White: Well, let’s go ahead and talk about Space Needs and we can go back and forth to budget as need be. I wanted to put this on, not just to update people or to give people a chance to ask questions, but to try to prompt the early decision-making that I think needs to be made here. The nature of that is, I think we’re at the point of making pretty fundamental decisions about when to expand the Admin. Building or when to start a DHS/Health Department facility. If we don’t get that decision made in the next month or 2, we’re going to lose a construction season. The reason I say that is from a decision on the Board’s part to build or expand a facility, your architect is probably going to need 2 to 3 months to do plans, specifications, form of contract, and walk us through the public hearings that would be legally required. The ideal time to break ground, if you’re going to build something, starting in this Fiscal Year, would be April to May. If you wait until you’re through your budget process to make that decision you are going to give up at least half of the construction season. I have a personal opinion, as one or 2 of you know, about what specifically ought to be done. But my main purpose is to just try to stimulate a discussion primarily with the other 4 elected officials. I missed your meeting.

Stutsman: You were missed too, Pat.

White: Was I? I was bouncing over the countryside.

Thompson: Here’s where we are. The Space Needs Committee agreed, I think unanimously, that the Jail would be our first priority and that we could… We looked at that grid that would allow us to meet our other needs in 5 years if we leveraged a certain amount of money against our own funds, and if we saved $1.5 million a year to do that. So, the concept is on the table, but the Space Needs Committee has not come up with a calendar, I mean, what projects should be done first, and in fact, was unable to agree about that. So, we don’t really have a plan in the sense that it says which buildings would be built first. I think we agree on which buildings are under consideration, but we haven’t got to the point of selecting which one would be first. The other thing, I don’t know if Bob wants to talk about this. But I have heard that if we sold the current jail building then that money could go against the building of a new jail, which might get that down into an amount that we could build with a savings plan rather than a bond issue. So that would throw the whole question open again. I don’t…

White: One of the policies that we had earlier agreed on was acquisition within some radius that actually you drew. I think we ought to think pretty seriously, even if the jail is going to go someplace else, before we give up our existing facility, assuming it has some reasonable utilitarian other use. Certainly the first floor does.

Thompson: But, anyway, that question is still out there. But we have agreed, at least, among the Board, that the 1.5 is still on the table and it’s still under consideration. I don’t know how we would go about designating which building to start with before the end of our budget process. I guess that’s a good thing to talk about.

Jordahl: I think that discussion kind of ended before we really resolved the discrepancy there between the $1.5 million and the fact that the jail was not at all included within that $1.5 million, and yet the statement was made that the jail was a top priority. So, you got $1.5 million for the other space needs, but then you also need whatever is necessary to pay off the bonds for the jail and that number needs to be added on top of that. We need that number on the table.

Thompson: That number’s pretty iffy right now.

Stutsman: You mean for paying back the bonds, we’d be taxing for the $1.5 plus whatever the payback. Right?

Jordahl: Yes.

Thompson: And that’d be out about 3 years probably.

Stutsman: To start paying it back.

Thompson: Yes.

Jordahl: But we could pay them back, if we save the $1.5 million per annum for the 3 years that we didn’t have to pay them back, and pay them back early, we’d have less interest to pay, and it’d save us money, so…

Thompson: If we had a, like a 5 year, actually ours was now about a 5 1/2 year building project, in the last 2 years of that we’d be also paying on the jail bonds. How much would it be if we had to borrow the whole amount. Say, $16,000 or $18,000?

County Treasurer Tom Kriz: 18 million.

Jordahl: We’re talking millions here.

Thompson: 18 million, right.

Kriz: $16,000 I’d go for.

Thompson: Even 100 years ago you couldn’t build a jail for that.

Kriz: It depends on how long you went out with something like that. Currently, just off the top of my head, we had that land contract, which was a million dollars. That’s $100,000 principal, plus the interest each time, so if you figured if you went out 10 years you could take 18-fold times that and it would be a lot of money right there.

Thompson: Yes, so it’s at least another million and a half.

Kriz: A million, 8.

Jordahl: Let’s just say 2 for round numbers here.

Kriz: Yes.

Jordahl: So, $2 million. I figure, yes, about 3 and a half million a year that we’d have to set aside for space needs plus the Jail. That’s, I think a more realistic number, if we’re going to actually do all this stuff. So, when we talk about, Pat, you wanted to know when are we going to start, which goes first, I think there is a big conflict between doing any of the other space projects and building the jail. Unless we are prepared to digest $3 and a half million a year increase in taxes.

Duffy: There’s another alternative. Quit spending so much money. We’ve got a list a mile long that we didn’t really have to spend. That’s going to be an issue I take it.

Jordahl: Why don’t you bring that list in Charlie. I’d like to see that.

Duffy: Well, you got a pretty good memory. Just think back. I hate to make a big issue out of it. But I’ll tell you, I remember the days we didn’t have that mental health from the State, and when that came in taxes were lowered. I mean millions of dollars extra from what we’re having. The Supervisors in the past got the job done without that and I mentioned that the County Farm, that they didn’t sell that and that was great. Because I got a hunch we have new jail, it’ll probably end up out at the County Farm across from Chatham Oaks. But I’m not so sure we should be stockpiling money. What we’re really saying, I don’t know about the bond issue, it probably shot down, but still people ought to have the right to vote.

Jordahl: Well, I mean, so they do. They vote on the bond issue and we’ve got the space needs. So, say we already decided to spend money on that and we raise taxes sufficiently to cover a million and a half-dollars. Well, it’d be a $600,000 increase over what we’re currently putting away. We’re still talking about the same amount of money regardless of whether it’s voted in, you know, as a…

Duffy: No, I thought about the right to vote.

Jordahl: Yes. So people vote. People vote.

Duffy: Yes, but…

Jordahl: We still got to pay for it with taxes.

Duffy: I’m not so sure it would pass, but…

Jordahl: Well, if it doesn’t…

Duffy: As far as this building is concerned, I made the statement that this is last for me. If we’re going to keep hiring people, then, of course, more space needs. But I think anybody, almost everybody, could say I need more space. How about the people that rent an apartment, well, this apartment’s too small, I need more space. Or some of the people that own houses, I’d say most of them say I need more space, but you can’t have everything at once, Jonathan. That’s what I’m telling you.

Jordahl: I think that’s an imperfect analogy.

Duffy: And jail is the… If you have to do it, the jail would be the one.

Jordahl: The analogy is not someone in a house that is kind of out of room because they buy more stuff. I mean, what we’re dealing with here is an increase in population. There are more people moving into the house. That’s why you need more room.

Duffy: No, not exactly. I’d say that most of them like a little apartment, but I wish I had a larger apartment. But I can’t afford it. Maybe that’s the way we should be.

Jordahl: Well, I’m saying, that’s… We’re like Coralville, growing, a lot of new people in there, and a lot of new houses. That’s why they need, you know they hire police officers. You got to deal with public space. That’s why we put our ambulance out there. There is a need for services to go with the people.

Duffy: Well, we talked about ambulance out there before they put the mall in there. I brought up like the train situation and we probably should have another one north, the north part of Iowa City.

Jordahl: Yes. Why?

Duffy: Because, regardless of all this growth, you’re looking back several years when we were top county in the whole state of Iowa. But we’re not now. I think 7th or 8th or 9th.

Jordahl: So, there’s no construction going on now.

Duffy: Well, if you want to check on it. I’m just telling you that last I heard, Benton County and quite a few of them were way ahead of us. It wasn’t like the good old days when we were the top.

Stutsman: Top County in what? You mean as far as growth and numbers?

Slockett: Even with the… Is that because a lot of ours is TIF’d? What’s the basis, valuations?

Duffy: Well, running on (inaudible). Yes. I’m getting the information that I asked for. This TIF thing is really getting serious from what I hear.

Slockett: How are you measuring the growth? I’m just curious. In population or in building or valuations?

Duffy: I don’t know how they do it, but it’s in the paper. It hasn’t been too long and we’re not rated the first in the whole state. But, yes, the TIF, from what I hear, you can even TIF private housing, and maybe even go back. Houses that were built several years ago, and buildings, you can go back and ask for a TIF on that. In fact, I know a person from another state that lived in this house for quite a few years and all of a sudden he got a notice by the City.

Slockett: You’ve been talking to Dick Myers, haven’t you?

Duffy: No, I haven’t been talking to Dick Myers, but…

Slockett: He keeps talking about housing TIFs and residential TIFs. I don’t know of any such thing. You can have an urban renewal TIF that includes housing areas, but I need to find out more.

Stutsman: What a disaster if you could have houses that are TIFs. That would be…

Jordahl: Tiffin paid for infrastructure, didn’t they, with…

Slockett: Sure. You can have an urban renewal zone that includes residential.

Jordahl: But it wasn’t renewal exactly. I mean, it was expansion.

Stutsman: But it was included in an urban renewal district. Don’t you have to identify?

Slockett: There’s not a legal designation of residential TIF. But he refers to it that way.

Duffy: It’s not Dick. I know Dick is very knowledgeable about stuff, but it’s another group.

Lehman: Could I switch back. Maybe somebody could give me a little history of how the present Jail and this building were financed and what timetable and how that was?

Carpenter: The Jail was financed by bonding. I think it was paid off in 8 years, if I remember right.

Lehman: OK.

Carpenter: But I think that was like 3.5.

Slockett: I don’t recall the exact amount.

White: I don’t think it was that much.

Carpenter: 3.1. That was in the 3’s wasn’t it? 3 million.

White: I think the bond issue was closer to 2.

Carpenter: Maybe they had some funds put aside. This building I think was paid for…

Duffy: Federal funds.

Stutsman: Well, didn’t they say revenue sharing?

White: Yes. General revenue sharing was the source of money for this.

Thompson: Was there a bond issue for the Jail?

Slockett: Yes. There was.

Stutsman: The first one didn’t pass.

Slockett: If you pass a bond issue, I was wondering, Jonathan, if you’re clear, if you pass a bond issue, that’s all outside of any other levy limitations, any other of your financing considerations. So, you would, other than the political fact, the taxes are going up, you would have at least the same theoretical ability to raise taxes that you do before it passed.

Jordahl: Yes. I’m not saying…

Slockett: That’s unlike this situation where if you start raising the money within your current levy structure.

Jordahl: I’m not saying that we’d run out of an ability to raise taxes. Only that, as Charlie would suggest…

Slockett: All right. I just wanted to make sure that that’s what you meant.

Jordahl: The tax bill of an individual is where with the MH/DD payment from the State, they went down; with the bond issue, regardless of the fact that the public voted it in, they’re going to go up.

Slockett: Taxes are going. You bet.

Jordahl: Our additional $1.5 million for other Space Needs is also going to make them go up. I mean, just this reality of what some of the voters tax bills are going to be impacted by what we’re talking about.

Slockett: When you were talking about $3 million a year, were you talking about accumulating the funds for the jail, too, or what were you referring to?

Jordahl: I’m talking about, no…

Slockett: Was that a possibility you were talking about?

Jordahl: Right. The possibility of 3 and a 1/2 million a year is the building plan that we discussed the last time… Was that at the department head meeting?

Thompson: Yes.

Jordahl: Carol presented a plan by which we could…

Thompson: No, we had a work session.

Jordahl: Was that a space needs work session?

Thompson: Separate work session.

Jordahl: Anyway, she presented a plan where we could meet all of the space needs being discussed by the Space Needs Committee, excepting the Jail, for a million and a half dollars a year, and had a plan for doing that. But, at the same time, the statement was made that the Jail was a top priority. So, gee, what would that cost and estimates about $2 million a year to pay off the bond issue. Now, the bond issue wouldn’t have to be paid off in the first year, so you could be kind of doing that space needs stuff for the first couple of years. But why not be setting aside the money that we’re talking about spending for our other space needs, to pay off the bond issue, so you could tax the same flat $1.5 million rate. But, at some point, we were talking about that. If we wanted to do the other stuff and the Jail, you’re talking about a $3 and a 1/2 million a year bill. I think that rather than contenting ourselves to look at this as if it’s a $1 and a 1/2 million a year problem, this is a $3 and a 1/2 million a year problem.

Slockett: So, if the bond issue passed for $18 million, the payment would be about 1 1/2 a year?

Jordahl: Maybe about 2 I think. That’s what Tom…

Slockett: But the taxes would be about 2 a year.

Kriz: Yes. That would be what you need to tax.

Slockett: That’s what you would be taxing for.

Jordahl: On top of the 1.5.

Slockett: On top of everything else.

Kriz: The problem I see here, and we continue to come back to, Bob’s been closer to this. As we hear figures anywhere from $8 million to $25 million, I don’t know how you begin to put together any kind of a legitimate plan until you have some closer figures.

Jordahl: What’s that question in my mind of a legitimate plan that’s here are the numbers.

Kriz: Right. No, I know you’re addressing the situation and it’s going to have to be paid for one way or another.

Jordahl: It’s a big, big thing.

Kriz: It would certainly help a lot if we could get some figures.

Carpenter: Here’s where I think the Jail Committee is going to bring the Board and until we sit down and hire an architect to do the Jail, like one specific architect. It’s something I’ve… Right now the Jail Committee is not going to do that, of course. But I think what they’re going to do is talk to certain individuals and figure out how many square feet it would take to facilitate a 235 or 255 bed facility. Probably have the square footage for a complete Sheriff’s Department and jail or just a jail somewhere. But at least get down to what it would cost per square foot and have some kind of recommendation from the State and/or people who are knowledgeable enough to figure out what… See, there’s national guidelines and there’s state guidelines and they don’t agree necessarily as to the square footage. But somewhere, get in there close enough so we can be legal, if that’s what you want to do. But at least so we can get certified. Then they will come back to the Board with the kind of money that we think we’re going to need and the possibilities of where that funding could come from. Whether it’d be a bond issue, that type of thing, or some other issues. I think they’re even. I’ve been talking about talking to investors of this type of thing where somebody else would build a building and in time the County would purchase it back. The only reason they’re getting into that is, not because that’s necessarily the cheapest, but it’s another avenue the County has. They feel obligated to the Board of Supervisors to present them a proposal. It may not be the one that they give the Board to take, but they want to give the Board some more options. So that the community will see, that the county taxpayers will see what the options are laid out for the Board to accept, whether it’d be a bond issue. Tom was down visiting with them at one time about some other options we may have. There are a couple of 3 different things out there. Of course, they’re probably hiring somebody else or buying a lot of time planning from somebody else who’s building is going to cost the County more over a period of time. But at the same time you wouldn’t have to maybe go to a bond issue and that type of thing to that extent. So, I don’t know. That’s what this committee is going to do. But I’ll be quite honest with you. I think we’re 6 weeks to 2 months away from coming to the Board with that because that’s an awful lot of work for them to put together. This (inaudible) this afternoon at 3:00 is our 6th meeting we’ve had. We’ve got a lot done in the first 5 meetings, but there’s a lot of work to do yet. But that’s what they want to do for the… Then, also, at the same time they want to promote this to the community and try to sell it.

Slockett: I think that’s really important, because I’m just right… I’ll be frank with you. I don’t see any support for it right now. I think a lot of people are keeping their minds open.

Carpenter: Well, I think that’s the way it’s got to be, but that’s (inaudible).

Slockett: It’s got to be education.

Stutsman: Education is the main part.

Carpenter: See, and that’s the reason why they wanted to… It’s probably going a little slower than what they expected, because what they wanted to turn over those other issues, those other possibilities. They already understand, they’ve seen what’s going to happen. No matter what happens here, whether the Board says we’re not going to do anything, we’re going to sit back and wait. They already know what those options are going to cost, basically. You’re looking at $65 a day for each inmate we have to house somewhere else, and that doesn’t include the transportation back and forth.

Slockett: That’s probably considerable.

Carpenter: Right off the bat, Tom, we’re looking at probably 30 people that the State would come in and say move them out. Right off the bat from where we’re at right now, we’re running 103 today with a 92-bed facility. They’re not going to drop you back 10 or 11 people and say, OK, you can run on what your maximum is. They’re going to drop you back 20, so you’ve got room to work.

Slockett: Sure. That makes sense.

Carpenter: So, that’s 30. Just 30 times 65, 365. That’s almost $700,000 a year. That doesn’t include transportation or anything else. That’s just housing.

Slockett: That will happen if the bond issue is put up and fails. That will also happen.

Carpenter: I think that’s going to happen when the State decides we’re too far over and we’re not doing anything to help facilitate it and take care of it, which could be at any time, because we’re already over. But the trend has been in the past, the State has been willing to, as long as the County has been moving in a direction to try to work towards taking care of that, they could see 40 people.

Slockett: They’ve been really tolerant, is what you’re saying.

Carpenter: Oh, yes. They have to be, otherwise they’d have shut us off 3 or 4 months ago or sooner than that, because we’ve been over for some time. But that’s what the community needs to be educated on. It’s going to cost. I would say it’s going to cost this community, once they say move them out, a million dollars a year, whether we like it or not. Pass or vote down the bond issue. I don’t think that’s hard to figure that out.

Stutsman: The other issue with this is the public safety issue. Every time you’re transporting a prisoner back and forth that’s somebody that’s not patrolling in the rural area.

Carpenter: But see that’s not something people can relate to, because they could care less about that. That’s the deputy or whoever’s transporting, that’s his problem. But the problem that people can relate to is the fact that this is going to cost you this amount of money, whether you build or you don’t build. We want to sit back and the Board wants to sit back and say, well, we’re not going to do nothing, or the bond issue fails, it’s still going to cost the County that kind of money.

Lehman: That’s for next… your saying there could be 30. Next year could be 35 prisoners. So, I mean, it’s not going to be flat. It’s…

Carpenter: It’s going to continue to build just like everything else does.

Stutsman: That’s what the taxpayer has to be educated on, to understand it.

Carpenter: Well, they need to know that they’re going to have to see that it’s the taxpayers’ problem. They’re going to pay for it. That money to run the Jail doesn’t come from each quota, it comes from each one of us individually. But it’s a community problem. Whether you like it or not, it’s going to happen.

Jordahl: The question I’d like to ask Tom, in regard to the amount that we can tax or raise taxes is: could we, if we can raise taxes by a million and a half or by $600,000, but to the point where we got a million and a half going into space needs on an annual basis. If we could pay off a bond issue with $2 million a year, why don’t we put away $2 million a year now and buy a jail?

Slockett: You mean without a vote?

Jordahl: Without a vote.

Slockett: I don’t think that would be very wise myself, but in terms of theoretically, I don’t know. I will research what actually…

Jordahl: I wonder what the limits are.

Slockett: Up to the limit, how much could we raise? I’ve never looked at that.

Jordahl: You know, not to say that we’re going to do it. But I think the only intelligent way to approach this is to know what the limits are. How far can we go? What are the limits of raising taxes? Where do you have to have a bond issue? How much can we borrow? Those basic things, and then, knowing that, ask the question, what do we want to do within those limits?

Slockett: Do we want to do that? That’s always good to know what is possible.

Lehman: It could be the after fact, too. If a bond issue doesn’t pass, we have to decide, are we going to take it upon ourselves to pay for it out of the yearly taxes. That’s what you’re asking, is, if we have to go to that route, how long is it going to take us to do it?

Stutsman: Well, plus…

Slockett: If the voters vote it down, do you really think you ought, as their elected representatives, to do it.

Stutsman: Quite frankly, that’s what happened in Linn County. They got the feeling that the detention center wasn’t going to fly in a bond issue and so then they figured out how they could raise the funds without taking it to a vote.

Slockett: Scott County, too.

Jordahl: And got some accolades for getting it done.

Stutsman: Not from everybody.

Jordahl: Not from everyone. So what.

Stutsman: There were a lot of people that were very opposed to that detention for the same things we’re talking about here. You know, you build it and they will come and all that.

Carpenter: Don’t you think the real reason though, is the fact that in a bond issue, everybody’s got their vote, and if you don’t do it through a bond issue, people think you’re backed over. That would be the last thing in the world I’d want to see stay here. Especially with the jail, is to think that we’re trying to do something or pull something over on the taxpayers.

Stutsman: I agree.

Carpenter: I think that’s where you run into real problems. But I think that it feasibly could very well be the most inexpensive way of doing it if the taxpayers understood. I’m (inaudible)…

Stutsman: The bond issue (inaudible)…

Jordahl: No, just taxing for it.

Carpenter: There are ways, there are things to do if it’s… It’s kind of a sneaky way of doing it in one way, but if you advertise and really put it out what you’re looking at, and you put figures to it, it’s my understanding, Tom, it might even less expensive to…

Stutsman: Bob, what are you talking about doing a bond issue or just taxing?

Thompson: The turn-key operation.

Carpenter: The non-bond.

Kriz: Yes. There’s ways to look at doing it even without a bond issue through a participation, through local lenders and things like that that have contacted me with some interest in it as a participation. You have to look at what their rates are versus the bond issue rates.

Jordahl: But it could be less.

Kriz: It’s possible. It’s possible. There’s so many odd scenarios. What I hear from Bob, though, is that the County is going to have the cost. The taxpayers are going to have the cost once the mandate comes down that says you have to do this. Whether it’s a million dollars for this or a million dollars for something else.

Jordahl: In terms of educating people we might be able to show them that it would be cheaper to build a jail than to house people out of County.

Carpenter: I think that’s a very important key. The thing you got to do is educate the public that way and which way you’re going to do that I’m not sure yet. But this committee that we’re working with seems to think that they can help educate the community with this.

Stutsman: I think that’s the key Bob. I think that committee has to educate, the committee. It’s not the Board of Supervisors, it’s not Bob, it has to be citizens saying…

Carpenter: I’ve been very careful with this committee not to… Basically, all I do is try to facilitate them what they want and they’re making their own moves. I’m impressed with the group and I think there is some very intelligent people in a lot of areas. In a lot of areas a lot of these people have got… We’ve got some accountants, we’ve got some media people, we’ve got all kinds of people on it. I think it’s a group that people will listen to, if we can get everything out there the way we want it. That’s the reason why I don’t think you’re going to see it before 6 weeks or 2 months.

Jordahl: This goes back to Pat’s initial question of wanting to hurry up and get started on some other project. I want to ask I think, a harder question. That is, do we really want to get started on some other project when we have to be buying a jail? It’s kind of like, I got to make house payments, therefore, I’d better hurry up and run my credit card up $5,000 and buy a new leather coat and everything else I can think of that I want, because pretty soon I’m going to have to make house payments. Well, you got to pay the credit card, too.

White: Jonathan, first of all I think it’s a big mistake to characterize the Space Needs Study as everything else that I want.

Jordahl: Well, OK.

White: I would characterize it as identification of what the County needs.

Lehman: Food and clothing really.

Stutsman: Yes.

White: The question is, how long can we get by without satisfying those various needs and in what order do you try to address them. I don’t necessarily think there is a clear right or wrong. I think this is one that very reasonable people can reach different conclusions about. But, to put my feeling in a little more context, I’ve always felt I’ve envied Carol’s optimism about $1 and a 1/2 million a year. I don’t think that’s realistic. She hasn’t convinced me yet that we can come even close to that. You guys have been strained to get up to $600,000 a year.

Jordahl: We did 9 this year.

Slockett: 900.

White: To get to a million and a half, I just don’t know how you’re going to get there.

Stutsman: Well, we could get there. But to me that means putting everything else off. The County, the Board of Supervisors, making a policy decision, for the next 5 years we are going to focus on space. Forget about anymore staffing, forget about anymore salary increases, and forget about everything else, we are going to do space needs. I think we are almost to that point of making that decision.

White: I think that would be a great mistake.

Slockett: I do, too.

White: Which is part of why I argue against that approach. I think it would be a disaster.

Stutsman: Well, I’m saying, if that’s what we decide to do, then I don’t think we can do everything, and space needs, too.

Slockett: It would take major reorganization of the way we have begun to do business at the County, in terms of the needs of the time constraints and demands on the staff and so forth. I think that the Board has been focusing on certain areas and developing them, but the basic infrastructure of the County has been neglected. Our office has been under severe pressure and has resulted in turnover and stress and problems for people in the office. The lack of ability to feel like they’re functioning properly and to have to come to work everyday and deal with that. It’s a big problem. I think we need to take a serious look at if we’re developing the management staff in most of the County, what about the places that are left out. It’s a little bit like putting in a telephone system and leaving out the Ambulance and the County Attorney. When that happens you’ve got to fix the part that got left behind. We’ve got to deal with those needs, too. I like the idea of raising the million and a half, but I also wonder how we are going to get there. I think each year, each new Board member learns so much with each budget cycle from my point of view. We’ve done things like we’re saying we’re going to start up document management and we’ve had the County Recorder’s Office as the pilot. Well, if you’re going to put that in place, it’s a huge additional cost for all the rest of the offices. If you’re not, you may have a little trophy there in one office, but it’s not helping anyone else. So, when we’re talking about GIS, huge additional expense.

White: That’s one on Charlie’s list.

Jordahl: Charlie’s got a list, but I haven’t seen it yet. I just know that (inaudible).

White: Well, GIS, I’ll fill it out for him.

Thompson: Anything over $100,000.

Slockett: GIS and our staffing needs are very large. And computer needs and all those things are coming to play. We’re also coming into a legislature that may very well restrict County spending again. So, we need to think seriously about it.

White: Pay raises are even more important. As important as space is, pay raises are more important than space.

Stutsman: Well, and what I guess I was saying. We can’t do it all. We can’t.

White: We can’t do it all that fast is my only point.

Slockett: Yes. The other thing…

White: I think trying to do all of this in 5 years just isn’t fiscally comfortable.

Slockett: Also, holding everything up for this Jail decision, I don’t know that that’s wise. It could theoretically, it could take 3 or 4 times to get a jail passed with new proposals being proposed in between. That’s what happened the last time. I think it was the 3rd time.

Carpenter: The only thing I can tell you, Tom, about that, is it’s going to cost you.

Slockett: Well.

Carpenter: They got to be prepared to pay, because that $700,000 is not going to go away. They got to come up with that money somewhere. You know they’re not going to be able to do it when it comes to my budget.

Slockett: I’m not arguing that it should or shouldn’t. All I’m saying is that it could be years before we get to that decision. If we hold everything else up, then the public is going to say, well, why haven’t you dealt with the needs, you’ve known about them all this time. I think, going ahead as Pat suggested, trying to find a path of gradually dealing with these things and then seeing if the jail issue can be done with it. I guess that would be, I think would be, the best approach rather than just waiting. Because I think it’s a big risk because we don’t know how long it’s going to take before that passes.

Jordahl: I’m not suggesting waiting.

Stutsman left at 2:28 p.m.

Slockett: We’ve got a library.

Carpenter: But the thing you can’t wait for, is you can’t wait to put it in next year’s budget. Budget for it to help start paying for these prisoners somewhere else. What are you going to do at the end of the year? I could very easily have a jail inspection in January, and they tell me that, and that’d even start in this year’s budget, which there’s nothing funded for that at all. I’m going to have to go the Board and say, hey, give me $350,000. You know that’s the least. I kind of tried to tip the Board off a little bit for next year to look forward to, but if they don’t start taking a look at that. I can tell you Tom, it’s not going to go away. I can’t tell you when it’s going to start exactly, but it’s going to start.

Slockett: It’ll happen eventually.

Carpenter: It’s just a matter of time and I could almost guarantee you it’s going to be within the next year.

Slockett: Which, that wouldn’t be all bad. I mean, if you could actually show people existing expenses that aren’t being wasted in terms of the long run.

White: It would be bad.

Jordahl: But what I’m trying to get at here is it’s frustrating to hear the jail characterized as something that we can sort of wait for until there is a bond issue. Meanwhile, we have these other space needs that we can pay for with taxation. What Bob’s saying is that we are going to pay for prisoner housing with taxation currently, in the very near future, whether we have a bond issue or not. Therefore, as long as we are going to be paying extra money to house prisoners, we’d better make that part of our plan. Part of our $1.5 million, well, we’d better make that $2.5 million so that we can have a million to house prisoners with. Because we’re going to have to do it whether we build a jail or not. Then, if we build a jail, we take the million and put it in the jail. If we don’t build a jail, then we take the million and pay it to some other counties to house the prisoners. But either way, we pay to house prisoners. So, our figure, if we’re going to want that 5 year plan, of amortizing the other space needs out and you want to do those anyway, I think we’re talking about minimum of $2 and a 1/2 million, this budget year. Which is an increase of $1.6 million over the Capital Projects money we set aside in the current Fiscal Year.

Carpenter: I don’t think that would work.

White: I don’t think you’d have to go that high. It kind of depends. You can raise as much as you want to raise, subject to the tax limits. You take my… I disagree with Charlie on this. If I were the sole decision-maker, I’d get started with the Admin. Building, thinking that I would pay for a little bit of it in the current Fiscal Year, a little bit more of it in the next Fiscal Year and finish paying for it in the 3rd Fiscal Year out. I think you could do that if you upped what you’re setting aside to $1.2 million. Split the difference between where you are and the $1.5 I keep saying is optimistic.

Thompson: We could pay for it between this year and next year.

White: Well, but I didn’t… One of my other ideas here is, and this is why I think this becomes so difficult to gauge, what not only what works, but what’s going to motivate the public to vote for the jail bond issue when it finally gets in front of them. One of the ways I think you motivate them to vote for it is you buy the cost down with money out of the regular budget instead of, if the project cost is $12 million, instead of bonding $12 million you bond $9 million or $8 million. You try to find support out of your existing budget to buy those bond costs down. So, an approach would be, recognizing the priority that I think everybody is in agreement that the Jail is our first priority. OK, let’s take whatever we are able to raise currently and split it. You could come up with percentages, but as for the sake of discussion, let’s put half of that into a jail construction reserve and use the other half of it for other space needs in the next year or 2. I think you’d still have enough money to get one of those major projects completed. My personal feeling is you cannot do the Jail and the Admin. Building and DHS in a 5 year time frame. One of those gets bumped out and I would bump DHS back.

Thompson: But just like bumping the jail back puts in the cost of housing the prisoners, bumping the DHS building puts in the cost of repairing the carpeting in both buildings.

White: In DHS’s case, it extends some pretty less than ideal working conditions. But we dealt with some of that this year. We gave them new facilities for, I don’t know, 20% of their work force. I don’t know what the number would be.

Thompson: Oh yes, at least 20%.

White: It doesn’t give it to everybody, but it gave everybody a little elbow room.

Slockett: I have a lot of trepidation about using this process for building up reserves for capital projects, for controversial projects. Because, I think it’s so important to do this. It is a new approach, at least the way it’s being formalized. My recollection is that this building wasn’t built solely out of revenue sharing funds. It also, I believe, used some fund balances that had been built up by the County.

White: Some. I don’t think too much.

Slockett: So, there is some precedence for doing that. But I really feel that you would be better off. It would be my advice to you to put the entire jail bond up for a vote and, because of what Bob said, that if you don’t do that people are going to feel like you are trying to pull a fast one. There is a group of people who are very strongly opposed to this jail and it’s…

Carpenter: Why?

Slockett: Well, it’s the notion of being against the whole culture where we jail so many people in the country. It’s that kind of a people who see it as a liberal-conservative issue, instead of looking at it on a practical basis. There is a large group of people who are very articulate, who feel very strongly about this. Some of them are very intelligent and very capable. You all know some of them. They are not going to be silent on this issue and they are going to be working overtime against it. So, I feel like our whole capital projects effort could be torpedoed with that approach. I think it’s a danger and you ought to be aware of it and I think particularly going into an election year you ought to be concerned about doing something like that. It would be much better to put it up, in my view, and let the, have the public education and discussion and have a vote.

White: I don’t understand people who oppose the jail. I don’t understand the connection to the funding stream.

Slockett: Well, they oppose it… They would have opposed the bond issue, but they would also oppose saving money for it and they would be opposed to an effort that included that. They would probably be…

White: But they’re going to vote against the bond issue regardless.

Slockett: Yes. But they aren’t going to vote against the Supervisors regardless.

White: Oh, I see.

Carpenter: Do you suppose all these people got extra bedrooms?

Slockett: Well, some of them probably do.

Jordahl: That’s a good idea. I’ve been thinking about that. Have people take prisoners home.

Carpenter: I just mean if they want to take on that attitude, we got a few we could probably put in their home.

Lehman: We’ve got the mentality of the people that have never spent time in jail, don’t plan on it, but you have to use that angle as saying, all right, what about the people that you want separated from you. We have to have a place to keep them away from the good element. That’s the only other angle. Because the average person is like, I’m not concerned about the Jail, because I’m not planning on having to have a good bed when I go there. They don’t consider a relative ever being there. They have to look at this angle of let’s keep this element that I don’t want to have to deal with away from me.

Jordahl: Right now we can’t put them anywhere.

Lehman: Right. But I look at trying to sell the education part of it, $711,000 if you were going to send 30. Well, that’s just for one year. If the population, the crime rates going to go up, it’s going to be escalating. Those are the numbers you have to sell.

Carpenter: That’s 30 off the top of our 103.

Lehman: Yes.

Carpenter: I mean, that… Considering, you could pay off the bonds.

Lehman: That’s just the starting point. Next year they may say, all right, now you’ve got 35 to move, the next, right, now you’ve got 40.

Painter: That’s a penalty. That’s money that we can probably clearly demonstrate or argue is money that could have gone somewhere else in the budget. Now it can’t go there and why can’t it go there. Because we’re being penalized because the State has certain standards, humanitarian standards, however you want to put it, that say we can only house so many prisoners in this amount of space. We’re in violation of that. Now, we’re being penalized and we’re going to have to build a new jail or…

Lehman: That’s the selling points you need to sell to the average taxpayer. Say, pay me now or pay me later.

Painter: Right.

Lehman: It’s going to cost you.

Painter: The problem with the culture of imprisonment, if people have a problem with having laws that require that we put people into jail situations, is that it’s going to take a long time for a group of people to change that attitude. Because, if arguments are being made and they’re out there in the popular media all the time, that say that it’s being effective, whether you agree with those arguments or not. So, it would take forever for any group of people to begin to try to change that culture. We’re not going to change the culture of our mentality toward arresting people by stopping the building of a jail in Johnson County. I hope that by doing some of these things and making some of these arguments, we can persuade people of intelligence to think about it a little differently.

Jordahl: It’s not like we want a jail, either.

Painter: It’s not a pet project.

Lehman: We don’t have a choice.

Thompson: I think part of the community education has to be that we don’t jail people frivolously. That the law enforcement just isn’t out there on the street picking up folks at random and putting them in jail for a night just for the heck of it.

Carpenter: Well, but see, there again, what you’ve done is you’ve tagged law enforcement. That’s not right, because of the simple reason we don’t make the laws, we enforce them. You’ve got to look at legislature and legislation for your laws that you put in your books. The same people we’re arguing with are people that think marijuana should be legalized. They think they shouldn’t go to jail for possession or sell of marijuana. Well, I’m sorry. But, as long as it’s still on the books, it’s against the law and it’s a law enforcement officer’s job to enforce those laws and put those people in jail. They’re going to continue to do it until those laws are changed not to do it, whether you like it or not. So, it’s not really fair to say that we locally have anything to say about what’s going on or whether you want to change or blame it on the Iowa City Police Department that the Johnson County… It’s going to be my fault because I’m the Sheriff and I can’t handle these prisoners. Well, the problem is, they’re not my prisoners. My job is to take care of them for the people in the community. They’ve got the problem, not me. They’re going to end up paying for it one way or the other. When they understand that they’re going to pay for it one way or the other, you know that’s… I can hire more officers and buy more cars, at their cost, and ship them out all over the country. It doesn’t make any difference to me, but it’s going to be cheaper in the long run to build than it is to do this. The sooner they understand that, the sooner that maybe they’ll get on board and get something done, because it is important that they don’t wait 5 or 10 years to try do this because it’s going… They can pay for a building. The cost of new buildings are going to continue to go up. I doubt very much whether you’re going to see legislation change present laws to where we’re going to be arresting fewer people.

Jordahl: Right. I liked what Tom said at the Compensation Board meeting. Toward the end he talked about how something wasn’t ours, the furniture wasn’t ours, it belonged to the people of Johnson County. Or maybe it was you, Tom. No, I think it was Mr. Slockett. But it really strikes me that that would be a good emblem to have over the entrance to this building and every other County building. This is not my building, it’s not my desk, it’s the building of the people of Johnson County. Same thing is true of the Jail. This is the jail of the people of Johnson County. It’s not Bob Carpenter’s jail. The people of Johnson County have got to deal with this. It is our legal responsibility. We have to have a jail and we’ve chose Bob to run it. But that doesn’t mean it’s his jail. It’s ours.

Slockett: I think that’s really the strongest argument which Carol has been making for years, which is relating to juvenile justice laws and our prison population, is basically, we don’t make the laws. We have the legislature that’s cracking down on crime, putting people and certain behaviors, criminalizing more and more of it. Then it’s the police officers job to enforce the laws. That results in more people in jail and it’s our job to take care of them. That being the case, we have to do it in an appropriate and safe way that we can avoid liability for the County and so forth. I think that’s a strong argument. But the people who are opposed to that, I think would… I think that all the arguments about what the additional cost will be if we don’t build it, they’ll say let’s see it; I don’t believe it. They’ll turn… They see the arguments that where you’re rightly explaining that the laws are tougher and there are many more law enforcement officers. 15 more you said in the last 10 years or so in Coralville and Iowa City.

Carpenter: That’s just a guess I would assume between the 2.

Slockett: Right. Well, they say…

White: I think it’s probably closer to 20.

Slockett: Their contention is that we should stop prosecuting so many of these. We should reduce the prosecution and the number of law enforcement officers so that we have the number of arrests that the jail can hold. There are 2 completely different approaches to this and different views and I think that needs to be taken into account in this educational system. It’s going to be tough and it’ll be contentious. The more information and the better you can address all of these issues, the more likelihood there is that it’ll pass. But, of all the costs you’ve talked about so far, that we’ve talked about so far, Jonathan and everyone else today, no one’s talked about the additional staff to run that jail and the additional cost on top of the additional $2 million a year. It’s going to be really significant.

Carpenter: One of the things though I’m going to take you to task on that. Because one of the things that we’ve got going for us with the new facilities nowadays is they take less people to run compared to the design we have. As a matter of fact, we can almost show that with the number of staff that we would save, over going to a 255 255-people or person facility, you’d almost pay off the bond issue, by the number of people you could save under that new facility, compared to the facility we have now.

Jordahl: We’d better get that mathematics done.

Carpenter: No, but I’m telling you, there’s other things out there that the new concept in jails today, with the pod system, where you have one control center that monitors 2 floors and almost 180, well 180 degrees, and in some instances more than that around you. With the same number that you would take right now to do one of those. So, staff-wise, we wouldn’t have to add a whole lot of people compared to what we got now.

Slockett: Not in the same proportion as you would (inaudible).

Carpenter: Not as you go to the 255.

Slockett: But I think some people will see that a little bit like Blondie asking Dagwood for money because of all the bargains.

Carpenter: The problem Tom, is I understand what you’re saying, but the problems is they don’t have the foggiest idea what we do now. They don’t know that we are running probably at half the capacity, or half the staffing we should start with for the number that we have.

Slockett: Absolutely they don’t. You’re right about that.

Carpenter: They expect us to be able to do something that we can’t do. I guess the bottom line is we are almost to the point where you can’t draw anymore and you got to say hey, I don’t… Just like I’m going to tell them, if that’s the way you want to do it. I guess we could vote it out. It doesn’t make any difference to me on bond issues.

Slockett: Pays the same.

Carpenter: It pays the same for me and we’ll just start transporting. You’re going to have to pay for more staff to transport because there is going to be more people on the road and that type of thing.

White: If you can find a place to put them.

Carpenter: If you can find a place to put them. Right now Polk County is going to Missouri. Scott County is going to Wisconsin and Illinois with theirs. So, you can imagine where we’re going to go. Hard telling, maybe all 3 places.

Thompson: Well, Tom, you said you thought that voters wouldn’t like to be done out of a bond issue vote or that they would feel like they got circumvented. Let’s assume that they vote it down. The jail licensing people say we have to start moving prisoners and we have to go ahead and find a way to build it anyway. Wouldn’t they be more angry at that?

Slockett: I don’t think so. They would understand it was voted down. Also, you wouldn’t have to build another building. You could just start raising taxes to haul people around. I mean, you would have choices. That would be… The reason I said it’s not all bad, I didn’t mean that it wouldn’t be bad. It would be an administrative nightmare for Bob. You would have to have additional staff and cars, and the expense would be really large. But once, if you had that demonstrated expense that could be put into something constructive or even alleviated, cut down by building a proper facility, that would be a whale of an argument.

Carpenter: We could probably tell them what Scott County went through. They did the exact same thing and now what it’s costing them per day to ship their people out, their shipping out 50 a day. Their bond issue was defeated 6 months ago.

Slockett: That was $48 million right? Isn’t that the one that’s $48 million?

Carpenter: Yes. But theirs was defeated and now they’re shipping I think 50 prisoners a day out all over the place.

Slockett: I think that was… Those are wonderful statistics.

Lehman: What are their plans then? Have you heard? Are they going to bring it back after the public is educated and see what it’s cost them or are they going to go ahead and tax for it?

Carpenter: I think they don’t, they probably don’t have a lot of choice really, because the simple… You know, they either got to build or they’re going to continue to have the expense.

Painter left at 2:46 p.m.

Lehman: Yes, but it’s like ours here. You referendum and if they think we’re crying wolf their going to find out later on that right now you defeated it, now you’re going to start paying for it and you have no choice.

Carpenter: The sad thing is the Board’s got to be prepared to start doing that because sometime that’s going to happen within probably the next year and a half.

Kriz: I think a perfect example is, it’s not just Johnson County. Cedar County right now is looking at invoking a part of the Iowa Code that says that they can go ahead with $3 million dollars or $4 million dollars, based on 10% of their budgeting, without doing a bond issue. I think that’s risky.

White: For a jail?

Kriz: Yes.

Slockett: It’s subject to a petition to put it on the ballot. But there’d be one in a flash in Johnson County. This is Johnson County.

Kriz: There’s a small element that think that’s a possible way to do it.

Carpenter: Well, and I think, Tom, that that’s kind of the… It’s not underhanded, but it’s a way of trying to hide something you’re trying to do. Quite honestly, I think this jail issue is something that everybody ought to know about. They ought to chew on it.

Slockett: I do, too.

Carpenter: The sad thing about it that I’m concerned about, I think… I got to leave because I got a 3:00 meeting. But the sad thing is we’re in opposition with the Library right now.

Slockett: That’s right. I mean, in some people’s eyes it is. I mean, they’re competing for public resources.

Carpenter: I’m sure. They feel that their library is more important than their jail. The only thing I can say is that, if their library doesn’t get expanded right now, is it going to cost them $700,000 a year or whatever. A million dollars a year.

Slockett: Well, I’ll tell you what I tell people. I really strongly believe the best thing, and I think if we want a jail, we ought to get behind that Library and push, and get it passed as fast as we can and put as much distance between when that happens and when we have our bond issue. I, if in any way, I don’t think we should ever in any way, say, be against that because we need a jail or we’re just going to have the rap.

Carpenter: The only problem is I don’t think we’re going to be able to put a lot of time between it.

Slockett: Yes. That’s going to make it tough to get it passed.

Carpenter: I mean, it’s not to the taxpayers benefit to do that here in Johnson County.

Slockett: Well, I really appreciate and applaud what you said, that it’s important to take it to the people.

Carpenter: Well, there’s no question. I’ve always felt that way and that’s the reason why I wanted this committee, this citizens group, to look at this, so it isn’t coming from a politician or elected official.

Slockett: If we do that in a completely open way and empower the voters to make the decision up or down, then you can deal with the issue on its merits and not on the issue, oh you’re trying to pull a fast one. You’re stashing money away over here. Nobody knows the real cost and all of the side arguments. That’s what I see wrong with the idea of saving part of the money somewhere else and I’m afraid it would impeach the credibility of the whole effort to save money for capital projects. I really worry about that because I think it ought to be for more controversial things. Replacement of existing facilities, in which you can argue the Jail is. But I see the Jail as being a particularly controversial issue, unlike Human Services or expanding the County Administration Building.

Painter returned at 2:50 p.m.

Carpenter: It’s interesting, Tom, that in all the counties around, the Farm Bureau is strongly against jails. In Johnson County, one of their legislative planks was to support a bond issue.

White: I think just the opposite. I think the jail would be our strongest case to the public.

Slockett: It was very strong the last time.

Carpenter: The people that are on this committee… The Chamber has been pretty good about this, too.

Slockett: All the people that were in favor of the sales tax basically think it would be a good idea. I’m just trying to make a point.

White: Oh, no, no.

Slockett: No?

Carpenter: See, I don’t wonder if you just run around with one crowd of people. But I have a lot of people tell me that, depending on how it’s done, it’s not a no go issue. I think if we go out there and try to put up a Taj Mahal someplace, I think you’re going to have a problem. Otherwise, I think we’re realistic on our voting.

Slockett: Well, we’re agreed to put it out there, educate the voters, and let them make their decision.

Carpenter: I’m sorry. I’ve got to leave.

Jordahl: Thanks Bob.

Carpenter left at 2:51 p.m.

Thompson: Pat, it looks like we’re going to miss at least part of a construction season here. I don’t think we can come to an agreement.

Jordahl: Well, I think there is agreement to be found in the suggestion of the path that we set aside half of this construction amount for the jail, because that’s what it’s going to take to house the prisoners once the State orders us to do it anyway. We’ll just have to spend that money, whether we want to spend it on the jail or not we’re going to have to spend it on housing prisoners. So, we might as well look at it that way and proceed with whatever realistic timetable for the rest of the cost outside of that $700,000 to a million, because we got to spend that. So, there’s part of your… I mean, can we just make a timetable. You made a timetable for 5 years, maybe make a 7 year timetable.

Thompson: We can make unlimited timetables, but until we have a project identified to do, we can’t put it out for bids or start building.

Jordahl: If we identify the Administration Building, and we say, OK, us first, and we put our 7 year timetable out there. Then say the other half of this is for either housing prisoners some place else or building the new jail, because one or the other we’ve got to do it. Is that kind of an argument, Tom? Say we’re really setting this aside for housing people in other counties, if the State orders us to do that, but if they don’t then we’ll put this aside for the jail. I mean, it’s money we have to spend. Can’t we identify that and use that aspect to educate the voters.

White: I think that’d be a great mistake.

Slockett: I do, too.

White: As soon as you label that you’re putting aside money to transport prisoners, you’re inviting the jail inspector to tell you to do it. I just… I don’t understand that at all.

Jordahl: So we identified this money for the jail and then spend it to transport prisoners if necessary.

White: Now I’m with you.

Slockett: The County Attorney often warns against acting on hypotheticals. I think that would be the main problem with that.

Jordahl: Well, there’s nothing hypothetical about needing a jail. Now, you’ve argued against putting the money aside and identifying it for the jail. But, if we don’t do that, then how are we going to pay to transport the prisoners?

Slockett: If that happens, I’m sure you’ll be able to figure out a way to handle it. Then you’ll have to raise the taxes the next year.

White: You’re not going to have to come in some morning and suddenly have to start transporting prisoners.

Jordahl: Bob said that’s the way it would work. That we’d get an order from the State.

White: We’re engaged in a good faith effort to provide jail expansion and that would give us an opportunity to play that out.

Jordahl: To budget it in.

White: This jail is still one of the best that exists. It’s getting pretty crowded, but it’s a lot better, even crowded, than some of the jails around Iowa. Partly because of our staff.

Jordahl: Wouldn’t you like to say something to them all?

White: I’ve got one specific space question that I’d like to get some guidance on. I know today’s not a day to get guidance, but my phone is ringing with questions about Sears and Sycamore Mall. The Space Needs Committee, back way ahead of when it recommended purchase of the Alberhasky property, we tried to look at space at Sycamore Mall. We couldn’t get our phone calls returned. Obviously the landscape has shifted dramatically now to where I’m actively getting calls from people saying, say, I hear the County needs space. Why don’t you come and take a look at Sears or part of the Sycamore Mall. Do we have any interest in walking through Sears or talking about any of this?

Thompson: I thought we had agreed that we would focus on the mini-campus, the Mall Drive property, and the property out where Secondary Roads is, and that area within our red line around the Courthouse.

White: I think we did. I mean, you could always shift Mall Drive to Sycamore Mall and still have the same concept.

Jordahl: Yes. Just walk down the thing. Well, do I want to go to Social Services or…

Lehman: You got a street to cross either way.

Thompson: Yes.

Lehman: No, you do. You got 1st Avenue or you’ve got Lower Muscatine.

Thompson: I kind of feel like, if we make a plan, we should stick with it.

Jordahl: Big parking lot.

Thompson: We can’t just keep changing the plan just because people keep putting business buildings out there. Yes, the Health Department needs space right now.

Duffy: I think kind of snoop around out there so when people ask you, we should go out there and maybe sell the other, which might be awfully hard.

White: No, no. We’d be able to. It’s a marketable property if we decided we wanted to shift our eggs to Sycamore Mall.

Duffy: I think we should kind of…

White: I’m not arguing that we should. I just…

Slockett: Was this an alternative to the jail Pat?

White: No.

Jordahl: The eggs came out of Sycamore because we didn’t get our phone calls returned.

Slockett: Are you talking about as an alternative for the County Administration Building?

White: Human Services and Health.

Slockett: Human Services and Health.

White: We also need space for SEATS.

Duffy: I bet you a new jail out there would be popular.

Jordahl: Senior Dining.

Thompson: We already spent to update Eastdale, because Sycamore wasn’t available.

Slockett: Charlie’s trying to stir up trouble.

Thompson: I don’t think… Do you think it’s a good thing?

White: Well, and I’m not trying to push it. I just wanted to be sure that everybody was aware that that option is out there again. It appears to me there are anywhere from 2 to 4 local people and maybe at least one non-local developer who are trying to decide whether to make a proposal to buy Sycamore Mall.

Lehman: If one of those buy it, I’d let them come to us saying do you need more space.

White: What’s going on right now is they are trying to get their ducks in a row before they make that decision of trying to decide what kind of prospects they have out there for tenants or sub-owners.

Jordahl: Could we use all the space? I mean, work expands to fill the space available, right. I mean, County Administration expands to fill Sycamore Mall. Does that hold water?

Kriz: SEATS, DHS…

Jordahl: SEATS could be in the Sears repair bays there. I’m just thinking, you’d walk down and you’d have all these potpourri of County Government. You could walk in there to the windows just like shopping. It seemed like it would fit the modern psyche, right? Go the Mall. Find your government.

White: I don’t think people in Coralville would be too thrilled with driving out there for a County Seat.

Thompson: But it’s not any more inconvenient for them than Mall Drive.

Duffy: Good answer.

White: That’s right. I just want to be picky again about semantics and something Jonathan said. Maybe this is my day to be picky about semantics. I think it’s also a mistake to characterize the Admin. Building expansion as you did, which was us first. I don’t think this is us. I think this is the central repository of service to the people of Johnson County.

Lehman: Public first.

Jordahl: The central repository of service to Johnson County first and the other departments later.

White: Rather than us first.

Jordahl: Well, the… I want to go in another direction with the semantics of us and suggest that the way to sell the Jail is that it’s not Bob Carpenter’s Jail, or the Administration’s or all the politician’s Jail. It is Johnson County people. It is the voters Jail. You the voters need a new jail. We need a new jail.

Lehman: Urban and rural. If everybody pays…

Jordahl: This is the jail of the people of Johnson County.

Lehman: Everybody pays for it.

Duffy: Well, that’s another question. Being as we’re like North Liberty. We forgave what, was that $27,000 we contributed to their Community Center or how much was that?

Thompson: Nothing yet.

Duffy: Well, it’s in the hopper, because of the rural. The one thing was the rural, some of the rural people used that and we had to pay for it. This new jail we’re talking about, how many is rural and how many is city?

White: We’re getting pretty close, by the way, to bringing new library contracts.

Duffy: Yes. That’s going to be…

Jordahl: I got, I had the same idea earlier. Why don’t we just sell the Jail to Iowa City and then they could take care of all the city prisoners and…

Duffy: Well, they used to have a city jail. If you want to go on a personal basis, that’s very interesting.

Jordahl: Then we build a little, build a tiny rural jail out by Secondary Roads there.

Duffy: Well, if you use it, then you pay for it. That’s what I’ve been hearing about. All these SEATS…

White: Well, should we close out item 4 since we’re rapidly losing out attendance?

Jordahl: It’s been a pretty well received item in terms of interest.

White: Yes. It has. Well, I think it’ll continue to be. Is there anything anybody has to say before we leave space needs?

Jordahl: Just for those who weren’t at the Compensation Board meeting last night, they recommended 5%.

White: Does the Press Citizen have my salary wrong?

Slockett: Something else is wrong in that article.

Jordahl: Do you not know how much you make?

Kriz: There isn’t much right in the article. I might not be salaried at all. I’m going to look for a job here.

Painter: You’ve been demoted somehow.

White: Well, I read quickly this morning and said, I don’t think that sounds right.

Slockett: I didn’t see, I didn’t… I just glanced at it. People referred it to me and I started to glance at it on the run but they had the wrong numbers for your salary?

Lehman: They had your old figures printed, too.

Jordahl: They probably did. Well, I made the mistake of giving the reporters copies of the materials that were handed out for the meeting. So, they had like pages and pages of stuff to choose from instead of just asking somebody what the numbers were. So, they could have looked to the 99 stuff.

White: Well, of course that may be my fault, because for over a year now I keep telling Grace to read the documents, then ask.

Jordahl: You’re the culprit.

Duffy: No. He said…

White: Let’s do reports and inquiries from elected officials. Why don’t we start with Charlie and go to his left.

Duffy: Well, probably the biggest report is proposed building code, which I hit in the last couple of days about 3 places where I usually show up. That’s all they talk about. One, about 10:00 this morning kind of surprised me, because they lived down south there.

White: The timetable right now is the Board is going to vote on the 30th to set the public hearing. Is that right? And the public hearing will be sometime in January.

Lehman: February one.

White: Oh. OK.

Duffy: February 1st. We did set the time on it, though we should set it…

Lehman: We didn’t officially set it, but we’ve tentatively set it to the 1st.

Duffy: Yes. We’re going to have to do that because they asked what time and all that. So, that’s the biggest.

Jordahl: In Montgomery Hall, by the way, for greater accessibility.

White: Anything else, Charlie?

Duffy: Oh, not really. I suppose I could talk about a couple more, but that’s the most important.

White: Tom?

Kriz: Just quickly. We are now the largest County in the State taking MasterCard and Visa in your Motor Vehicle and Tax Department system. That started the 13th of the month. It’s being used considerably in the Motor Vehicle side. Not so much on the tax side, but there’s not a lot of activity. It’s a system the State Treasurer set up, where there’s a, what’s called a convenience fee charged to the customer ranging from $4-$11 depending on the size of the transaction. And we’ll see where it takes us.

White: So, it’s just an add-on?

Kriz: It’s an add-on to it. No cost to the County. All the equipment is furnished to us. It’s just another convenience.

Slockett: Is that something that can be done in the mail, too?

Kriz: It can be done through the mail, yes.

Slockett: Right now? There’s a place now to put your…

Kriz: Not on our new mailings, but eventually it will be on our mailings. You can call now and pay your taxes now right over the phone with that type thing. We’ll see where it takes us. So, there were a lot of counties waiting for us to do it. That’s what it amounts to. Some of the smaller counties had done it, but we were the 1st County of any size to take the plunge. So, Black Hawk, Linn, and a couple others have been waiting to see how it goes here. But it’s been well received the first week to 10 days. So far. That’s all I had.

Painter: I don’t have anything pressing to say.

Slockett: I’d just like to really quickly talk about the Compensation Board Meeting last night. Because the 5% recommendation, I hoped for more, because the average raise given to the non-bargaining unit people through the salary survey, which my office was supposed to be included in, it was my understanding. I believe the minutes reflect that and it somehow got taken out. The average increase there was 7%. My deputies are very discouraged. My office is involved in taking minutes. They know, we do the payroll and the budget. They understand completely what the significance of these numbers are and they know that the people they work with have got raises, some of them, up towards the highest raise, which was a 24% increase. We’ve got people; we’ve got turnover in the office. We’ve got people leaving. We don’t have 100% of the deputies as was reported in the Press-Citizen that turned over. But we’ve had significant turnover. I went into details at the meeting. I won’t go over it today. But I really just feel, myself, I am a little bit disappointed that we could do the right thing for a certain group of employees, and I think without intention. Because the County Attorney and the County Sheriff’s employees were included, because they weren’t limited by the statutory limit on increases, being that the principal official is paid way more than the maximum for most of the deputies. So, it was… You had the authority to go ahead and increase them. So, in almost every office, except the Auditor’s Office, the Recorder’s, and Treasurer’s Office, the increases were given. But for our management employees, who work and rub elbows with all of the people who got all of these raises, and go out and have a few beers with them and so forth, they aren’t getting them and they are working really hard. We’ve had a lot of turnover. I guess I’ve mentioned that before, but the reason that’s significant is because it’s very costly to have turnover and it significantly increases the workload of those deputies. They aren’t getting rewarded for it. They’re working long hours and overtime hours, which they’re not paid for. I see Jonathan looking at the clock.

Jordahl: My brother is here from Oregon. It’s nothing personal.

Slockett: You’re right. But I would just like to enlist all of your help, just in terms of fairness, at the Compensation Board next year. I hope that you can make it and I hope that we’ll all take a look at what this salary survey did. If it was unfairly excluded from a limited number of employees, I think it’s only fair to include them in the future.

Jordahl: They were asking for specifics at the Compensation Board last night, in order to make a case for this kind of thing. They wanted this to really be laid out. I think your statistics on what was done with the property or what am I trying to say. Say it Tom. The other…

Slockett: The other tax increase.

Jordahl: No. The other employees, the percentages is just the kind of thing that they’re going to need to hear.

Slockett: They actually did invite more data and more information.

White: I don’t think it’s all the Comp Board. If you added up the percentages that the Board of Supervisors have shaved off that recommendation, accumulated what they’ve cut over 6-8 years, you’d have a significant increase.

Slockett: That’s another thing.

Kriz: Here you’ve been going 5 to 4 and 4 to 3.

White: Right. So, my response is you ought to be here urging them to stick with the recommendation.

Lehman: But we have union contracts coming up and you got to…

White: Oh, it’s…

Lehman: I know.

White: Boy, it’s a Hobson’s choice. Do you have anything else?

Slockett: No.

White: I want to mention quickly if, you’ll all get a copy. Tom got a successful ruling in an arbitration today. I assume you’ve heard about it by now. This was the vacation issue, where he limited people off and we got the ruling today, saying he was reasonable in the way he did it.

Slockett: Is that anything that we need more details on for ourselves?

White: Yes. We’ll get all of you copies of it as it applies to all of the Admin. unit offices.

Slockett: Is there a 25 word or less explanation?

White: Yes. It’s that you can make judgements about limiting the number of people on vacation at any one time. The specific issue in his case was the first workday after the 4th of July weekend. I think he’d had a difficult experience after Memorial Day. Was a little more strict about letting people off after the 4th of July. Got grieved and the arbitrator said he was fine. Don’t forget that the next time we meet in the New Year, we’ll have on the agenda discussion about electing a new coordinator. I remain hopeful that you’ll see your way clear to do that. I actually think it probably ought to be one of the 3 folks who are still here. Not a Supervisor, but the Treasurer, Recorder or Auditor, or Sheriff.

White: Mike?

Lehman: I have nothing to add.

White: Jonathan?

Jordahl: I would just briefly mention that we’re in the process of trying to straighten out some odd quirks of the Heritage/Senior Dining Contract, and it’s probably of more interest to members of the Board than it is to anyone else. But to the Auditor’s Office, we did bother Chris Edwards some yesterday about this. I mean, it’s just an incredibly difficult thing to explain, having to do with the Elderly Waiver and what constitutes a County contribution and so maybe you and I can talk about that and not bore everybody. So, that’s for tomorrow. I’m trying to take some time off here, thus, the flannel shirt. I’ll pass. There’s nobody else to pass to, so I guess that’s the end of it.

White: We’re done other than picking a next meeting date and time. If we went 2 months from today would probably take us to Tuesday, February 22nd, which is the day before the Johnson County day at the legislature.

Jordahl: That’d be good timing.

White: Wouldn’t be bad. Does that look OK? Tuesday, February 22 at 1:30? New Chair.

Jordahl: Question mark.

Painter: Pressing on that one.

Adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

By: Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary

Sent to the Board of Supervisors on April 7, 1999 at 5:00 p.m.