of the Board of Supervisors. I think that' s just a management administrative tool that those 2 actions would have a significant impact on your budget.

Jordahl: Would you suggest a restriction in the opposite direction as well? The case of the example that I mentioned of having another item in the budget you decide you could postpone in hiring a person out of it because I think we have an instance of that in some form in the current budget requests. Although the position still has to be approved by the Board as part of the budget.

Stutsman: I think these are good suggestions and I think they're suggestions that we need to take up in a work session when we review the budget and things.

Jordahl: Yes, I think it's a fine idea. You've brought it up before. It seems to be consistent with the idea of capital budgeting in a way. It'd be an interesting discussion. I don't know if we want to schedule that now.

Stutsman: Well I was thinking we are going to be meeting on the budget on Friday. And just need to... The first part of that discussion was going to be on priorities and maybe we can discuss it then. But then also I've always maintained that we need to continue this discussion about the budget even after we approve the budget so this maybe something the budget committee wants to bring forth to the Board. And especially during that time when we review the budget process. What we feel went well, what we need to make some changes on. So maybe that could be part of that discussion too. I kind of hesitate to put it in effect for this years budget because we didn't involve department heads and elected officials in this discussion so maybe it would be better to certainly have a discussion on that but just make sure that everybody's involved with it and we could go from there.

Duffy: Yes, Bob really we shouldn't discuss the budgets too much. But there's another way around that that I'll probably suggest myself.

Stutsman: But I thing that we need to put it on for another time. I'm getting kind of nervous about spending a lot of time discussing...

Duffy: Right we can't, we're not supposed to.

Stutsman: ...this when it's not on the agenda.

Duffy: Yes.

Jordahl: Yes.

Duffy: It's not on the agenda and we shouldn't be... Run it other (inaudible).

Welsh: (inaudible) leave for discussion from the public and I'm sharing with you what I want to give.

Jordahl: You bet.

Welsh: And let me say I think that it should be a part of your budget considerations for this year. It's a part of your budget. If that's an effective tool then you should use it. If it's not an effective tool then don't use it. But that is something that you all have to make that decision.

Jordahl: But with the provision that you suggested...

Stutsman: Jonathan maybe you just better thank Bob for his comments and we'll discuss this at another time.

Duffy: Yes, that's right.

Stutsman: I think we get into problems when we start having discussions about an issue that's brought up when it's not on the agenda. And I see Carol shaking her head so I think maybe we need to.

Jordahl: People seem not to want to discuss this anymore this morning. We'll put this on the agenda for...

Stutsman: Yes, this morning is the key point. It's not that we don't want to discuss it I think we just need to put it on the agenda and discuss it at another time.

Jordahl: And since we are discussing priorities tomorrow, it seems appropriate to discuss it tomorrow under priorities. So I would just assume we'll revisit this topic tomorrow during our budget discussions.

Stutsman: And I want to thank Bob for bringing this forward. I think it's appropriate to do that it's just we...

Welsh: No problem (inaudible).

Stutsman: I worry about us getting into a discussion when it's not on the agenda.

Welsh: Let me make a comment about priority in relation to personnel. I did ask Deana for a copy of that 16 page, she said kind of a listing. I gather that that is very out of date so I haven't been able to review all of those suggestions for personnel. Let me tell you from my perspective of what I've heard, what would be my number one and number 2 placings on priorities. These might surprise you since I'm more concerned historically with Human Services, but I would suggest that your number one priority be your Planning and Zoning request for personnel. And the reason for that is you have recently adopted a land use plan that has a very significant impact on this county. It is surely one of the major things that you do. In that plan there is whole process of ordinances to be enacted and that's not going to happen unless you provide the staff that is needed to that department. At least from my observations I have become convinced that it one of your very understaffed areas. It's also an area where if you do it wrong... In many cases if you do it wrong you can correct it. In this case, if you make land use decisions wrong, it's not possible usually without a lot of corrections, to undo it. And the other is I think that your County Attorney has made a very compelling case that there is more need for assistance in that area. And of course a third very obvious one is, since you've proved having a new station for the ambulance, you're going to have to staff that at that point. And not having seen the whole listing, just from my observations, I would offer those for your considerations.

Jordahl: OK.

Duffy: Bob there's a lot of things that we have to consider, and of course it's the taxpayers dollars that we're spending. And I'm glad, well I can't even comment on the ambulance. I'm kind of like Sally. Jonathan, I just don't like to get into this because it's not a...

Jordahl: You're welcome to sit in on the budget discussions tomorrow if you have the time.

Welsh: I'm going to be in Cedar Rapids discussing the budget for the Heritage Area Agency on Aging and the SEATS budget and the Nutrition Budget, Government Services budget.

Jordahl: We're scheduled to hammer on the budget all day tomorrow. I don't know how long the Board's going to actually last in the afternoon but we're on from 9 to 5.

Carol Spaziani: From 9?

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Spaziani: And then you'll be discussing budget priorities?

Jordahl: Priorities in the morning. Carol I wanted to ask about Rona Baranovis, is she scheduled to come in tomorrow or not?

Peters: She's going to meet with Charlie and Mike at 8 in the morning rather than take up budget...

Jordahl: All right, all right. But then was she going to make some briefer presentation to the Board as a whole?

Peters: Not until she got the additional (inaudible) that was...

Jordahl: Statistical stuff. OK. Good.

Stutsman: You might that Rona is with Blue Cross Blue Shield...

Jordahl: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Iowa.

Stutsman: We're talking about some...

Peters: ... representative.

Jordahl: Go ahead Sally.

Duffy: We have a space committee...

Stutsman: Oh no I was just go...

Duffy: ...meeting at the same time and so I have to run up and down the stairs.

Jordahl: Well that will be good for you I suppose. Moderate (inaudible)...

Duffy: Yes, I know that's why I'm so slim and trim.

Jordahl: The discussion with regard to Blue Cross for purposes of informing the public here has to do with the need to increase the premiums that the county is paying for its staff to have health insurance coverage. And this promises to figure as a very large item on the budget this year. We've had some significant claims and it looks like we need to increase the premium. That's going to limit the flexibility we have to deal with other budget items so it's an important discussion that's going on. Sally and I met with a Blue Cross representative along with Carol yesterday. I guess Mike and Charlie are going to meet with her tomorrow and we'll try and... And Lora Shramek the Human Resources Administrator, to try and get a range on just exactly how much this increase has to be. So we will stay tuned. We asked for some additional information on what projected claims we will have in the future based on our specific demographics and our workforce. We have actually a fairly large bulge of employees between the ages of 55 and 65 that might be not characteristic of the population as a whole. So we're looking for what are the implications of that for our need to build our reserves in this fund. OK. Where are we at? We're in inquiries and reports from the public. I'm doing a lot of talking for inquiries and reports from the public. Anybody else? OK. We're still looking for that County Attorney's representative, 9:30. Well let's go to reports and inquiries from members of the Board of Supervisors. Charlie you got anything going on?

Duffy: Last Tuesday I went out to Autumn Park and had dinner with the Senior Dining Program with the folks that use that. Had a real good time. I really enjoyed myself. It's enjoyable situation for me and I think maybe the folks that eat dinner and very good dinner. Liver and onions and everything to go with it this time. I kind of like to do things like that. We have a, had a SEATS committee meeting yesterday at the library from 1:30 to 3:00 and Sally was there and there were some differences of opinions but we've got some subcommittees now and I'm on a couple of them and Sally is too. Very interesting meeting to keep a very good, viable SEATS... The people that use SEATS service I guess you call it. So I thought it was a good meeting yesterday. Again the Chamber of Commerce Ag Committee is going to have their first breakfast on Friday January 29th at 7:00 a.m. and that's down at Montgomery Hall and it's $5 per person for a breakfast buffet. If you go away hungry it's your own fault. And we're going to have a speaker there from Holden's Foundation Seeds Incorporated Williamsburg. This is for anybody that wants to come. You don't have to be a farmer. So we'll have a series of these meetings. I guess that's it.

Jordahl: OK. Sally?

Stutsman: I have a lengthy report this morning so bare with me. But I think it's a lot of information that I think I need to share with my fellow Supervisors and the public. First of all I want to say yesterday I had a meeting, a day that was full of meetings. I started at 8:00 in the morning I went to 8:00 last night and attended 7 meetings, no lunch and half an hour for supper. Now I'm not bragging and I'm not complaining I just want to inform people that this is a day in a Supervisor's life. I won't say that this is a typical day but it's certainly not as atypical as the rest of my fellow Supervisors will attest to. On Tuesday I attended ISAC, Iowa State Association of Counties, so that's why I wasn't at the Board meeting on Tuesday. Mike is at ISAC now for the new Supervisors meeting which is a lot of good information to share, but there were a number of things that came up that I wanted to share. One of the sessions I attended had to do with workforce development and the changes that are going on with that program. They had an attorney who spoke plus representatives from Workforce Development in Des Moines. Steve Smith is a Division Administrator and John Bargman is the Enterprise Team Leader for Workforce Development and then Carl Sammons who is the attorney with Austin and Godyare in Des Moines and talked about some of the discrepancies in the law. The federal law and the state law are saying one thing and then what they're asking the local people to do is something different so there are some things that need to be worked out. One of the issues is the liability issue. It seems like there again they're passing that liability concern onto the counties so we need to be involved in that and get our concerns to our local Workforce Development people about what's going on with those things. They did have a slide presentation and I have a copy of the overheads that were used and I'll pass that to the Supervisors. It basically explained the changes in the law that went into effect in 98 and kind of gave a good overview. My experience, I have limited experience with workforce development but it's kind of a lot to keep up with the changes, the acronyms with this program and what's going on but there again, the focus is getting decision making on the local level. And so there is some important things that we need to be informed of and keep abreast of. Some of the things that they talked about are some of the same issues that we're facing with the Empowerment Zone legislation. Just some details that need to be worked out so we'll keep up on that. The ISAC business meeting, Miles Butler is chair and he's a Supervisor from I think Hamilton County and he is the chair of the Supervisors' affiliate. Joe Davidson from Clinton County which is in our district is Secretary-Treasurer. They are making some changes in the bylaws for the Supervisors' affiliate and I will circulate that information if you're interested in looking at it. They're not any major changes just basically some minor language changes. But anyway those will be voted on in the March Supervisors' affiliate meeting. There's also a packet of information about rules regarding animal feed lot operations. And this is a notice of intended action on amendments and they handed that out to Supervisors and this is from the department of natural resource. There again I'll pass this around if any of you are interested in looking at that and seeing what some of those amended changes will be. Lunch, we had members from the legislature come over and give some overviews about some of the legislation they were working on. Representative Brent Siegrist who is the majority leader was there, Representative Dave Schrader who is the minority leader in the House of Representatives. Dick Myers was also there as assistant minority leader. And then from the senate side, Stewart Iverson who is the majority leader and Mike Gronstal. And they talked about working on issues such as education, methamphetamine use in the state of Iowa, recreation and tourism opportunities, talked about working on property tax relief through the mental health program, talked about the budget limitation on the Stanley Amendment, Workforce Development, the rollback and those were just some of the highlights of the legislation that they'll probably be addressing this year. A comment about the Stanley Amendment, I heard this morning that that has already passed the senate, that it's on the way to the house. I think this is something that will be taken to, well it will be taken to the voters, that's what is being proposed. I think that there needs to be a real education effort as to what this means. Some of the comments from the legislators were that there's some concerns about having a formula determine what our budget limitations will be or what our property tax and tax limits will be for people. And I don't know if that's really the direction we want to go as far as including that in the constitution but there will be a lot of focus on that as the year goes on.

Jordahl: For those who may not know exactly what the Stanley Amendment means, could you briefly phrase that?

Stutsman: OK, I hope I can. What it will do is that it will be a part of the state constitution of Iowa that we cannot go over a certain amount of money as far as the budget. And I'm not exactly clear about all the details but what it basically says is that you will be required by the state constitution as to how far your budget will be and not being able to go over that amount.

Jordahl: That would simplify our decisions wouldn't it?

Stutsman: Well yes, and it puts some real limits on what we can do. I think we on the local level really base our budget on what we see the needs are and if there is a formula saying that this is what this will be then it puts a lot of limitations on what we can do on addressing the needs of people. But I'm sure there'll be a lot of discussion and thoughts about this. Part of what will happen now is that it will go to the voters in the state of Iowa and they will make the final determination as to whether this will be included in the constitution. Also had a report from ISAC and their lobbying efforts. Met the new lobbyist from ISAC that has recently been hired and that's Mike Winslow, and he was a former Tama County Supervisor and so that's who we'll be working with as a lobbyist if we have any concerns. In the afternoon we had a presentation by the juvenile detention association. Peg Panghorn from the Linn County Detention Center and Sarah Brown from the Black Hawk County Detention Center and, let's see, Tony Reeds from the Central Iowa Detention Center at Eldora came to Supervisors and asked for their help in getting some legislation changed at the state level concerning payment of detention cost. I think we complain about what an additional burden detentions costs are here in Johnson County but I think it's pretty safe to say that every county in the state of Iowa is feeling the same impact that we're feeling as far as detention costs. Everybody's talking about doubling detention costs on the local level. So this is something that had a lot of relevance to everybody in the room and I think it's great that they brought this issue forward and are asking for Supervisors' help in talking to the legislature and getting these things changed. They talked about the Supervisors as an affiliate, and just by our numbers have a lot of influence with our legislators so we need to just recognize that influence and start using our abilities to get some changes in legislation. What they're asking is that to amend the Iowa code, to clarify the payment for juvenile detention when used as a dispositional option. And what is happening is that when a child or a juvenile is sent to detention it's part of a court order. Well, what's happening is a lot of these judges are using detention as a detriment and that we are forced to pick up the payment. For instance if a child is on probation, a juvenile is on probation, that juvenile breaks probation, a judge will order them into detention and that cost is picked up by the counties and so it is really creating a tremendous cost to counties to do this. And so they are advocating that the state pick up these post dispositional costs. They are also asking that the state needs to guarantee the commitment made in the code to pay at least 10% of the actual cost of detentions. And the things that happen that we just aren't always aware of, the code of Iowa says that the state will pay a pick-up, 10% of those detention costs. The code says one thing, what the legislature appropriates to pick up those costs is something different. Last year they appropriated 8.2% of those dollars. The year following it's anticipated they will appropriate 6% of those costs and the year after that it's talking about 4% of those costs. Well, it's required that somebody pay those costs, so when the State doesn't pay those costs, guess who pays them? It's the local people that pay them. So I think we just need to tell the legislature that they need to pay what they said they need to pay what they said they were going to pay. And we need to put pressure on them that they need to appropriate those dollars and quit shifting that cost to the local level. We talked a lot about the cost at the local level. I guess my concern to us is about the programming for these kids that are being housed in detention until there's room for them to go into these residential treatment facilities. Detention never was set up to be a treatment program. It was always meant to be short term 48 hour care. Because the legislature put a cap on residential treatment beds, many times there is no choice but to leave these kids in detention which not only doesn't address their programming needs but also is very expensive care. We're talking about $125 a day to $165 a day for kids to sit in detention. And there is all kinds of horror stories about these kids sitting in detention for up to 3 months waiting for a residential treatment bed to open up. And so I think we need to work with the legislature too to say this cap on these residential treatment beds is just not working. It was a bad public policy decision. It is putting undo pressure on the counties as far as cost plus it is just not good programming for the kids that are involved in the juvenile programs. So anyway I will make a copy of this legislation priority, and I think we as a Board need to really begin working with the legislature to address some of these things and make our concerns be known. Talking about going to the legislature, ISAC has a program called County a Day. We have not signed up for this. And what that is, is having each County in the State of Iowa take a day where we just go and visit with the legislature and help ISAC staffing in lobbying for these issues. So I hope that maybe we can schedule a day where we can all go up and be a part of this program. They've had tremendous response and I think we need to be a part of that too just to make ourselves be a presence at the legislature.

Jordahl: Did they have a calendar of dates?

Stutsman: Yes. I left my name with Jerry Nobudah from ISAC staff and they'll be calling us Friday so we'll come up with some dates and see how that works with everybody's schedule.

Jordahl: Regarding that cap on residential treatment beds, I had a question there too. I know that that's a funding question. They put a limited amount of money into it. That they're providing to merit to cover these, and give a certain amount to each County as an allocation. But do you know, or was it discussed in a meeting whether there's more capacity? I mean are there...

Stutsman: The capacity's there, it's just that the State won't pay for it.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: And so that's where the problem is. And it was a public policy decision. It was made when the State was having, in so much trouble financially, and so they thought that this was an area to save money. And it just has not worked. It has just backed up the system. It has not met the needs of juveniles, and I think we're going to pay, continue to pay a real price if this policy is left in place. So I think we need to really be forceful in getting the legislature to say that we need these beds for these kids. They need to get treatment when it's appropriate for that and that we can't be putting these kids into detentions just because there's no residential treatment beds available.

Duffy: Sally are we talking about hard-core juvenile detention?

Stutsman: Right.

Duffy: Under report really, and this used to be a big issue with us when we talked about it 6 months ago and it still is a real big issue. But actually to say what 10% more, 10% of child that's in juvenile detention. And again these are the ones that we really have to straighten out. We pay something like, and we're still doing it probably. Cedar Rapids for example, I think it's $96 a day and that could go up to $216 a day when they get their new facility.

Stutsman: Yes, it's not a cheap situation at all. And there again if we can... Residential treatment is just a lot less costly and it's in some cases what kids need. They don't need to be locked up. They need to have some programs that address their problems.

Duffy: I would agree that...

Stutsman: Otherwise they're going to show up in the adult court system. We're just prolonging, forcing a situation that is not getting addressed.

Duffy: I think in the long run, not only would this help out these children I guess you'd say. But it'd help out the taxpayers because you would head this off at the pass and here's more people.

Jordahl: Yes, that's right.

Duffy: Long term sentences in the jail.

Jordahl: This is one of the clearest examples of cost shifting that I've ever heard described. They say we have to pay for this so we won't fund anymore than that amount of this, but guess what? There are more juveniles that are a problem, so any others that are a problem you guys just handle badly and expensively until whenever. We need to have this on the agenda too, because this came up the other day and maybe we can put this on for.

Stutsman: Well when you think about... they sit in Des Moines with this huge budget surplus. Is this responsible, to start talking about tax relief when these issues are being shifted down to the local level. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. But until we make our concerns known then nothing's going to change.

Jordahl: I'd like to see some points on the agenda item. One would be making ourselves felt on this. Which means maybe writing a letter authorizing the chair to sign or something like that. But secondly, discussion of the point that I brought up when Brandon Beaudry I think brought this to us, is if it's cheaper and better to provide a treatment bed and if we have treatment beds available then why should we not do that instead of detention.

Stutsman: But this is a State responsibility and they're not sharing the responsibility.

Jordahl: But it's not treatment. I mean the response... The State's responsibility is to pay for it but I don't see any... I don't want to discuss the issue now. It's not on the agenda to discuss.

Stutsman: Well I think there's a lot of concern that this is the way to address this problem is just to make the state pay their share. That it's not, it's an undo burden counties to expect them to pick up these costs and things.

Jordahl: But detention is a bigger burden on us then residential treatment would be. So I want to pay for residential treatment.

Stutsman: I'm not hearing any support though, even from people that work in the juvenile detention for counties to assume even more of that responsibility. Their focus is for the State to do what they... in the code sense supposed to do.

Jordahl: We could send them a copy of the Code and a copy of our bill for residential treatment and say this is yours.

Stutsman: Well, and that's the kind of things that we need to present to them and say this just simply is not working. Going on, there were a couple of speaker that spoke about meth labs. There was a DEA agent and Scott Anderson who is the Hamilton County sheriff. That was a pretty scary presentation they gave on what's happening with the meth problem in the state of Iowa. Basically what the Hamilton County Sheriff spoke to, and he did an excellent job, was that we are not going to make much of an impact on the supply of methamphetamine. That it is such a well thought out program of how it is produced and the lines that get it here. Where we have to really address the problem is to reduce the demand. And that's by working with young people, working with people so that they don't have the desire to get into drugs and things. Had a Juvenile Justice Policy Board meeting yesterday. We moved to change the structure of the Board to include the asset development approach to working with young people. So that will be a regular component of the Juvenile Justice Policy Board. Had a presentation from Joan Cook at RSVP and Stu Mullins from youth homes talking about how they use asset approach in working with young people and people in the community. So you'll be hearing more about how we can incorporate this approach building out what we already have in working with young people in the community. We also talked a little bit about how we can educate the community in talking about the Local Option Sales Tax. The County did say that they would use a part of the moneys if the sales tax passed for juvenile justice programming. So we will probably have a subcommittee that will work in educating the community about how these dollars are used and how important they are to young people in the community. With Charlie, attended the SEATS Advisory Board meeting. There were some policy proposals presented on no shows, on carry-on baggage and customer conduct. As Charlie said, there were draft that were presented. These drafts were referred to a sub-committee. Bob Simpson, who is chair of that SEATS Advisory Committee asked for public written comments to be submitted to him by February 5th so I will circulate those drafts for Board members to look over. Those drafts will be presented again at the next Advisory Committee meeting and then they will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval before any of those policies are put in place or changed. We also, Lisa also presented a writer's guide. And there again the same process, a subcommittee will review that. We'll talk about it at the next advisory committee meeting. People can make written comments on that writers guide and that will again be brought to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Lisa handed out reports on performance and also talked about ideas that we can discuss at next advisory committee meetings about transit challenges for the year 2000. And there were some good thoughts that were brought forward about things that we need to be thinking about and challenges that we will be having. So I think it's a good committee. Lots of interest and lots of public input.

Duffy: Sally could I? There's one thing. I think the next meeting was set for March 17th and we're going to be in Des Moines for ISAC...

Stutsman: Oh we will?

Duffy: ...on the 17th, 18th and 19th.

Peters: (inaudible) instructions.

Duffy: Spring school instructions so we should...

Stutsman: We might have to change that.

Duffy: ...inform Bob Simpson that, and he did a good job chairing the meeting. We'll have to change the meeting date I guess.

Stutsman: Had JCCOG meeting yesterday afternoon. Chuck Hippee from North Liberty was elected chair and Marty Jones from University Heights was elected vice-chair. Made some changes in the arterial street plan that affect North Liberty and Coralville. I have that information if anybody is interested in seeing that. Also attended the Rural Policy Board meeting last night. Angela Williams who did the housing needs assessment gave a short presentation about her findings. Remember the County contracted with her to do a community, a housing needs assessment in the unincorporated area and a number of the small towns in Johnson County. So she will, I asked her if she would come to the Board of Supervisors and present the findings that she discovered during that housing needs assessment.

Jordahl: She did call this morning by the way after we put on the agenda. She was asking for the first week of February and I suggested the second would probably be better with the budget process we're in.

Stutsman: Real good. Brad Neuman talked about the landfill grant applications. Each year there are grants that businesses or government entities or individuals can apply for. If they have some ideas on how to reduce waste going into the landfill. And so those grants have been submitted. They will be reviewed and final determinations will be made. I don't know if we've ever submitted any grant ideas. I didn't know... It's too late for this year but maybe next year we can be talking about maybe some ideas that we might have because I think you can get up to $5,000 to help pay for a compost or recycling bins. I know a local business got some monies for a cardboard compactor to use in his business. So I think it's a good program. It's a good opportunity to help fund some things that we might not be able to do. Also Brad reported that they are working on a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility out at the Iowa City landfill so that will be available to every resident in Johnson County. So if you have hazardous waste we don't have to worry about just having that day be once or twice a year. It will be at a permanent site at the landfill. They will have to make appointments to take your hazardous waste out there and they will only be open, for instance like a Saturday morning, or something like that. Those details will be worked out. But I think it's real exciting to know that there will be a permanent facility. And also in addition to that permanent facility there will be an exchange program, where like if you have some garden chemicals that you only have a little bit of and you don't really want to throw out, you don't have any more need for it, you can take it out there and then somebody else can come in and say ah, this is just what I need. I know I...

Spaziani: That's wonderful.

Stutsman: Yes, isn't that a great idea? I know this last winter I bought a can of spray paint because I had one little Christmas thing I needed green paint for. Well, now I've got this whole can and I think what am I going to do with this kelly green spray paint. So this will just be perfect for me know to take that out there, and somebody else might have a use for it.

Duffy: Sally I don't like to be negative but I think this should be scrutinized. You're talking about hazardous materials that maybe have been in somebody's garage for years and years, so this is really going to have to be watched.

Stutsman: And that's why you have to make an appointment Charlie to go out there. Because then they there's somebody available, especially if it's not labeled. If it's labeled and you know what it is, no problem. But if it's not, if you say I've got some stuff that's been in my garage for 10 years, I don't know what it is anymore, then they will have staff there and can take that stuff and handle it appropriately. So I think it's great that they're doing it and I really congratulate the Iowa City landfill for putting this program in place. I think that's it. Any questions? Got lots of stuff I'll be passing out to my fellow Supervisors.

Jordahl: Well I'm real pleased about that hazardous waste stuff. When they've had hazardous waste collection days in the past, you go out to the fairgrounds and there's this line of cars and the Sheriff's Department is out there, oh man. I've gone out there a number of times and just turned away because it was just hopeless. Not to say that this wasn't a grand thing to do, but this is going to be so much more functional.

Stutsman: Right, I agree and I really am glad they're going to do it.

Duffy: And plus dollar wise here, it wasn't that long ago, a few years back it had cost so much and some of this hazardous material waste powders that I can't afford this. I know a few cases like that and so they just didn't do it. So yes, this is really going to help.

Jordahl: And what are people doing with this stuff that haven't been... Maybe they've been frustrated with the difficulty in getting rid of it before. What do they do? They take it to the landfill anyway and kind of surreptitiously kind of throw it over there? Do they keep it at home in an unsafe condition and wind up with some kind of a disaster at home?

Duffy: Well the cost was real high to do it and (inaudible) to do it.

Stutsman: Now Brad says that this won't be in place until the latter part of the summer but if we calls saying when's the next hazardous waste cleanup day, we can say this is how it's going to be handled.

Jordahl: Well, looking toward a short meeting and looking at the clock ticking, we have about 3 minutes left here. I bet I can finish a report in less than 3 minutes. You think? Can you believe it? We still haven't got the County Attorney. I suppose I can stall.

Duffy: I'll take that bet Jonathan.

Jordahl: Yesterday I did not attend some of the same meetings that Sally went to, although I theoretically was supposed to, because of a meeting on Geographical Information Systems (GIS) that was called as a special meeting, a kind of Computer Committee, to review the earlier judgement that committee had made not to authorize the Auditor's Office to go ahead with the grant application for GIS software. Ultimately the committee sustained its earlier recommendation and, not to be negative, but rather to affirm its commitment to the importance of a professionally conducted and detailed needs assessment. So that before we go spending the large amount of money that would be involved in developing a GIS system we lay out a plan for how we're going to spend that money and that will then allow the Board to look in more detail, and particularly to bring 2 new Board members up to speed on the question of whether we want to make this commitment or not and allow us to justify that expenditure. And then secondly, reaffirming the commitment to the idea of having a central county GIS coordinator if we make the commitment to doing GIS which I would personally like to see us do, I think it'd be very important for us, that we would have one central person doing that. Some of the Auditor's grant application sort of implied that there would need to be additional staff hired for the Auditor's Office to implement the grant and to justify the grant to the ESRI corporation that is offering it. That same money could be spent on the coordinator ultimately. So rather than having a staff position now for GIS we're going to wait until we have the needs assessment and make a decision about the whole project. I think that was a reasonable conclusion that was made but we did spend a considerable time listening to it. Again I think a very reasonable presentation from the Auditor's Office. They had a very persuasive presentation. A couple of components here, they brought range books and plat books in with... The just... pages tumbling and shredded edges and the things all hand written and talking about the need to update those and the need to integrate the various levels of mapping data and real-estate data that we have. So I don't think there's much question that they would benefit from GIS. Personally, I believe we should do it, I think it's just a question of by what stages do we progress. And the county wide committee was firm in saying we want to have the study first. So I hope the Board will look favorably upon spending some money for that study because we're walking away from an opportunity to get free software in order to wait for the study.

Stutsman: This was brought up at the joint city, county, Coralville, North Liberty school district meeting. Has there been any communication about coordinating with all these entities in the county and moving towards GIS?

Jordahl: No, I think what I want to do is put that as an agenda item for the next JCCOG meeting and get some background work done toward that, in advance of that meeting.

Stutsman: I guess I would really be supportive of moving towards a cooperative effort in dealing with this GIS so that we're all not duplicating anything. We're all maximizing what everybody's got invested in this and have more of a coordinated effort on this.

Jordahl: Yes, that raises a question of perhaps some sort of a joint needs assessment too of how that might be developed and maybe we could get some funding assistance from the other entities. But we could still have that discuss putting some money into a line in the budget to contribute to that whether it's for a Johnson County coordinator just for the county government or whether it's a Johnson County Council of Governments coordinator. I think in either case we should go in the same direction. Let's see. Other things I'm just... I want to be looking forward a little bit here. Heritage Area Agency on Aging meets in the Senior Center on Monday at 1:30. Folks interested in issues related to seniors. The Assessor's Conference Board's annual meetings are Monday evening, 6:00 in the Community Center for the Iowa City Assessor and 7:00 here in the County Administration Building for the Johnson County Assessor. And that's kind of a joint governance structure that we're representatives of the town and the county all sit in and contribute to reviewing the budget and policies of those departments. And a departments' head meeting. One of the things that I really enjoy about county government in the last couple of years is an increase in the amount of plain old communication that we're doing, not only within county government but with other cities and counties. We have joint meetings with Linn County and looking forward to putting the idea of a joint meeting with Cedar Rapids back on the table, for getting a date on that. And on, when is it? Tuesday the 26th, so next Tuesday we're have a department heads meeting here in this room at... What time is that? 1:30 I think. Wednesday the 26th. I've got 1:00.

Stutsman: : On the 26th?

Jordahl: Yes. Right?

Peters: I'm sorry it is 1:00 Jonathan.

Jordahl: 1:00.

Peters: The next elected officials is 1:30. That's what I was thinking.

Jordahl: Yes, 1:00 on the 26th, Tuesday. And we're in the middle of the budget process. We've kind of had a week off here with the Iowa City Association of Counties meeting in Des Moines but we're going to hit it again tomorrow and go as long as we can. And then most of our free time in the next couple of weeks is scheduled with budget meetings. So people are interested in that process will be here doing it. Looking at our priorities first thing tomorrow and then moving into a department by department review of all requests and trying to get a global sense of what rates where in our sense of where we ought to go.

Stutsman: Jonathan I needed to mention one more thing that I forgot to mention.

Jordahl: Yes, go ahead.

Stutsman: Another thing that was brought up at ISAC, remember when Pat comes in every year and talks about these child support moneys? We are a part of a group that has hired an individual that works on recouping these child support moneys. And in the past we have gotten any... We have met the cost of that program, but any dollars that have been collected beyond the cost has gone back to the counties. Well the federal government now wants to change that, so that we won't get any of those moneys. Supposedly, what they said is that they heard in the state of Iowa... And we've been very successful at this. This has been a very, very successful program. That they heard we were using these monies to build roads and bridges and they didn't like that anymore so they're just going to say that we can't keep these monies... extra moneys that we recoup. They will allow the lead County, which in our case is Linn County, to meet all their administrative costs, they'll hire their staff person and what not. But beyond that we will not be able to keep any of those moneys.

Jordahl: So where will the money go?

Stutsman: Well that's a good question. And it sounds like there's still lots of meetings to be set to discuss this. So I think they said if you had concerns about this talk to Kay Chelsea who is the Supervisor from Wright County who evidently is working on this committee, and David Vestal. And I was hoping Pat would be here this morning so I could ask him what kind of impact that's going to have on our budget, how much additional monies that is. But they said that counties just need to be aware that this might be coming down. So here's another example of... It's not really a cost ship but it's really not allowing us to take in those revenues.

Duffy: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Well...

Duffy: Jonathan you lost.

Stutsman: Carol do you remember how much that amounted to?

Duffy: You said 3 minutes.

Peters: No, but they've had that incentive plan.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: Well, does it count if Sally talked? No I did talk longer than 3 minutes.

Duffy: Could I mention a couple of things? Yesterday we did have the elected officials meeting. And that was, when was that? Last Tuesday.

Jordahl: Wednesday I think I believe.

Duffy: Wednesday or something. And Pat White has been elected as director for 1999 to by...

Jordahl: It was Tuesday.

Duffy: ...unanimous decision.

Stutsman: OK.

Duffy: Maybe someday we should put on the agenda GIS, just what it is.

Jordahl: Yes.

Duffy: For the general public.

Stutsman: That's a good idea Charlie.

Duffy: Because it is kind of complicated and it's going to cost some dollars. But I think the county government is heading that way.

Jordahl: Yes, there are people that are really eager to have it: the Assessors, the Auditor, the Recorder, the Zoning Department, and me.

Duffy: Well OK.

Stutsman: And even...

Jordahl: And Roads and SEATS.

Stutsman: The acronyms we use was another thing I picked up at ISAC. Alphabet soup. All these acronyms and what they mean. And especially with Workforce Development, I can't keep up with those acronyms in that program. So I'll pass this around to you.

Duffy: Sally, could I ask you one more question under your reports? I didn't quite get all of what you said about the federal government. It might take back some of our moneys for roads and bridges?

Stutsman: No, they're talking about those incentives that we used to get for this child support recovery. When we got the monies and that when all the costs were met in the program. Anything that was left over we got to put into our budget. And they were thinking that we were using that money to build roads and bridges and they said the state...

Duffy: We can't do that.

Stutsman: I know, I know. But that was just the example that was thrown out at the ISAC meeting. That they thought we weren't using those monies wisely, or they could you use them better. Anyway, so they're taking those incentive dollars away so that we'll meet the cost of the program but there won't be any additional dollars.

Duffy: Really the high costs of the roads and bridges are 4-laners. Some of them they're working on now, I get a report by Muscatine and Davenport it's half done, that's all you hear is interstate highways, Des Moines, another 4-laner from Des Moines to Marshalltown. One from Des Moines to Burlington, and there's a lot of dollars connected with that. Evidently we're talking about maybe a little different thing. But no we can't switch for other programs other road (inaudible).

Stutsman: No, no. Well I think it's just one of those things where they see some extra dollars. They'd rather have them in their budgets than our budgets.

Jordahl: Too bad we can't reverse that somehow. Because I see some extra dollars, the state's got some. Is there a way we could make a little ordinance here that requires the state to give us dollars?

Duffy: Really when the money shifted to the state instead of directly through the counties and then we're the last ones. We have to go through 2 different hoops instead of straight from the feds to the end. What we're talking about here is tax dollars from gasoline tax mostly. So it's going to be interesting. I'm glad we've got some good people representing us in the budget (inaudible). And I know Dick Myers really helped on the revenue we get from mental health from the State. I think he's trying to get us more for that, because that's a real big item.

Stutsman: But I think it just shows how involved we have to be at the state level because these laws are passed and it has a direct impact on what we're doing on the local level. And sometime it creates a real hardship for what we want to do.

Jordahl: Well Charlie we missed our 10:00 deadline. But we've given the County Attorney ample time to come I think.

Duffy: Right.

Jordahl: So, in view of that we're going to do a little parliamentary gymnastics here. And we're going to adjourn the informal meeting. And we will then re-enter the formal meeting immediately as in the County Attorney adjourn it.

Adjourned at 10:12 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary