• Discussion: Fiscal Year 2005 Budget

  • Salaries

  • Guidelines for Department of Veteran Affairs (50)

  • Courthouse Security Function

  • Block Grant for Hacap and Star Grant Local Match

• Discussion: Fiscal Year 2005 County Budget

Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:04 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne said that in the last meeting, the Board decided to revisit the elected officials’ salary item after they heard the outcome of union fact finding sessions at the last informal meeting. Neuzil said that at the last meeting there were 2 Supervisors who wanted to include the 4% recommended by the Compensation Board, one Supervisor who wanted to leave the increase at 3% as is included in the draft budget, and 2 Supervisors who wanted more information. Horne said that he spoke with other counties about this topic and discovered that one county eliminated the deputy positions and created assistant positions instead as often as was allowed by Code. Lehman asked if they would no longer fall into the Code’s salary limitations. Horne replied that is the case, but there are a few offices where by Code a deputy must fulfill certain functions.

Stutsman asked what inflation is. Horne said that the Consumer Price Index was at 2% last year and inflation is at 2% as well. Neuzil said that it is a matter of fairness for administrative deputies who do not receive step increases and longevity bonuses due to the State Code’s restrictions. He said that the Compensation Board is made up of a wide variety of members of the community and they recommended 4%. Lehman said that the Board has never taken the Compensation Board’s recommendation. He said that the Compensation Board has historically given the Board room to maneuver, but if they recommend a low percentage that will not be the case. Stutsman said that she’s never known the Compensation Board to offer a low percentage. Lehman said that elected officials gave the Compensation Board information on a comparison group, which they used in their recommendation. Stutsman said that since taxpayers are hearing news about layoffs and the poor status of County Government, it would not look good for the Board to give themselves a 4% raise. Harney said that the Compensation Board is upset that the Board of Supervisors hasn’t accepted their recommendations in the past. He said that he’d prefer not to increase elected official’s salaries at all, but then the other departments are penalized. He said that he knows the situation with the deputies isn’t fair, but he does not want to take an increase just for that reason.

Stutsman said that she likes the idea of reclassifying the deputy positions so they could equitably compensate them in comparison with their employees. Horne said that the County would probably need to put all the deputies through the hiring process again if they decided to eliminate those positions. Neuzil said that currently deputies are exempt from hiring guidelines, so changing to assistant positions would be something the Board would need to phase in. Stutsman said that if the Board gives elected officials a 4% increase, then they will start union negotiations at 4% next year. Thompson replied that they didn’t start at a 6% union increase the year after the Board gave themselves a 6% increase. She said that the unions look more at their comparison group than they do at the elected officials. Horne replied that the elected officials’ increase will be brought up. Stutsman asked what increases other counties are considering. Horne said that the average is in the 3% range. He said that to increase the salaries by 4% instead of 3% would cost an additional $12,705 than is budgeted for. Horne said that the budget could absorb the increase at that moment. The Board decided to stay with the 3% salary increase based on the 2.9% average of the each Supervisor’s request.

Horne said that the Sheriff’s Department’s union is still negotiating with the County. Neuzil said that the Board will need to include the worst possible scenario in the budget. Horne said that the Board needs to find $50,000 to cut to accommodate it. Harney asked if the Sheriff’s Department can absorb the $50,000. Horne said that it was not clear in the fact finding decision if they increase the base salary before adding in the COLA. Thompson said that the Board voted to go to arbitration regarding the salary portion of the fact finder’s decision, so the Board shouldn’t include it in the budget before the decision is made. The Board decided to make any preemptive cuts to the budget to accommodate for the Sheriff’s Department’s salary increases. Neuzil said that if arbitration finds for the union, then the Board will look to the Sheriff’s Department for places to cut first.

Horne said that the Veteran Affairs budget currently includes only a $1,000 increase, but the increase in guidelines Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier is recommending will require a much larger increase. He said that the Board has said that they want to look at this department as part of a potential reorganization of human services. Stutsman asked if Baier knows the Board is thinking of reorganizing human services. Horne said that if the Board wants to raise the Veteran Affairs guidelines, then they have to increase the budget as well. Stutsman said that in order to raise the guidelines Baier should track ineligible applicants in order to make some projections and budget accordingly. Horne said that increasing the amount for assistance would be easy to figure, but he doesn’t know how many more people would be eligible. The Board decided to wait until the Department has tracked applicants and they’ve looked into reorganizing human services. Stutsman said that it is an opportunity to look at how the County handles human services as General Assistance Director Kay Hull retires and changes are made in the Department of Human Services. Horne said that Decategorization functions should also be considered in any reorganization. The Board decided to discuss a possible committee in an upcoming informal meeting.

Horne said that Linn County has a larger Courthouse Security budget than the Board is discussing, but they also have more Deputies dedicated to the function. He said that Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan obtained a security company quote in case the Board decided to go a different way than the Deputies. Sullivan said that the quoted security company is Per Mar, who contracts per month with rates from $13.50 to $15.00 per hour depending on the individual’s qualifications. He said that the County would be able to participate in the hiring process for these people, but Per Mar would pay their benefits and for expenses such as uniforms. Thompson asked if Black Hawk County uses a security company. Sullivan replied that Black Hawk County’s permanent security force is Per Mar employees, but they also augment those positions with part-time deputies. He said that Per Mar employees are not armed, but neither were the bailiffs who used to work in the Courthouse. Sullivan said that the Per Mar employees could be identified as Johnson County Security Staff by their uniforms.

Stutsman asked if it has been a deterrent in Black Hawk County having people in uniform. Sullivan replied that it is. Harney said that there could be multiple levels of staffing for different levels of security. Thompson said that the Courthouse Security Committee only recommended spot checking to decrease the amount of staff required. Stutsman asked if the metal detector can be used. Thompson said that it can be and there’s also a wand. Stutsman said that the security force would be mainly a deterrent and if there is an incident, the Sheriff’s Department Deputies would be able to come right away. Harney said that the time it would take a Deputy to get to the Courthouse could be detrimental. Sullivan said that Per Mar employees are trained in verbal judo, where they learn to diffuse situations rather than use physical contact. Thompson said that since it is a month to month contract, the Board could rewrite the contract if the Per Mar is not performing as the County envisions. Stutsman said that this option is sounding more appealing, if the Board can accomplish the same outcome with less money. Neuzil said that he’d like to hear what the Committee thinks. Thompson said that once the Committee decided that the Sheriff should be responsible for the security, they took the Sheriff’s recommendation. She said that the Committee was aware that when Linn County started, they did not begin fully staffed. Neuzil said that the Board needs to get the opinions of other departments involved.

Harney said that another issue is who would manage the Per Mar employees. Horne said that the Physical Plant Department, the County Attorney’s Office, or the Board of Supervisors’ Office could manage it. Neuzil asked why Facilities Director David Kempf would manage it. Thompson said that Kempf has experience in contract supervision, regularly visits the Courthouse, and he participated in the Courthouse Security Committee. She said that he is already in charge of many of the security functions in the Courthouse according to the Courthouse Security Plan. Thompson said that the Sheriff would still need to staff the difficult court trials and come when called like they currently do. Stutsman said that she’d like to explore the option.

Horne said that the Board can decide what type of presence they want after the budget is decided as long as they designate funds for the purpose. Thompson said that Per Mar would cost $60-62,000. Neuzil said that amount would provide full-time presence, which isn’t what he necessarily heard from the Committee. He said that the Committee just wanted a presence throughout the day. Harney said that with 2 Deputies, there would be times when no one would be on duty, because the Courthouse is open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Stutsman said that the concern is for the high traffic times. Horne said that it would require 3 to 4 people to be fully staffed eventually. Stutsman said that the bottom line is what the Board can afford. Thompson said that staffing the Courthouse is not the only impediment because security couldn’t control the entrances without adding to the building. She said that the new key card security system would increase security as well. Neuzil asked if the key card security system can be taxed using the Supplemental Fund. Horne said that he will look into it. Stutsman said that she is concerned with the precedence they’re setting by providing security to the Courthouse, when there are other departments with security concerns as well. Neuzil suggested Per Mar present their recommendations to the Board. He asked if all the judges in the Courthouse allow weapons in the courtrooms. Thompson replied that it depends on the judge and the trail. Neuzil said that if armed personnel are not allowed in the courtrooms it makes more sense not to have armed personnel.

Stutsman asked how much the Board should budget for the security function. Lehman said that no matter what the Board decides it isn’t a foolproof system. Neuzil suggested a combination of both a Sheriff’s Deputy and full-time Per Mar employees. Harney asked Horne to look into the cost for hiring off duty police officers because the only cost would be the per hour wage. The Board decided to allocate $75,000 in Central Services for the security function. Horne said that the Board has also budgeted $20,000 for the key system this year. Neuzil said that the Board is committing over $100,000 towards Courthouse Security in the first year, which sends the message that the Board is committed.

Horne said that HACAP is discontinuing the Head Start Program, which the County has funded through a block grant to HACAP. He said that HACAP has requested that the funds be used through the grant administrator, Shelter House, as matching funds for the STAR Grant. He said that the block grant for the current Fiscal Year is still being used for Head Start Programs as dictated by the contract. JCCOG Human Services Coordinator Linda Severson explained that when the grant was first awarded there was no matching fund required. However, when they renewed the grant for the past 2 years, a cash match was required. Severson said that the first year Goodwill, Shelter House, MECCA, and the City of Iowa City committed to the match and the second year Shelter House, Goodwill, and HACAP provided the match. She explained that a match of $106,000 brings in $450,000 from the STAR Grant.

Horne said that there are several options for the $22,500 previously provided to HACAP for Head Start Programs: 1) pull the funding and reallocate it to the County’s strategic plan, 2) cut the grant and reduce taxation, 3) allocate the grant to new or existing programs, or 4) invest it in the STAR Grant. Neuzil asked what funding sources will be used as a match for the Grant in the upcoming year. Shelter House Executive Director Chrissy Canganelli said that Shelter House received a notice saying that the program will be funded next year and they hope Shelter House, Goodwill, and HACAP will each continue their matches. She said that Iowa City gave a one-time match in the first renewal year of the grant. Neuzil asked if HACAP’s match would be part of the $22,500 or in addition. Canganelli said that the $22,500 would replace part of HACAP’s total match. HACAP Site Supervisor Al Axeen said that HACAP has had to cut $500,000 out of their budget, which is why the toddler portion of the Head Start Program was cut. He said that HACAP was receiving $40,000 in support for the toddler program from United Way, Iowa City, and Johnson County and they are now hoping those entities will fund the match for the STAR Grant instead. He said that HACAP saw this as a great need throughout the community.

Stutsman asked for details on what the STAR Program does and how the money is used to see if it fits with the County’s mission. Thompson said that the Board needs to focus on goals and fund items appropriately, not just what is requested. She said that the Board needs to learn more about this program. Severson explained that staff at Shelter House developed the STAR Program based on a survey designed to find out what the challenges and barriers were to establishing stability in homeless people’s lives. The results listed the barriers to getting jobs and keeping jobs in the areas of vocational, substance abuse, or mental health problems, so the grant was written in response to those barriers. Severson said that the grant was initially approved for 3 years at $450,000 per year based on an in-kind match. She said that when the Shelter House reapplied the regulations changed to require a cash match. Thompson asked what benefits the clients in this program receive. Severson explained that clients are assigned to a case manager who then talks with the clients about where they’ve been, what they’d like to do, and how to get there. She said that these goals are usually short-term because homeless people don’t usually have the resources for future planning. Severson said that their needs can range from housing, to heath care, to meals. She said that the case manager researches possible benefits through other programs like Social Security. She said that the funding goes towards staffing, alcohol and drug treatment programs, life skills classes, mental health treatment, training program education, employee services, child care, transportation, clothing, utility and rent deposits, administration, and a HUD audit. She said that part of the employee services line item is an internship program that will provide a stipend for clients who receive job experience, but are paid less than minimum wage during that time. She said that this may allow clients to receive experience, work habits, and a positive reference.

Severson said that Shelter House administers the program with the oversight of an advisory committee made up of the major contributors and players. Harney asked what the percentage of success is for clients in the program. Canganelli replied that they don’t have a percentage available, but they track annual progress information required by HUD. She said that the first year was not very successful, but the program has become much more active. Canganelli said that she would provide outcome data specifying the number of individuals engaged in employment, sources and amounts of income upon beginning and exiting the program, and prior living situations to the Board per their request. Harney asked if clients stay with the jobs that they acquire. Canganelli said that it is a transitional 2-year case management program, so the program can track clients’ employment as well as helping them work towards higher levels of employment. She said that they’re seeing clients continuing to engage in their employment activities. Canganelli said that they extended the program to HACAP transitional housing last year, which brought in households with families and younger children. Stutsman asked how many clients the program serves. Canganelli replied that they expect to serve over the 78 individuals they served last year, but that number does not include the children affected as well. Stutsman asked if these people are new to the community. Canganelli replied that they are not.

Stutsman asked if HACAP will ask for additional funding beyond what is allocated for this grant for next year. Axeen said that he doesn’t believe they will, but it would be for funding in the County’s priority areas if they did. He said that the toddler Head Start Program was part of an integral service HACAP wanted to provide to families and HACAP will bring back the program from other funding sources if they can. He said that everyone who is homeless comes through the case management system so HACAP can avoid duplicating efforts with other agencies and track which agencies are being used. Axeen said that HUD pays for half of the 40 transitional housing units in Johnson County, but local funding pays for the rest. He said that 70% of the people served in Linn County are from Linn County and he believes Johnson County is similar.

Thompson said that the Board has applied 2 main criteria to their strategic planning efforts for this budget: 1) does it support another effort within the County, and 2) the health and wellbeing of County residents. She said that the Board determined that housing services do not support any other effort within the County, because county government doesn’t provide direct services to homeless individuals. Severson said that Shelter House has a limit of 90 days, but the population the grant is trying to reach doesn’t reach a stable level during that time. She said that the 2-year support helps people really define what they want from life and how to achieve it. She said JCCOG supported the grant because they feel that this program will help people become more self-supporting. Stutsman said that the Board cannot continue to fund every project because although many projects have merit there are limited dollars. Stutsman said that this situation is what the Board wanted to avoid during their Strategic Planning Process. Stutsman said that she doesn’t know if she’s ready to commit to this program. Thompson said that she wishes the County had enough funds to keep the toddler program instead. Axeen said that this grant can pay for childcare and as a member of the advisory committee, the Board can change the budget to reflect their wishes. Thompson said that temporary childcare isn’t the same as a program that takes place year round. Axeen replied that childcare would be more than temporary because clients need the funding as they start out in the program and as they earn money, then they begin to co-pay. Stutsman asked what the County’s long-term commitment is. Severson replied that it can be evaluated yearly. Neuzil asked if the STAR Program provides similar programs to those that were provided in the past by the County’s HACAP funding. Thompson said that the services are similar but provided at regular daycare centers. Axeen replied that it could be done anywhere. Canganelli explained that in the past $7,500 was budgeted for childcare, but the program is dynamic so as they accept more families that need and line item will increase. Thompson asked how the Home-Ties program affects this line item. Canganelli replied that typically Home-Ties does not have openings for these children and are added to the waiting list. Thompson said that the Board could add funds to Home-Ties, but then it would not count as a match for the Grant.

Neuzil said that he’d like to take a step back and process the information because currently the process seems one sided. He asked the Board if they are prepared to make a recommendation. Harney asked how staffing is handled. Canganelli replied that there is one program manager and case managers who are Shelter House employees, whose time is paid for through the life skills and employee assistance portions of the budget. She said that they also contract with Goodwill and other agencies for services. She said that there are also 4.5 case managers at the STAR Offices. Harney asked what the Homeland Security Funding is used for. Canganelli said that there is money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) but she is not aware of funding that comes through Homeland Security. Harney said that there is a grant that was through FEMA, but is not funded through Homeland Security. Canganelli said that she spoke with the local Homeland Security Office, but she’s continued to report to the Federal FEMA Office directly.

Stutsman said she isn’t ready to fund a STAR match at this time, but she’s willing to fund an agency that’s consistent with the Board’s goals. Thompson said that the Board has committed to a 3% raise for County employees, but they froze the block grants so they could use this money to provide increases to the agencies that requested it. Harney said that he’d like to see children’s services because he’d like to see early intervention. Axeen said that there are 2.1 to 2.3 children per family in the homeless population that would be affected by this grant. Lehman asked how the program was able to open itself up to families in transitional housing. Canganelli replied that the capacity was different and it was more focused towards single individuals, so there has been a significant change in the make up of who is being served since they included transitional housing individuals. She said that the children are directly benefiting from the services to the families.

James Thomason said having Axeen promoting the program for HACAP says something about what is already in place for children. He said that 50% of the homeless people in Johnson County are under the age of 18. He said that the case management program has proven itself successful. Horne asked how long HACAP has known that the toddler Head Start Program would be discontinued. Axeen replied that they started to consider it a month and a half ago, but it wasn’t really an option until a few weeks before the letter was sent notifying supporters. Stutsman said that she is amazed by the amount of money that is spent for 60 to 70 individuals. Thompson asked if the grant would be jeopardized if the County chooses not to fund it. Canganelli replied that it jeopardizes the entire grant without another funding source. Harney asked if Shelter House works with the General Assistance Department. Canganelli said that the STAR Program tries to avoid duplication of services, which is where General Assistance is involved. The Board decided to postpone the decision until required by the budget. Harney asked if the Board designates the funds for childcare if it would be in addition to what is already provided or if it would replace the current allocation. Canganelli said that the Program wouldn’t budget $30,000 for childcare unless there is a need.

Horne said that the County contracts with the City of Iowa City for animal control based on a usage formula. He said that funds would cover bringing in animals from the towns and unincorporated areas as well as the cost to house or euthanize them at the shelter. He said that the Sheriff’s Department usually chooses not to respond to the animal control calls themselves, but instead they call the animal control office to have them respond. Thompson said she believes the calls come from any area the Sheriff contracts with. Horne said that because of the County’s growth, the Board might want to look at having towns cover these expenses themselves. Lehman asked if the animal shelter could give details on where the animals are brought in from. The Board discussed possible ways to recoup the increased costs. Stutsman said that she feels it is a function of government. The Board decided to leave the line item as it is for now.

Horne said that workers compensation cost has increased due to increased usage of members of the County’s insurance group. He said that the group told members to expect 10.5 to 11% increases, so it is not the County’s usage that is driving up costs.

Harney said that he is concerned with the 3% COLA the Board budgeted by the elected officials because he doesn’t believe that it is fair to the administrative deputies. He asked what the difference in pay is between deputies and their highest paid subordinates. Neuzil replied that is around a $13,000 difference between a secretary and a deputy. Stutsman said that although the Board strives to be fair to everyone there are some situations that are beyond their control. She said that the bottom line is there is not a high amount of turnover except in one office. Neuzil said that the lack of fairness become more of an issue when comparing deputies to department heads because they do similar levels of work, but a department head has increased compensation. Thompson said that every year the deputies fall farther behind. She said that the Compensation Board gives the Board of Supervisors the ability to lessen that by allowing them a 4% increase. Stutsman said that salaries are the biggest expense and the salaries will be all the County can fund. Horne said that the Board has already accommodated the loss of State tax credits and interest revenues, so the only way the budget can get much tighter is for the tax base to shrink. He said that he was advised by the State that the Personal Property Credit has been eliminated completely, but it has been accommodated in the budget. The Board decided to leave the elected official’s COLA at a 3% increase.

Horne said that there is only a small increase is taxation this year. Thompson asked if the Board would consider adding $17,000 to human service block grants for a 2% increase. Neuzil said that the Board didn’t want to increase their own employees’ salaries by $12,000, but now they’re discussing a $17,000 increase for other agencies. Stutsman asked if the agencies would pass on the 2% increase to their employees. Thompson replied that if they don’t have the additional funds, they wouldn’t get any increase. Neuzil said that he would agree to use the $22,500 from HACAP to fund the increase or give a decreased amount to the STAR Grant match, then use the rest to fund the block grant increase. Thompson said that she would feel better about funding the STAR Grant if more of the money went directly to clients. Horne said that the Board would probably want to see more detail on the outcomes as well. Harney said that according to the Homeland Security Office, there were problems with tracking the funding passed through them to the Shelter House. Stutsman said that the County has never been at the table for discussions on this grant before, but now that the program needs funding they are suddenly offered representation. She said that in the past the Board has decided that the Shelter House is a City function. Thompson said that Hull does not believe the STAR Program supports General Assistance. The Board decided to give a one-time contribution of $7,500 to the STAR Program as a designated childcare match for the STAR Grant and reallocate the rest to the human service block grants who requested an increase.

Harney said that he believes the war in Iraq will create a larger need for assistance in the Veteran Affairs Department. He said that the Board will need to increase the Veteran Affairs budget in the future even if they don’t increase the guidelines. The Board agreed that it is a possibility in the future and that they will look at the impact of increasing the guidelines this year.

Adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Kate Darnold, Recording Secretary