Reconvened on February 4, 1999, at 10:02 a.m. with Jordahl present.

Jordahl: Reports and inquiries from the County Attorney.

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: I think you've heard enough from me today.

Jordahl: Inquiries and reports from members of the public.

Welsh: Let me ask you. I haven't been able to attend many of your budget meetings but I did make one suggestion to you in relation to a policy that you might establish in relation to personnel, which was in terms of using personnel items only for personnel.

Jordahl: Yes.

Welsh: The other item... I made a suggestion to you. I know you get a lot of staff increases and I had suggested to you from my observation that the Planning and Zoning Department and the County Attorney needs for staff has become very apparent to me. I've learned that if you wait until your public hearing, that's really almost too late to make any impact. I just wondered where you all were on the first of all adopting the policy and the other in terms of your prioritization of additional staff.

Jordahl: Let me respond to that if I may for the Board. We have taken quite seriously, I think, your recommendation about personnel changes. We, throughout the budget process, have looked at what difference would it make. How would we apply this? Would it restrict the department heads' freedom to determine what they are doing with their budget or respond flexibly to situations. How would we phrase such a policy? When can we implement it and so forth. There's been a lot of attention paid to your suggestion. There's been serious discussion about let's go ahead and implement it right away and the conclusion I think we have come to is very important that the department heads whom this would affect have an opportunity to comment on this policy, to express their concerns about it and to advise us about when we could practically implement this, whether this could be done for the Fiscal Year 2000 comfortably or not. Maybe there's a way they would have done their budgets differently had they known that the policy was going to be in place. So what we proposed to do is to have a process whereby the department heads are involved in a discussion of such a policy before we implement it from above. But I look forward to that discussion. I think we've seen some numbers of dollars in our budgets over the last 3 years. We had a chart of that produced in the budget process that showed in fact significant amounts of money in personnel lines that had gone unspent. However, roughly half of that was in Secondary Roads, where the money cannot be spent. It cannot be taken out of that for the general fund. It stays there. Deana Pillard, our Deputy Administrative Assistant who works with us primarily on budgets, has suggested that although the total of unspent personnel lines is a fairly substantial number, that those moneys did not go unspent. They were spent on other lines in the budget and perhaps, if people knew they weren't going to have the flexibility in personnel lines, they might budget a larger number in those other lines. We might not in the end save as much money as we'd think we'd save right off the top. It's an open topic. We have taken it seriously. We're going to do what in our best judgment is appropriate for that. I think it is a very good suggestion. We're taking it very seriously.

Welsh: If I could comment on that one before you go to the other one... Say the department heads budget differently. I would hope that's not the case because that would suggest that the department heads are in a sense fudging on their personnel items. I can't believe that they would do that. I think they are...

Jordahl: I certainly don't mean to suggest that. They've been accustomed to being able to utilize flexibility which might come to exist to meet needs that might occur in midyear that hadn't been foreseen and we would be removing that degree of flexibility from their control over their department. That's something that I'm sure they are going to want to have something to say about. What I'm saying by budgeting differently if they knew that they were not going to have that flexibility from unfilled personnel lines, they might then budget in some flexibility in other lines in their budget so they would be able to respond to similar unforeseen things. That's not necessarily fudging. It's a question of them trying to be able to respond to the needs that they know over time have occurred in their departments. We need to have that discussion.

Stutsman: Yes. Can I make one comment about involving department heads and elected officials in this change of policy? I think the Board over the last couple of years has worked very, very hard to initiate open communication between department heads, elected officials and this whole budget process. This would be a dramatic change. We thought it only appropriate to have an open discussion about this and how it affects department heads so that's why we're moving towards the direction of having a wrap up session on the budget with department heads and elected officials. This will be definitely one of those things that will be discussed at that time.

Jordahl: Then your other question concerned personnel. Well this one's personnel too but the hiring of new personnel. We have not finalized the budget but we have made some fairly... you know we're closer and we'll be looking at the results as our tentative decisions are rolled through our budget. On Monday we have a meeting to see how this all looks in terms of it's impact on property taxes and various classes of property and various departmental lines and so forth. But we have, in the case of the Planning and Zoning Department where you mentioned a particular need, chosen to postpone adding any additional staff in that office for planning purposes until we have a report from the Building Codes Committee, which I understand will recommend some changes in the Planning and Zoning Department that might include the addition of staff to deal with building codes. At that time we expect to see a plan for the reorganization of the office more generally from the Administrator of the office. We've indicated that at that time we would look at those requests once we saw how the whole office was configured.

Welsh: How does that time line fit in... I guess my feeling is... the reason why there's a need in that area was in the Land Use Plan and you set up the schedule in terms of the adoption of ordinances.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Welsh: If you don't have additional staff, it would mean that either those will not be done or other things would be sacrificed or you would need to go to hiring consultants. At this point, I agree with Supervisor Duffy that often times the in-house (inaudible) can do a much better job. I would hope that this is one (inaudible) as you do your wrapping up and reconsideration that you'll look at that because I think, not to put Carol on the spot, but one of the things that impressed me with Carol was that... as all the applicants were asked, what do you think of the Land Use Plan. One of the things that impressed me was that Carol said if I'm appointed, I hope this is the correct (inaudible), I will have on my desk the time schedule for those ordinances and will, if they are not fulfilled, I'll know the reason why. In other words, saying I'm committed to getting those ordinances drafted. I guess I would say to you what I have said before in relation to that. I think that Land Use Plan is a dramatic step forward, a positive one by the way.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Welsh: I think that you're going to need to implement it and you're going to need staff to do it.

Duffy: Bob, if I could answer some of your questions...

Jordahl: One second, Charlie...

Duffy: There are several departments that would say the same thing because we have requests. This is a bad budget year. In fact, their Nutrition Committee hired a person I didn't think we really needed. Now we have 4 full time employees in Planning and Zoning plus 2 or 3 part timers. Then if they get into trouble, or overworked, then they can hire some extra help. But 4 full time employees plus their part time is quite a bit.

Welsh: (Inaudible) look at your wrap up. I'd look at that in terms of your time line. What you say off hand makes some sense to me if you were going to have that building code procedure in the next month or so. I don't think you are going to have it.

Jordahl: It's my understanding that the Building Code Committee is in fact wrapping up, if we don't already have on the way to us, a recommendation from them. I think that that will go first to the Planning and Zoning Commission but I'm not sure about that particular intermediate step.

Stutsman: Yes, it will.

Jordahl: It should go to Planning and Zoning first. But I think they may have already made a recommendation. We'll then hear from Planning and Zoning about it. But I think their recommendation is that we move sooner rather than later to establish that. I foresee some kind of plan from the Planning and Zoning Administrator yet this spring to request some changes in the structure of his office. I don't think that this is going to get in the way of the implementation of the Land Use Plan. Quite the contrary, I think it's going to be a part of it and I think it's going to facilitate it. But we wanted to see the plan in a little more detail. As Carol is quoted as having said, we've got a time schedule, let's follow it. I'm suggesting that part of that time schedule is that we get the recommendations from the committees that we've impaneled and that we act upon them in the appropriate order following the advice of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is also in place to help advise us. We're intending, at least I'm intending, and I think there's support on the Board, for moving ahead on those initiatives that are outlined in the Land Use Plan. Sally, you wanted to say something.

Stutsman: Yes, thank you. Just to respond, we had a number of requests for personnel this year. We really did. They were all very valid. They were all in response to what the County is feeling as far as growth and needs and things. But we were also very aware that we didn't want to have a huge tax increase so what that meant was prioritizing. I think that we did approve some additional staff. Zoning, at this point, wasn't one of them. There were just a lot of answered questions that the Board had as far as the structure of that staff request. I think we've got a plan laid out as how we will address that at some time. We're fully aware of the needs there but I think at this point, the Board is leading in the direction of not approving that with this budget go around.

Welsh: Do you have a document of the prioritization that you have done on the staff personnel so that people like myself can come and (inaudible).

Stutsman: We're putting that together right now.

Jordahl: Yes, Deana...

Stutsman: Trying to get that in final form for review.

Jordahl: Uh-huh. I believe we had a total of 7 staff positions.

Stutsman: 7 full time equivalents.

Jordahl: A couple of those were expansion of half time people to full time. I don't know if I can run down that list myself. Deana Pillard has that on her desk.

Peters: Let me get it.

Jordahl: We have 2 Sheriff Deputies.

Stutsman: Can we have a discussion of this, Janet?

Lyness: Actually, you're getting comments of the public now but you're going a little astray of that. You may want to...

Lehman: We might want to wait and let them know next week.

Jordahl: We're going astray?

Lehman: Next week, we'll be making...

Jordahl: Next week, we'll be going into that in greater detail but you can also confer with Deana on that. She has information in process. It's a product of our meeting yesterday.

Welsh: (Inaudible) from the County Attorney's Office.

Jordahl: County Attorney's Office as I recall, there was an additional...

Stutsman: One attorney and one clerical.

Jordahl: ...attorney and an additional clerical person, per his request.

Welsh: (Inaudible).

Jordahl: And some money for raises to existing attorneys for promotions. That was the extent of your question, wasn't it? Anyone else, inquiries or reports from members of the public? Inquiries and reports from members of the Board of Supervisors. The Board is dazed into silence.

Lehman: I'd like to start off saying this past week has been spent answering some phone calls from the public and then also the budget. We've all been pretty intently involved in it. It's been really informative and educational. To be able to go back and look at the past requests and the grants that the departments have asked for and to look at this years and also we went into the future, some requests that we're trying to set aside for technology and capital improvements. We appreciate individuals like Bob Welsh. Sometimes we get so focused on things, we need to be reminded to step back and take another look at the picture. I appreciate your input there. I think it was a real team effort here and I think the 3 hold over members of the Board have shown leadership and I compliment Carol on stepping right in and her input. I was fortunate to attend the budget presentations in November and December and they helped me an awful lot. I think the whole team of the Board, Deana Pillard and the department heads has really opened my eyes. It's something we're expected to do, we're voted in to do. I think the general public, they don't have the time to sit here and listen to all the input. I hope they have confidence in our final decision. I guess it kind of reminds me of a definition of the word budget I ran across. That's a mathematical confirmation of your suspicions. We're going to have a package ready to present next week. I think we're all going to have a lot of confidence in it. I hope the public feels the same way. We put a lot of effort into it.

Jordahl: Thanks, Mike. Your effort has certainly been appreciated here. Mike comes from a business management background and it's been really good. Carol as well has past experience with County budgets so we've lost experience on the Board and experienced Board Members but we have gained experience on the Board of people who bring experience from other realms. I feel really good about where we are. As a Board of Supervisors, we have range, we've got depth, we've got balance and we've got intelligence. We've got a good sense of humor up here most of the time.

Thompson: That's important.

Stutsman: I don't have a report. I guess we've been so busy with budgets. I think that's been our focus this week.

Jordahl: Yes. Carol?

Thompson: I don't have a report either. I got my first constituent complaint this week though.

Lehman: Congratulations.

Thompson: I've started on that.

Jordahl: Charlie?

Duffy: I've got a couple fast ones. I enjoyed the chicken noodle soup and chili supper last Saturday night down at Morse and the funds went to the Solon/West Branch Fire Department. There are several of these things throughout the county. The place was just plain packed so I just thought I'd throw that in. Just kind of fast here... Region 10 ISTEA Policy Committee met last Tuesday. The reason we call it ISTEA is what it really is, Inter-module Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Authorization. We just call it ISTEA. But this is to approve the funding that comes mostly from the gas tax and different projects. The enhancement targeted amounts are bike trails, beautifying the highway. I never could understand that one but bike trails is the main one here. Right now... the matching funds used to be 60/40. 60 from ISTEA and 40 from local funding but now it's 80/20. So that 20% local match is a good deal. Johnson County... it's been approved for the first time. We have several projects here. STP projects, base coat pavement on our Sand Road, Phase I, $437,000... That's total cost. The local share would be $175,000. The next phase, $300,000 is the total cost. Federal share is $240,000. Our County funds would only be $60,000. I think that's a pretty good deal. There's other things here I could... we better get back on the budget, Jonathan, or some other thing.

Jordahl: Well, I have a few things I'd like to point out. We've noted Carol Thompson starting on the Board. February 1st the Conservation Education Center opened out at Kent Park. This has been a project that's funded significantly by funds from the REAP dollars we get from the State. They've been saving out there. Now they've got a facility that's to be used for conservation education efforts. We have a conservationist on staff and people interested in visiting that or utilizing it for conservation education purposes should contact Kent Park. The Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Committee met at 7 o'clock on Monday evening. I met with folks there kind of debriefing afterwards. I did not attend the meeting myself, due to other commitments. But I guess there was sort of a debriefing about Russ Bennett's resignation and looking forward to the County Engineer seeking a new roadside vegetation manager. I think there's a lot of hope and expectation for the way that that Committee will work with the County Engineer and whatever new person they hire for that position to answer the concerns and needs of the people from a variety of different walks of life, all of whom have interests and concerns about what the County does in managing the roadsides. Whether it's prairie grasses and the burning, or trees and tree cutting, or clearing the ditches or weed control, or mowing, a variety of different... Russ Bennett referred to it as a tool box approach. There's a whole toolbox of different things you can do, each one appropriate in a different situation. It's really good we've got a broad range of the community sitting down to talk about that. I have a lot of confidence in Mike Gardener and his ability to get out there and find an appropriate person to help blend those concerns into a functioning unit at the Secondary Roads Department. I want to also express thanks to Russ Bennett for his years of service and commitment to roadside vegetation management. He's got a lot of respect statewide and we'll miss him. We have, as it's been said, been working on the budget. We're getting close to having something. We're going to see how this all grinds through the computer on Monday. I attended a how to organize your life training session on Tuesday night. I scrambled from the budget session up to Cedar Rapids and hurried up to find out how to... I came in with 2 briefcases and a computer and a planner notebook with sticky notes all over it and they suggested that that wasn't a sign of high organization. Maybe I learned something there. I'll have to go back and read my notes. I'm going out at 10:30 here, if I can get to Coralville that fast. I've been invited to attend a meeting of an I-80 Beautification Committee. It's sort of an Interstate 80 corridor committee that Tom Dunbar, who had worked with Coralville on trails planning, and as I said, I'll be meeting with Tom again on Monday to begin discussing the County's trail planning work. He's also been contracted through the DOT to help Coralville with work on what's going on with I-80 development. I'm interested in that. I'll be there pretty darn quick. I want to point forward to our formal meeting for Zoning and Planning public hearing on Thursday evening, the 11th, if people are interested in zoning issues. The Board will be doing strategic planning with Tim Shields to look forward to our activities for the next couple years, to try to get our heads together on Wednesday the 10th at the Radisson. On the 9th at 7 o'clock in the evening, I've been invited to speak at a forum of Environmental Advocates on my trip to Oregon, which the Board was nice enough to allow me to take last November. It might be an opportunity for you all, if you like, to get debriefed about what I found out there. I'll be talking a little bit about that trip sheds light on what we've done with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. That's enough for me. Anybody else? Anything else? Carol?

Peters: Did you want to announce your meeting on the 15th at 11?

Jordahl: What's that?

Stutsman: The budget.

Peters: The budget.

Jordahl: The 15th.

Stutsman: I think it's the 12th, isn't it?

Jordahl: The 15th is President's Day. I think maybe we won't even be here.

Stutsman: It is the 12th at 11 o'clock.

Peters: I had the wrong date.

Thompson: Is it 10 or 11?

Jordahl: 10 o'clock.

Stutsman: Oh it's 10 o'clock. OK.

Jordahl: We're going to have a brief meeting to formally approve the budget for publication. Is that correct?

Stutsman: Yes, right.

Jordahl: That will be 10 o'clock here in the Board Room. If people are interested.

Peters: Date and time again, please.

Jordahl: 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday the 12th of February here in the Board Room.

Stutsman: No, it's not the public hearing. It's setting the publication for the public hearing.

Jordahl: We've tentatively scheduled the public hearing for the budget...

Stutsman: Wasn't that March, is it the 4th?

Peters: I have March 4th at 5:30.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Peters: I don't' know if that has changed or not.

Jordahl: I have March 2nd at 5:30. Like I said, it was tentative.

Stutsman: Maybe it is the 2nd at 5:30. I don't have that schedule in front of me but come on the 12th to find out.

Lehman: I've got the 2nd.

Jordahl: Mike and I both have the 2nd. That's 2.

Stutsman: I have the 2nd too.

Lehman: The majority.

Jordahl: 3 for 2.

Duffy: (Inaudible).

Jordahl: I think it's March 2nd at 5:30, the public hearing.

Stutsman: I guess we're not ready to formalize that. It depends. We'll have that final decision on the 12th.

Jordahl: We'll see where we're at on the 12th.

Stutsman: Tentatively that's where we're aiming for is the 2nd.

Jordahl: OK.

Stutsman: Are we ready to adjourn?

Jordahl: I am.

Stutsman: I think so. You've got 3 minutes to get to Coralville.

Jordahl: It's going to be awfully hard to get to Coralville in 2 minutes.

Adjourned at 10:25 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary