MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 10, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
County Administration Service Area of the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget......................................... 1
Human Resources (06)............................................................................................... 1
Mileage Reimbursement.............................................................................................. 4
Board of Supervisors (05)........................................................................................... 6
Physical Plant (17)...................................................................................................... 7
Roads and Transportation Service Area of the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget.................................. 10
Secondary Roads (49)............................................................................................... 10
Block Grants............................................................................................................ 15
Fiscal Year 2007 County Budget............................................................................................ 21
Central Services (18)................................................................................................ 21
Insurance (22).......................................................................................................... 23
Institutional Accounts (41)......................................................................................... 23
Discussion: Fiscal Year 2007 County Budget.......................................................................... 24
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Lehman explained that the Board has been asking department heads to go over any important changes in their budgets. Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek asked if she should talk about mileage first or Human Resources first. Lehman said that Human Resources is fine. Shramek said that the most significant part of her budget is the Human Resources Coordinator, so she will focus on that. She said it is a 38% increase in staff--a significant budget request. Assuming the highest cost, it would be a total of $62,000. She explained that the last time that the department had any additional staff was four and half years ago when the Human Resources Office Assistant was added. Since that time, the department has had an increase in responsibilities in the areas of labor relations, where the office’s role in bargaining and grievances has increased. Also, regarding safety, the IMWCA requirements began in 2004. Moreover, GEMS, maintenance, and compensation increases were all previously performed in the Auditor’s Office by payroll but are now Human Resources’s responsibility.
Shramek also noted that because of the location of the office, Human Resources assists a lot of daily walk-ins and calls. She said that the staff is stretched thin as they are working additional hours. She concluded that there has been a decrease in the level of customer service and an increase in their backburner projects. She said that the department has little control over their workload as far as number of grievances or how often contracts will be negotiated. As a result, the department has found itself in more of a reactive than a proactive mode. Planning is often confined to the next immediate deadline. The industry standard is one Human Resources professional per 100 employees, so the County is understaffed. Shramek said that she worked with Human Resources Coordinator Jen Feldmann for over six years, and they were to the point where they could finish each other’s sentences. She said it was through that relationship that the department was able to take on more. At that time, they were already looking into requesting an additional employee to avoid burnout. Now that Feldmann has moved to Las Vegas, the need for an additional staff person is even greater.
Shramek presented a chart to show that an additional staff person is necessary in comparison with the staff needs of other counties. She has the number of employees within the organization, the Human Resources budgets, and the Human Resources staff people listed for Iowa City, Scott County, Linn County, and Black Hawk County. She said that the Johnson County is responsible for risk management in Human Resources, that is, safety and workers’ compensations, which are not automatically considered Human Resources responsibilities. She noted that Johnson County has one Human Resources professional per 181 employees is which the highest out of the other counties shown. The additional staff person would take Johnson County to one Human Resources staff person per 131 employees which is in line with Linn County and Iowa City, Shramek said. She also noted that the County has six collective bargaining units, and this is definitely on the high end. She said that hot projects for the Human Resources Coordinator include applicant tracking. Human Resources needs to centralize this using GEMS. She said that they need to input and track the voluntary information from employment applications. The new employee handbook changes the designated compliance for affirmative action and equal opportunity from the County Attorney’s Office to HR. This is a really important aspect for Shramek. She said that they need to expand the Countywide plan with goals and timetables, and this needs to be monitored on a regular basis. Her hope is that this will result in a more diverse workforce for Johnson County. She said that right now, the County is risking their government grant monies and funding. This is especially significant considering that in Public Health alone, the figure is $823,000. Stutsman asked why those funds would be at risk. Shramek replied that if the County had an audit that found that affirmative action was not where it needed to be, then the County would lose their federal monies. She said that she has been working with the Public Health Department ever since she started working at the County and wrote the first affirmative action plan for the department. She said that it has been satisfying the State auditor’s every other year, but affirmative action is not where it should be and it is not Countywide. Stutsman asked if that is something that can be contracted out to be done. Shramek said perhaps but the County would have to give all the information, and in order to get that information, various statistics have to be recorded in GEMS or in Excel. Shramek said that if the County is going to do all of the work to provide the information, they may as well finish up the report instead of paying some other entity to do it.
R. Sullivan said that Human Resources is currently at 2.65 employees and wondered if Shramek considered going to the 3 FTE’s as opposed to adding the other full time person. Shramek said that the .65 is Human Resources Office Assistant Susan Vileta, whose hours have been increased from 18 to 24 per week. The hours originally were 20 reduced to 18 with the 4% mandatory cuts that year, and then, they just recently increased the hours to 24. That has given the department more assistance on the office help not on the professional level. She said that she cannot ask Vileta to do anything beyond the scope of her job description. R. Sullivan said it seems like a natural next step to take part time employee up to full time. Stutsman said that their job descriptions are pretty different though. Shramek said that the department would be getting more help on the office side but that they need more assistance with compliance and professional tasks. Lehman said that he thought maybe R. Sullivan was trying to ask if the department could keep a third professional staff person occupied. R. Sullivan said that when he looks at number seven on the decision package, a lot of the things listed there are not professional activities. Shramek said that that section is focused on Vileta’s position. She said that if an additional Human Resources professional is not possible, then the department is going to make do by reorganizing the office. R. Sullivan said that they might have to bring in a professional and get rid of someone who is not. Shramek said that she can’t do that with the monies that she has. If she were to remove or to scale back on the County communication activities like the employee newsletter, which take up a lot of time, then the department can focus on putting this information into GEMS for affirmative action and getting that whole project up and running. Lehman said that currently Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Kuo heads up some of those committees. Shramek said that all of the professional Human Resources staff are technically on the Communications Committee right now.
Harney wondered if they could replace the part time person with a full time person who would have the abilities to cross train. Stutsman asked if he was talking about laying off the part time person. Harney said he isn’t necessarily talking about laying them off because they might qualify for whatever extra duties are needed. If they are not qualified, then they would have to be replaced, he said. R. Sullivan said that it seems like there is an incremental step there up to a half-time person instead of a full-time person. Shramek said that she would certainly take anything the Board could give her. She added that in the safety efforts, that 25% attention to it is not enough. Since December 2004, Feldmann has spent a significant amount of time just developing the program. She said that Johnson County has been recognized by IMWCA for efforts in their safety committee, but they have not tackled the modified light duty program and are not conducting regular audits, especially with large projects. She said that they have many other projects in the area of safety and that training alone takes up a great deal of time. She mentioned that there are many other GEMS functions that they could be taking advantage of. She said that R. Sullivan has mentioned a few times the orientation for boards and commissions. She agreed that the County needs that, yet the Human Resources department simply cannot take on anymore.
Shramek noted that when the Board does employee evaluations and gives an employee goals, those goals are in addition to what the employee is already doing. It is not that, for example, the employee gets to let go of one project like the employee newsletter while s/he does other things. She said that a small staff can only be stretched so far. Stutsman said that the issue is the tight budget. She said that orientation for board and commissions would be nice but not necessary. So, maybe they should not take on a new project when they are already stretched thin, said Stutsman. She also said that people enjoy the Communication Committee activities, but maybe they just need to focus on the essential services. So, they should perhaps pull back on projects instead of adding new staff. She said this is just an idea.
Shramek said that she recognizes that the Human Resources is not a revenue generating department, but she does think that they control expenditures. She said that Human Resources manages the County safety program, and those efforts have helped decrease their experience modification factor. They are under a one, which gives them a discount and that further reduces their workers’ compensation premium. She noted that the County even got a big refund this year in that area. She said that Human Resources also manages the health care plan. She said that the County has one of the lowest increases in the whole State with Wellmark and the health care plan is usually a significant part of the budget. This year, the County will have no increase in health care. She said that she recognizes that the budget is tight, but she has also seen what has been approved before. And she is very familiar with the work levels in other departments. So, she does not think what she is asking for is out of line at all. Stutsman agreed but said that the money is the question. Harney said that Human Resources is the backbone of any agency. He said that the money is the issue. He said that the County’s professionalism has skyrocketed over the last eight years, and Human Resources has been central in that. Shramek thanked Harney.
Lehman asked about a salary survey that Shramek had requested. Shramek said that she has $200,000 in the budget, and it is $30,000 to conduct the survey. She said that would be estimated compensation increases for over 100 people. Shramek said it is $30,000 to do the survey, and the other money is for the salary increases. Neuzil said this may a project that they just can’t do. Stutsman said that they keep putting it off though. Shramek said they had a survey in 1998. Stutsman said maybe one every ten years is okay.
Regarding mileage, Shramek said that the reimbursement is currently 32 cents a mile and has been at that figure since July 1, 2005. At that time, it was increased from 28 cents and before that from 24 cents. So, they have been going by 4 cent increments. She noted that the price for a gallon of gas was $1.76 last year and today it is $2.24. She said according to the mileage reimbursement chart for local counties and cities, Johnson County is definitely on the lower end. She said that her recommendation is to increase the reimbursement rate to 38 cents at minimum effective July 1, 2006. Shramek said it is important to note that departments were asked to absorb the last increase. Stutsman asked if Shramek knew what kind of budget impact this would have. Shramek said no. Neuzil said that the last increase was something $6,000 dollars. He said the figure was definitely under $10,000 in any case. Neuzil said they should probably do this after the budget. Shramek said that they have employees wanting to refuse to drive because the reimbursement rate is so low. Lehman said that they could ask Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne come back with that number. Neuzil said that he would like at minimum see the increase get to the State level. Neuzil said that they should not be below what the State reimburses. Shramek said the State was at 29 cents last year, and the County went 32 cents. Stutsman said that it might be better to revisit this because she would like to examine what former Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne had recommended in terms of fleet and renting cars and so on. Shramek said that she doesn’t think there is anything. M. Sullivan added that Horne didn’t start anything. Lehman said that he thinks that Horne had some figures on what it would cost to rent a car, but he didn’t estimate how many of these paid miles would equal the cost of renting a car. R. Sullivan said that the fact that they have employees who are not interested in driving their own car might be good if it moves them into a County vehicle. Shramek said that a County vehicle is probably not available if the employee is driving a personal car because employees have to drive a County vehicle unless one is not available. Then, they can use their own car. Stutsman asked if that is a written policy. Shramek said yes.
Stutsman asked why the Board drives their own vehicles. Neuzil joked it is because they are the Board of Supervisors. Neuzil said it is a little tricky for the Board and other department heads if they have to go to a conference and spend the night. This makes it harder to use County vehicles. R. Sullivan said that he doesn’t mind going up to where the State is at, but he thinks they need to be careful in saying that the County will match the State because the State moves their figure annually. Neuzil said the State does not change the reimbursement level very often. Stutsman said she doesn’t think so either. Shramek said that the State might review the figure annually, but they do not move it annually. Stutsman said that they need to decide what they want to go to and whether they are going to budget for it or ask departments to absorb the cost.
Lehman said that it help to have Claiborne give the Board of Supervisors some estimates as far as reimbursement costs. Stutsman thought that Claiborne should start that vehicle study again. Neuzil said he would at least like to see Claiborne investigate the possibility of renting cars and of having a floating County vehicle. Stutsman said that the Planning and Zoning vehicle seems to be the floating vehicle. Harney said that the only way that the rental vehicle could work is if an employee is going to be gone for a lengthy time. Shramek said that going to Des Moines could be cheaper via a rental car and potentially convenient because the rental car place might deliver the car. Harney said that he remembers that the IRS was allowing up to around 41 cents. Harney said he thinks 38 cents make sense. Stutsman said she would rather see them do 34 cents and stick with the State. Shramek said that there is some rational to go with the State figure because they use the State figure for meal reimbursement. Harney said he does not have a problem with that. The Board agreed to go with 34 cents per mile for reimbursement to be absorbed by individual departments. Lehman said that Claiborne does not have to do the studies immediately then but should keep in mind that this will come up in the future. Neuzil noted that he never did see that $200,000 in the documents. M. Sullivan said he did not see it in there either. Harney agreed.
M. Sullivan said that the Board of Supervisors budget is increasing by $1,425 in overall expenditures. The revenues are decreasing by $535 to a projected $225 for the year because there is a reduction in the number of fireworks permits. M. Sullivan explained that they are seeing fewer people coming to shoot fireworks displays that have ATF permits to do that. He said that he increased stationary and forms by $200. He removed minor equipment from the line item and placed it under meeting expenses and planning. He said they don’t really need a minor equipment line because it could go under office equipment. He noted that they increased staff mileage reimbursement by $200 based on the trend of use. The Board members have their own line items for mileage reimbursement. Neuzil said that they need to get R. Sullivan in the budget instead of using Carol Thompson’s name and initials on the forms. M. Sullivan said that is fine. Neuzil said he thinks the auditor has already done that.
Neuzil said he thinks it is odd that transportation and mileage are separate. He wondered why they budgeted $300 for parking and nothing for mileage. R. Sullivan said that that they end $200 in the red for one area and not using the budget in the other area. M. Sullivan said that is because the paper is being processed from the wrong line item. So, they aren’t actually over budget; it is just a matter of taking the money out of the wrong line item. M. Sullivan said that in the last budget amendment, he increased the staff development, NACo fund to $3,000 anticipating that the Board would be anticipating the Chicago NACo conference this year. He said that this does not include the Washington D.C. trip which comes out of Central Services. Stutsman said she doesn’t understand why it is in Central Services. M. Sullivan said that the Board has always had it under Central Services for as long as he has worked for the County. Stutsman said that Central Services suggests that everyone in the County can access that, but if the conference is just for the Board of Supervisors, then it should be part of the Board of Supervisors budget. M. Sullivan said they could certainly do that.
R. Sullivan said that he would like to get to the point where he can manage his own budget and see what he is spending and decide what he can and can’t afford to go to. Stutsman said they could ask Claiborne to provide a monthly report. Stutsman said that there has been a lot of flexibility among Board members so that if one person has run out and another has some extra, they can shift the funds a little. Neuzil said he has done that. M. Sullivan said that the way he understands the Board is that they want him to move all of their line items from Central Services to the Board of Supervisors budget. R. Sullivan asked if the money for M. Sullivan and Claiborne to go to things is in this budget. M. Sullivan said that there is money in Central Services for Board staff that can be utilized. He said there is also $1,400 in staff registration fees in the Board of Supervisors budget. He explained that anything in the Board of Supervisors budget that staff means M. Sullivan and Claiborne. Stutsman asked if it was okay to have quarterly reports. Claiborne said he would like to get the line items corrected before he does that. R. Sullivan said he would like to go at least quarterly. Claiborne said that he can offer monthly reports. Stutsman said she would be fine with having that information emailed.
Facilities Director David Kempf began by reading the department’s objective: to maintain and improve the structural integrity of all County properties through timely completion of planned projects and preventative maintenance, to provide a safe environment for all members of the public and County employees, and to exercise due vigilance while maintaining and supervising department expenditures. He said that each project on the attached list falls under the department objectives and can be measure using pre-established performance indicators. Kempf said the largest increase is utilities. He said they have been very fortunate this year with the mild winter that they had. At the end of January, they are running at 60%, which is lucky. He said that he there is about a 17% increase in utilities based on prediction. The total budget is only increasing by 3%, and the majority of that is coming from the increase in utilities. The other things involve increases in cost parts and so on.
Neuzil wondered if there are parking fees still being charged to courthouse. Kempf said there are. Stutsman asked why the parking fees lowered. M. Sullivan said that it didn’t lower. Kempf said the figure varies, but that lot is totally full and wanting more spaces. Stutsman wanted to revisit the parking fees for the Administration Building. She said they are still paying something like $12,000 a year. Kempf said it is $14,400 a year. Stutsman wondered if they shouldn’t look at charging people to park again. That is a sizable amount of revenue that they are not seeing, she thought. Kempf said that as the County moves forward with the project across the street, they will be needing to go back to parking at City Carton. Harney said that they probably won’t need that once they have the new parking lot in place. Kempf said that once they take care of RT’s and Car Quest properties, the County will have the parking north of the Car Quest building. Neuzil asked if that will be about the same as what they are using now for the $1,200. Kempf said it would be comparable to that. Kempf said that he has been reluctant to go over there and start measuring for parking spots since it doesn’t actually belong to the County. Stutsman said it probably isn’t fair for taxpayers to pay for parking for County employees. Neuzil said it comes back to fairness. Stutsman said it comes back supply and demand. So, if they are incurring a cost to provide parking, then they need to see revenue for it somewhere. Neuzil said they incur costs for a lot of things like going to be bathroom. He said he just doesn’t think it is fair that someone who works out at Secondary Roads does not have to pay parking, while someone who works at the Administration Building does have to pay. Stutsman said that the other rationale is to try to encourage people to use public transportation. Kempf said that underlying argument that he goes by is that employees who work at Public Health park for free. They park for free at Ambulance and at Secondary Roads. They also park for free at MH/DD, said Kempf. Stutsman said that will change when they have the new Health and Human Services building. Harney said that may be when they should address the cost. R. Sullivan said that people complain about the number of cars that DHS brings into Eastdale. Stutsman asked if that is for staff or clientele. R. Sullivan said for clientele. He added that anyone who has been at MH/DD knows that people park on the grass and such. Or, at Public Health, people are parking at the Crisis Center. So, almost every building that they are talking about consolidating over at YaYa’s property has insufficient parking. Kempf said that the parking at those buildings are primarily for employees and not customers. R. Sullivan explained that if they move the same amount of public parking spots from all of those places to this new building, they will start off with not enough. Kempf said that is why they will have to have that additional lot near RT’s. R. Sullivan wondered it that would be enough. Kempf said that the parking spaces are determined by the size of the building. Neuzil said he doesn’t think there is going to be enough until the armory area becomes open. R. Sullivan said that his issue with the employee parking is that it doesn’t do any good if they are not going to be able to enforce it. Stutsman said that the time it takes to enforce it is a lot. Kempf said they only need to do that is to have a gated lot that requires a key or a code of some sort. He said that the University of Iowa spends a lot of money on parking. They do commuter lots and then run Cambus to various buildings. Kempf said that when he worked at the University, he walked one mile from his designated parking spot to his work site, and that was relatively close. Harney said the City is the same way. The employees pay for their own parking unless they work at the service building. Stutsman said that she would like to send the message that they are doing their part to encourage people to reduce the number of cars that come to work, and the only way to do that is through the pocketbook. Kempf said that if they are going to charge for employee parking, he wonders if they would have to charge County wide then. Neuzil wondered if that would have to be bargained. Stutsman said that she does not think they should ever treat that as something that needs to be bargained. R. Sullivan said it could be department by department. He said that sometimes the Ambulance people have to stay for a long period of time at their work place, whereas others work the usual eight hours. Neuzil said that he does not want to discourage an employee from working at a certain place within the County because one place charges, making the employee pay $250 a year. Stutsman said that $14,000 is a lot of money to be paying for parking as well. Harney said they could tag it as a benefit if the County is going to give parking for free. Kempf wondered what would happen if the Courthouse decides that they do not want cars parked around the Courthouse anymore for security reasons. Will they go out and pay for a city ramp for employees to park at. Stutsman said that she imagines they would see many more people parking closer to the Administration Building and walking to the Courthouse. The Board agreed to discuss this more in the future. Stutsman said that in an ideal world they could provide parking for everyone, but that is not how it works.
Kempf said that some of the larger projects that he has identified as upcoming needs includes the Courthouse. He said they have been stalling on the retaining wall on the south side of the Courthouse for a while. He said they are at the point where they have to do something whether they replace the wall entirely or put up a concrete retaining wall. Neuzil asked what Kempf thinks they should do. Kempf thought that they would be better off doing a concrete retaining wall. They could reuse the limestone header blocks that are across the top of it. He said that is pretty much what has been done the rest of the way around the Courthouse. He noted that some of it is cement retaining wall face on old limestone stone. Another option, Kempf explained, is to go with the large keystone blocks in the wall. He said that a few years back, the County had Dwight Dobberstein do up a plan for doing the keystone block wall. Neuzil asked if there is anyway to piecemeal it by just doing the problematic stuff. Kempf said that he thinks it is going to require a fairly substantial concrete retaining wall, but that it could be done without removing everything that is there. Neuzil said if there is going to be a jail there and if the road might be taken out, it would be a shame to spend $100,000. Harney said he doesn’t mind if he addresses it.
Stutsman asked about the three smoking shelters. Kempf said that they haven’t done anything with those yet. Stutsman said to take those off. R. Sullivan wasn’t sure of their purpose. Kempf said it is basically a bus stop shelter where people could go outside of the wind and rain to smoke. R. Sullivan asked where they would have them. Kempf said that he has been approached about having one at the jail and one at the Administration Building. Neuzil said he would like to take those off. Stutsman did not think they should make smoking more attractive.
Harney asked how the lock repairs were going at the jail. Kempf said that is an ongoing maintenance issue. He said they need to spend about $10,000 on preventative maintenance to make sure the locks are in working order. He said that this past year, they had to replace all the hardware on one of the large iron gates including the track. That alone was over $5,000. This is for the maintenance and security of the jail. He said one of the costs that is increasing is the standard swing doors with electronic locks. They are wired through the center ridge. Those wires wear out and then short out so that none of the doors can open or close. He said that they put a fuse in each of the control panels to keep from shorting out the entire panel. Just the hinge to do that is $320. He said that institutional hardware is very expensive. He said they are running about $10,000 a year.
Stutsman asked if the retaining wall is in this budget. Kempf said that he should have $45,000 from last year to put toward the $90,000 for the wall. He said he is in the midst of contacting the State Historical Society to see what the County needs to do to comply with their standards for fixing the stairs in front of the Courthouse. There was some question about whether the stairs are old concrete or limestone. Neuzil asked if there has been any talk about closing the front door for security reasons. Harney said he still thinks they should maintain that. Kempf said regardless of whether or not the door stays open for people to enter the building, the steps need to stay in condition because the door has to allow people to exit the building. Lehman said that Kempf has an $85,000 balance now and is asking for $25,000, but he is only going to spend $25,000. Kempf said he would only be spending $25,000 this year and the rest would carry over. Then, he would probably ask for one more lump sum before beginning the tuck-pointing project.
Stutsman said that when Information Services Administrator Jean Schultz was in, they talked about redoing their office and she wondered if that should be in this budget. Stutsman remembered that this was in the Information Services budget. Kempf said it could go either way. He noted that he has a line for replacing carpet in the Administration Building, and that Schultz’s office is in that list. He said that if she is considering new furniture, this would definitely be the time to do that. Neuzil said there was some talk about moving Schultz to the new building.
Neuzil asked if there was money put away for the smoking shelters in 2005. Kempf said that was $5,000 that was scheduled to be spent this year for the smoking shelters, but it has not been spent. Harney asked if they have any money budgeted for demolition. Kempf said he does not. Stutsman said she thought that would be part of Capital projects. Kempf agreed. He also thought that some of that would be deferred if they choose to take a little time and sell the buildings over by YaYa’s for salvage. That will create a little bit of income and clear out some of the extra stuff. He said that he has already had several calls about those properties.
Harney asked how they are handling the out buildings like Chatham Oaks. Kempf said that Secondary Roads keeps most of that in their own budget. The only thing that Kempf’s department helps with is managing the custodial contract. Secondary Roads still pays the custodial cost, but Kempf contracts with the vendor that performs those services. Concerning Chatham Oaks, Kempf’s is the department that handles that. Harney said it looks like that building needs some siding. Kempf said it does need some shingle work but probably not any new siding. Lehman said that they extended that lease another six months. He said that the Chatham Oaks Board of Directors wanted to have a little better feel for if there was something major that needed help, would the County pay. Kempf said the question of who would be responsible for what maintenance items and this still hasn’t been decided. He said he thinks the relationship between him and the Chatham Oaks is going well and has improved over the past year. R. Sullivan said the question is whether or not they want to pay for this out of MH/DD or out of the General Fund. Lehman said that if Chatham Oaks pays for repair or remodeling, their cost of business goes up, and that is reflected in their rates. Kempf said he is looking for some direction from the Board on this matter.
Stutsman asked if there are requirements that Counties have to put a certain amount of money into the rural road fund. Parker said that is correct. There is a required minimum match that funds need to be put into the County budget for Secondary Roads for them to maintain federal fund reimbursements and others. He noted that the Board has the option of exceeding that minimum amount, but that would mean a rural tax increase. Lehman said that they are not just talking about reconstruction projects but replacement of culverts, bridges, and so on. Parker responded that the minimum match has been fluctuating, but he is sure that the Board has been matching that. Neuzil asked if Parker has the figure. Parker said that for 2005, the number is 2.39317. Neuzil said that this year, the tax asking is 2.34, which he thinks is low. Parker said that in 2002, that number was 2.3645, and in 2001, it was 2.323. Neuzil asked why the levy was lower this year than it has been in the past. Harney said he thinks it is tied into the formula. Stutsman said that it is tied into the fund balance. She said that Secondary Roads had a pretty big fund balance built up, so the Board was trying to get that down. Parker said that he was not here at that time, but his understanding is that there is concern about having a large cash balance. Parker recommended that the County never drop below one million dollars because the County needs that money to cover emergency operational activities in the case of a heavy snowstorm, bridge failure, tornadoes, and so on. R. Sullivan asked what Parker has on the books for cash balance now. Parker said the County is sitting at a little over two million dollars. Stutsman said she thought they should take the balance at the beginning of the fiscal year because now, they are in the middle of the fiscal year. Parker said that they do have expenditures that are still coming out.
Neuzil asked what road projects are funded in the 2007 budget. Parker asked if he meant out of the cash balance. Neuzil said out of the Secondary Roads budget. Stutsman figured that whatever is on the 5-Year Road Plan would be the projects. Parker said that he has a sheet with that information on it. Neuzil said that what was confusing to him was the use of so many codes on those sheets. Parker said that the Secondary Roads budget is an especially difficult one because they pull monies from a lot of different fund sources. They also tag projects numbers, which could include letters, to each project in the 5-Year Road Plan. The first one is LFMDB-LJ-7X-52. He said that this stands for local, farm-to-market. He said that 7X is the approximate location, and 52 is the County number. He explained that Secondary Roads has designated ways of setting project numbers for designated projects that are using specific types of funds. Neuzil asked what BROS-CO52-B-5-4 means. Parker said that BROS means that they will be using federal bridge funds for that on system in County 52, and the B-5-4 tells what structure the department is going to building on. Parker explained that each structure has a specific label that stays with it forever like a social security number. He further clarified that the BROS and BRS and FM codes are assigned by the Department of Transportation, but the local codes are assigned in-house based on the system that Secondary Roads has been using for a long time. Parker said that they have to assign a project number so that that number will not be repeated and cause confusion. Stutsman said that maybe sometime after the budget, Secondary Roads and the Board of Supervisors can get together to go over the details of the projects in more detail.
R. Sullivan wondered what is in the line item called buildings. Parker replied that Secondary Roads usually puts $50,000 in the budget each year for additions or modifications. In this case, the $450,000 that Secondary Roads added is going to come out of their cash reserve fund. It is a one-time hit, said Parker. He said that the total monies that he is requesting is about one million dollars more than last year, but a good portion of those projects are one-time hits that are going to be taken out of cash reserve. He stated that the $450,000 is to replace the Tiffin Maintenance Shed. He said he is going to meet the property owners to see if the County can procure some property. R. Sullivan asked if that figure includes the land and the building. Parker said it does. Neuzil said it is too bad that they could not make Conservation’s needs coincide with Secondary Roads needs. Stutsman asked what Neuzil meant. He said that Conservation needs a maintenance facility and that Secondary Roads needs a maintenance facility, and both are within three or four miles from each other. Parker said they may be even closer. Lehman said that they have some off-setting revenues if things click and they sell the site to Tiffin. Parker said that Tiffin has mentioned to Maintenance Supervisor Kevin Hackathorn that they have an interest in acquiring the site, but he doesn’t anticipate big reimbursement on that. He said that at this point, he just doesn’t know. Lehman said he would be cautious about moving unless they can sell the area for a good price. Otherwise, there seems to be no hurry to sell the property. Parker said that the current structure is too small. He said they are trying to bring everything into one facility and the Tiffin facility does not allow that. He explained that certainly Secondary Roads is not interested in giving it away. They would have the property assessed. Neuzil asked if the County is in the same situation with Swisher. Parker said that the City of Solon has expressed a great interest in acquiring the County’s Solon site. They have a little bit of a land title issue that he is working with the Attorney’s office on.
Stutsman said that the budget is going to increase by one million dollars and wondered why that wouldn’t include an increase in taxes. Parker said there is a false impression that Secondary Roads is asking for a permanent increase of one million dollars, when a large portion of the million dollars is going to be take out of the cash reserve, which would not affect an increase in tax levy if that is where the Board decides to go. Stutsman asked where that would bring the cash reserves down to. Parker said that they are looking at taking about $600,000. He said that they will still be at over one million and even over one million five hundred thousand. He said that for projects like this, it is good to keep in about two million in cash reserves. He noted that with the population that they have and the requirements of level of service and the potential emergencies that could happen, he thinks that two million is a good number.
Neuzil said that he was approached by a constituent this morning regarding trails. He wondered if the County wanted to start putting some funds away for trails, could that money come out of Secondary Roads. He said that right now they don’t have any funds for trails. He wondered if perhaps the County should put trails on the 5-Year Road Plan as a project. Parker said that trails are a grey area for Secondary Roads expenditures. He said that he thinks it has been shown in the past that as long as the trails are part of a road construction project, they are now frowned upon, but if the Secondary Roads were to use their departmental funds strictly for a trail construction unrelated to a road project, they would get many questions about that from the public. He went on to say that there are federal funds available called enhancement dollars, and the County could apply for those to cover the construction of the trail. Neuzil wondered if other counties use their General Fund to pay for separate trails. Parker stated that there are several different funding sources that the Board could use. His experience is that counties typically use conservation departments for trails, while cities use the park department. Harney said independent groups tend to ask for the funding and doing the trail projects. Parker said this is a good way to offset the high cost of trails. He figured that separated trails cost almost as much as a road per mile. Harney said he thinks it is rare to be granted federal enhancement monies. Stutsman said she thinks the County received such funds for Dubuque Street. She went on to say that it seems a little early to start budgeting for the trails since they don’t yet know what the details of the routes are yet. She also thought they should collaborate with the City as well. Parker said that having joint collaboration enhances the chance of receiving additional funds from the federal government. Stutsman mentioned working with Linn County as well. Parker said absolutely.
Lehman asked if there are any other key changes in the budget. Parker said that the first bunch of items on the second page are road construction matches and have figures that will fluctuate annually because of the projects that they are doing. He said that he doesn’t believe that the Department is requesting any more money than usual in that area. He asked M. Sullivan if he has the totals there. M. Sullivan replied that he does not have tallies on those numbers. Stutsman asked if Parker is talking about the decision packages. Parker said yes. R. Sullivan said that he finds it unclear that there are no category headings. Parker said that on the first page, there is the budget number that includes the Department of Transportation numbers. R. Sullivan said he was referring to the columns with the dollars. Parker said he doesn’t know why those didn’t print off. He went through and named the columns: Fiscal Year 2005, Fiscal Year 2006 budgeted, re-estimated 2006, requested change, and then fiscal year 2007 request. M. Sullivan said the total is $1.025 million. M. Sullivan said that there is also an increase in revenues as well.
Parker said that anything that is not part of the 5-Year Road Plan program might need review. Parker said that diesel is a big change. He said they are anticipating regular fuel to be $3.00 or $3.50 a gallon this summer, and this increases the impact on diesel, which will also jump up. Parker said that he hears that oil companies are going to keep the gas fuel prices down and increase the diesel costs because it will show less of an impact to the traveling public. That means that businesses are going to have to absorb the diesel cost because that is what they usually use. Parker clarified that at this point, this prediction is only speculation. He said that they have had an increase in their diesel fuel usage so far. For next, he anticipates an increase of $100,000. Stutsman asked if there is any way to cut back on the number of miles driven. He responded that driving vehicles is their business, so if they didn’t have vehicles out there, their level or service would be compromised. He said that the only flexibility they have is if the gas prices do not go up. Then, they would not expend the anticipated dollar amount. Lehman said maybe if they get less snow, the cost will be a little lower. Parker said that is true. He explained that Secondary Roads tries to budget based on what an average year will produce. Over the past couple of years, they haven’t been increasing activities when they probably should have. He said that looking at the actual cost over the last several years in relation to what the department budgeted, they have been less. He said that will the impact that they have had this year, all of the equipment, fuel, and so on is going up in price. The price of salt is going up as well.
Stutsman asked what the budget impact of the reclassification is. Parker said that he talked to Administrative Assistant Diane Kaster about this. It would be something Secondary Roads could absorb in the existing budget. He said that they would be reclassifying Mike Gardner, and there is a limit on the budget as far as what they can do. Stutsman wondered if this is a union position. Parker said yes. M. Sullivan said that the job description has been approved. Parker said that when a job is being reclassified, that is a good time to redefine the job description to better reflect what the person in that position is doing. He mentioned that they already have a Tech II position, so they would just be mirroring that job description. Harney asked if he gave that information to Claiborne. Parker responded that he will and that he thinks it will be less that a couple thousand dollars. He figured that Secondary Roads could absorb that in the budget. He explained that currently, the department cannot have the individual working on GIS or doing any minor design activities even though the worker is capable of doing these things.
Lehman mentioned some large equipment replacement. Parker stated that Secondary Roads will not be asking for this dollar amount year after year because the amount various each year. He said there is an increase this year by $73,500 to $588,000. Parker said he would go through the one-time hits. This list includes the building, which will come out of cash reserve. The list also includes hardware purchases such as a fuel system. He said that other departments would like to take advantage of Secondary Roads’s gas and diesel availability. Neuzil asked if the departments are SEATS and the Sheriff. Parker said yes, and he imagined that other departments will want to join as well once the information goes online. He said that Secondary Roads will be asking for an amendment to their existing budget to proceed with the main shop upgrade and two other facilities. This is phase 2 of a three year project to update all fuel dispensing locations and all of the County sheds. All of the sheds will be on an automated system so that the employees won’t have to be sticking tanks into a tank. This, he said, should reduce the inaccuracies in measuring the department’s fuel consumption. He noted that the department will be using some type of card system to measure usage. These are one-time expenditures. Stutsman asked if that is $27,000 for the next three years. Parker replied that he thinks it will take about sixty or seventy thousand to turnover all of the sites. He asked M. Sullivan if that is right. M. Sullivan said the figure is closer to seventy. Stutsman said that they have a card system down at the Hills warehouse, and it keeps track of who is using what. Parker said that they do have that at the main shop, but the system is antiquated. They are having trouble with the software, and the cost of upgrade the software is phenomenal. So, the department decided that if they were going to upgrade, they may as well do it completely and make the service available for other departments. Stutsman said that will be great.
Lehman said that the reimbursement of 28E agreements decreased by $39,000 and wondered if that got kicked back up later. Parker said that the $74,800 is a one-time increase reimbursement because the department will be receiving those monies from the compost facility related to Derby. Lehman inquired what the $39,000 decrease means. He wondered if it is in relation to 28E’s with cities or with homeowners. Parker said that he was trying to reflect more accurately what the department’s actual revenues have been. He said that he thinks the revenues were over inflated in previous budgets. One of the things that Parker is trying to do is get their numbers closer to true cost accounting, and he thinks he and Claiborne have had some good conversations in that direction. He said that the budget has many numbers that don’t accurately reflect what is actually taking place. Harney asked if Secondary Roads is moving forward with the Derby project. Parker said that as far as he knows, they are proceeding with that project. He noted that the County Attorney’s office is now reviewing that road agreement. Harney said that if something happens, they will be hanging out there with all of the costs. Parker said that both intersections are in and the funding figure is an estimate not actual cost. Lehman said that that agreement has to do with conditional use. Parker said that is correct. Lehman said this is a lot to absorb. He thought they might want to have a work session to clarify much of this, especially trails. Neuzil said he thinks this is the year to figure that out and put it in next year’s budget. Lehman said that they also need to figure out how to handle applying for grants as far as which ones they could qualify for and so on.
Recessed at 10:55 a.m.; reconvened at 11:05 a.m.
Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) Human Services Coordinator Linda Severson said that she said that JCCOG looked at local needs assessments and compared the needs of the groups. She explained that she looked at five different assessments that have been done by different groups and then looked at what was common across the groups. She noted that they also include the Johnson County Strategic Plan, but it is not on this particular sheet. Stutsman asked if the assessments were done in a priority order. Severson said no, the groups identified top issues. She said that in order to compare, she noted what needs crossed the different assessments. So, for example, a previous needs assessment done by JCCOG and United Way identified six issues not necessarily in a particular order. Stutsman said that the chart is really helpful.
Severson that after the chart is a description of the five needs assessments and from where they gathered their information. On the next page, she said, are some trends based on the question of in what ways will the needs of the service population change in the next five years. Severson noted that one thing that came across in a number of resources was the need for bilingual staff who are experienced in the area being serviced. Severson said that another need is to help newcomers to the community understand the expectation of this community with respect for the previous standards of community. She noted that JCCOG has helped a couple of the family resource centers in the Broadway neighborhoods put together a welcome packet. These packets list the schools in the area, resources, and contact numbers. At the bottom of that packet, there is a note that says that in this community, every child is expected to attend school every day and be on time. This helps people understand the expectations. There is also a list of job openings, consignment shops, health resources, information regarding public transportation, the library, and so on. Severson said that the support services like the fire department have donated pencils and stickers, and the police department provided trading cards. She explained that many of the people coming in are employed, but it does not mean they can pay all of their bills or meet all of their needs. She said that the situation is especially difficult for people who are classified as working poor, who have jobs but no benefits or time off.
Severson went on to explain other trends such as the aging of the population and what that means for meeting the needs of those citizens. She said that State did a study that concluded that the average age in the Department of Health Services is 47, and the average age in Corrections is 49. Another challenge is providing services to children. She said that she recommends focusing on the pre-school age child. Severson said that the service agencies are usually unable to offer many services to older children unless there is court involvement. She also noted that many soldiers from current wars are coming back with head injuries and amputations. These people might not have survived in previous eras but are surviving now, and the community needs to find ways to help these people transition back into daily life. Other challenges include a larger need for services than the amount of services available. This means that people often have to wait for housing. For example, the number of days women are staying at the Rape Victim Advocacy Program is increasing and fewer women can be accommodated. To address the need for housing, the Shelter House would like to build a new facility. The Shelter purchased some land and this has been challenged by a group of citizens. She said that the Shelter House is an allowable use of that area, but for some reason the Code said that shelter had to have a special exception. Severson noted that she doesn’t quite understand this, but this is where the process got tripped up. She said that the Shelter House and the City are appealing that decision and are waiting to get a court date.
Severson explained that the Shelter House has a grant called STAR that was awarded seven or eight years to assist people who are homeless. It is a HUD grant that allows people to participate for up to 24 months. Severson said that this kind of support is important to provide. She noted that now there is a cash match of $106,000, which equals about one local dollar for every four federal dollars. She stated that in Fiscal Year 2005, the Board allocated $7,500 toward that match. In 2006, the Board chose not to put any money into that. This year, she is requesting $13,000 to help with that cash match. Stutsman asked if the $106,000 stays the same or goes up each year. Severson responded that the match has stayed the same so far. Stutsman asked how close they are to getting their match. Severson said she isn’t sure what the current figure is but getting the cash match is always a struggle. She said that at first, MECCA was able to contribute, and the next year HACAP was able to contribute. Lately, they have been relying on smaller contributions. She said that Iowa City allocated $7,500. Stutsman asked if they have a request in to the City this year. Severson said yes. Lehman asked how they become eligible for the grant if they cannot reach the match. Severson said that if they don’t meet the match, then the grant is lost. R. Sullivan said that he has not heard much in terms of the impact that the HUD grant has. Severson said that she can get an annual progress report for the Board.
Severson said that on the last page of the memo is a list of alternative criteria for making funding decisions. She listed four basic criteria including meeting basic needs and preventing problems. She said that these latter programs are difficult to assess as far as effectiveness but are worthwhile. Problems can be prevented or contained. She mentioned using local funding to secure other funding resources and using local funding to help fill in the gaps in agency funding like utilities, insurance, or administrative costs.
Lehman said that the cash reserve for the Shelter House has gone way up since they are interested in building a new structure. He wondered who the County is assured that any money they might give the Shelter House does not go into that fund and instead goes into services. Severson said that the organization has to report this information on the grant paperwork. They show where the local match money is coming from and how it is expended. She said that she had asked the Shelter House to do a separate budget for STAR which she has not yet received. She said that she also requested that on the front page, the break out what is for the general shelter and what is for STAR. She said that there is a sheet in the packet that does break out the numbers some. She also noted that toward the end of the application, it should indicate whether they have any restricted funds and the Shelter House indicated that in 2004, they had $247,000 for the new facility fund. The STAR program has more than $445,000 and the match has restrictions on how that can be spent. She said that in the past, the Board of Supervisors has identified two members to review the material, and then they make recommendations to the Board. She said that is perfectly fine with her. Neuzil said that if that meeting were to happen, it would have to happen before 4:00 p.m. on Monday. Stutsman asked if they couldn’t just go over that information now. Severson said certainly and that she was just explaining how the Board has handled this decision in the past.
R. Sullivan said that one of the issues is that the school districts fund is a similar type of expenditure as is the senior center. Severson asked if the Board needed any further information other than the impact that STAR has had. She briefly mentioned that HACAP submitted an application but not on time. She said that the applications for joint funding were due October 1, but JCCOG received an application from them in the middle of January. They requested between one and two thousand from the County and the same from the City. Severson recommended that the Board have her write a letter saying that the request will not be considered because it was not submitted in a timely fashion. She wondered what the Board would like to do. Neuzil said that regarding block grants, they had some other requests from the 100,000 hours club and the James Gang and others, and none of these are in there. He said that as they make these decisions, the issue of what the Cities of Coralville and Iowa City numbers are.
Severson said that Iowa City usually approves a bottom line figure and then reviews it and breaks out line items. She said that her understanding is that they are looking at a 3% increase in the total budget, but that the increases within the budget have not been specified. Neuzil asked if Iowa City will say that block grants will be $500,000 without saying what those are. Severson said that is right. She noted that Coralville is at about $43,000, and it is typically a three to five percent increase. Neuzil said that both Iowa City and Coralville have frozen their discretionary funding for the past five years. Severson said that Coralville’s has been increasing gradually. In the case of Iowa City, they want to increase, but there was a cut by the State. Still, in Fiscal Year 2006, there was a 3% increase, she said. Lehman asked if United Way has done their awarding.
Severson said that the United Way just closed their campaign. The community impact council will be meeting next week, and, according the newspaper, their campaign was successful. Severson indicated that the campaign was especially successful considering the increase in demand for the donor dollar in the face of Katrina and other events. R. Sullivan said that even with the best United Way campaign in the world, the federal budget that just came out and the campaign is not going to offset the loss. Neuzil said he thought there was a mandatory 1% decrease from the federal government.
Stutsman asked if emergency housing is the same as shelter. Severson said they are the same and that she would like to request that they be changed in the County’s system. Stutsman said that they are asking for $14,916 for a total budget of $23,000. M. Sullivan said that the $14,000 figure included the STAR grant match. Stutsman asked if they gave additional dollars other than the STAR grant last year. She said she thinks that that is not what the Shelter is requesting this year. R. Sullivan said that the County gave the Shelter $8,721 and the STAR grant is in addition to that. M. Sullivan said that they need to separate the STAR grant out to the line item below for STAR grant match. Severson that this year what the Shelter requested for operations is $10,637, and what they requested for the grant match was $13,000. So, they combined it even though she likes to keep them separate. M. Sullivan said that the County will also keep them separate.
Lehman said that what is difficult is that the County’s priorities as far as prevention might be different than some other funding agency. Yet, if an organization is not fully funded, they are not able to accomplish their mission or the County’s. Neuzil said that the difficulty is that the County has $912,978 to cut out of this year’s budget. Severson said that she thinks the agency is sensitive to the budget situation and would appreciate any amount that the Board could give. Stutsman asked if Severson has recommendations that representatives from the Board of Supervisors made. Severson said that was in previous years. She said that a 3% cut for one group could be disastrous depending on what that group’s overall budget is. So, she would appreciate it if the Board could look at the cuts from the perspective of a dollar amount cut and a percentage cut. Neuzil said he thought that is a good idea. Severson thanked the Board for their help and support.
Regarding the Senior Center, Senior Center Commission member Jay Honohan said he has brought the information that the Board had asked for at a previous meeting. He said that the first sheet breaks down the membership for Fiscal Year 2005 based on whether the members are from Iowa City, rural Johnson County, incorporated cities of Johnson County, or outside of Johnson County. He said that he thought the figure for rural Johnson County was 7% or 8%, but the figure is 6%. Honohan also provided the operational revenue to show where the funding comes from. He said that the Center is requesting $75,000, the same amount that they had requested over the last three years. Honohan also brought a chart of the number or participants and number of programs for the past three fiscal years to show the increase in participation. He said that participation has increased even though the number of meals served in the Center has decreased. He noted that the number of meals going outside the Center that are produced at the Center has increased.
Honohan offered a list of the different agencies that the Center has partnered with for events in and outside of the Center. The dining program is on the next chart. Honohan said that the Center is a significant partner with the dining program because it uses the Center’s space and equipment. Moreover, the Center pays for all of the utilities for the dining program at the Senior Center as well as some repair and maintenance. He mentioned that R. Sullivan was particularly interested in the scholarship program and that is the last exhibit in the packet. He said that they are running scholarships for about 11% of the participants. Many events do not require a membership. Senior Center Director Linda Kopping said that they have programs open for the general public so that anyone can come regardless of age. She said that the majority of the programs they offer are open to all people who are fifty of over regardless of their membership status. Membership is a commitment to providing additional financial support and access to some expanded services. Lehman said that even though the members may be 6% from rural Johnson County, the number of participants at a certain program who are from that area may be much more than 6%. Honohan said that is right. He gave the example of his Spanish class. He said the majority of the participants are from Coralville.
Neuzil asked Claiborne about the block grants. He said that the number that the Board has in the budget worksheet expenditure is different from the request for the block grants in general. M. Sullivan said that he and Claiborne probably made some adjustments and can give them an updated sheet for Monday. Honohan thanked the Board.
Stutsman said that Lucas is a new request for Family Resources Center that they have not provided dollars for in the past. She said that the County has matched funds from the Hills City Council and the North Liberty City Council for their resource centers. A representative from the schools said that he has seen the needs that Lucas and Roosevelt have as they grow. He said that the parents are very interested in having the services that a resource center could provide. There is no doubt that they need those resources, he explained. He noted that their ultimate goal is to have a Family Resource Center operative in both of those schools. He continued said he appreciates all of the help that the County has given them.
Neuzil said that the request this year is $68,500 when it was $40,000 last year. He noted that this is a significant increase. He also mentioned that for Lucas, the request is $10,000, but Mark Twain and Roosevelt are not in there. He said he is curious why Lucas got thrown in. He said that it looks like Hills stayed the same, while Coralville went up by $5,000, and North Liberty went up to $33,500, which is almost what the County spent last year for all of the schools. Iowa City Community School District Representative Joan Vandenberg said that last year, they bumped up staff at North Liberty because it is a growing population. She said that last year, the City of North Liberty and the district bumped up their contributions but the County did not. So, this year, she is coming back to see if the County could bump up their efforts with the North Liberty Family Resource Center. She said that they were able to complete the third leg of that position with Decat funding, but Decat funding is not very stable. She said that they don’t want to move back in terms of their staffing for North Liberty, so that is why they are requesting funding for that. In terms of Coralville Central, they have on full time employee and a little bit of part time help in two schools. She said that the City is interested in bumping up their contribution but wanted to see if the County and District would be interested in increasing their contributions. She added that they are seeing a migration of higher needs families in Coralville.
Regarding Lucas, Vandenburg said that they are really good advocates for their building. They have started making a lot of contacts with the District and the City Council and to the Board of Supervisors, she noted. She said Lucas is the largest eastside school that includes the trailer courts and the Towncrest area. Neuzil asked what the City is giving. She replied that they have the CDBG grant at this point. She said that the matches among the City, County, and District is a great model. She said that the three schools that have family resource centers have great needs, and sometimes they are able to get some grants like 21st Century Schools Grants. She added that Lucas is somewhat in between in that its needs are not as great as Twain's, yet there is a gap there. She said that of all of the eighteen elementary schools in Iowa City, she feels that if they could have a Center at Lucas and Roosevelt, she would feel pretty good that they had all of the Iowa City schools supported. The other schools don't have the volume of need. Vandenberg said that just about all the City Councilors have visited Lucas, and the will is there.
Stutsman explained that initially, the Board started funding Family Resource Centers in the unincorporated areas like Hills. The Board felt that County dollars could support those areas. She said that they approached the city councils and said that if they match the Board's funds, then the Board will contribute. That is how the Centers came about in Hills and North Liberty. She said that as the Center's have become successful, more schools have gotten them. She said that Lucas does have some kids from the unincorporated areas. She said that next year, they should send a letter to Iowa City to get them to match the Board's and other groups' funds. R. Sullivan said that this isn't coming out of the rural budget but the general budget. He noted that he is a little uncomfortable with how the funds are getting broken down. He would like to see them forget about whether they are dealing with Lucas or Twain or some other school because the money is all from general funds. He wondered if the Board couldn't just give a lump sum and have the representatives determine which schools get what. Neuzil said that a few years ago, it was $25,000 and now it is $68,500, and they aren't even talking about non-Iowa City community school districts that will approach the Board later. Stutsman said that they cannot afford to deny the needs out there. Vandenberg said that the federal cuts and the changes within DHS have affected the Family Resource Centers. She said that when there is the three-way split, everyone gets a big bang for their buck. She explained that every dollar that is contributed by the County goes straight into services because the District is funding the utilities and space and so on. Stutsman said that she is amazed at the staff that works at the resource centers as they go well above their duties.
R. Sullivan said that one of the things the Board tries to do with their own departments is try to figure out where they can fundraise. He wondered if there has been a targeted fundraising effort for the Centers. Vandenberg said that their foundation has been raising funds for over twenty years. She said that they get a lot of support like coats and supplies and volunteers, yet they cannot count on these sources to fund a staff person. Stutsman said that the community really fills the gap there. Man
Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner said that animal control is a cost that is on the rise. He said that he thinks they have a 28E agreement with the City in that regard. He said that on his budget sheets, he likes to have two years of actual in front of him. The figure went from $33,000 in 2004 to just under $60,000 last year. The County has not yet been billed for this year, but M. Sullivan indicated that it would be at least $100,000. Aschenbrenner said that according to the agreement, the City is supposed to bill the County quarterly, but they usually bill annually. This makes it hard to know where the County is at until they get the bottom dropped on them. Stutsman said that next year, the County budgeted $90,000 when they spent $100,000 this year. Aschenbrenner said that M. Sullivan told him to budget in the eighties, but he did not think that was enough. Neuzil said that they could look into merging with Coralville on this. Stutsman said that they need to give a heads up to Iowa City to rework the 28E agreement. She said that historically, when there has been a dog problem, the County has told people to go out and shoot them. Now, they are doing the humane thing, but the question is can they afford it, said Stutsman. Harney said that sometimes the County gets stuck with animals that people dump in the rural areas. Stutsman expressed interest in tracking where the animals come from, but figured that it would be impossible to track. M. Sullivan said that he and Aschenbrenner talked about whether to wait for the agreement to come or address it now. If they do not have the money levied for it next year, they would have to find it somewhere else. Neuzil said that there needs to be a message sent to Iowa City saying that the County has a limited amount to provide for the service of animal care. Harney said the shelter used to keep animals for a few days and now they keep them longer than anyone else.
M. Sullivan said that to get control of the situation, the County either needs to wash out the 28E agreement and start anew, or come up with a different strategy for dealing with them. He said that they might also request that the shelter not hold the County animals for twenty one days but for ten or three days. He noted that the problem with the Iowa City Animal Shelter is that they are not a rescue shelter. He said that the rescue shelters focus on adopting animals out. He explained that for every day a County animal is in the shelter, the County gets charged. Harney thought that the issue was more in the area of billing. Claiborne said that as far as the billing goes, there is no clear record of how many animals are coming in for how many days. R. Sullivan said it could be ten animals for 2.7 days each or of one animal for many days. M. Sullivan agreed. Stutsman said that the County used to have to produce all of those minute numbers for the SEATS contracts with Iowa City. She said that she knows that Coralville is really upset with the City. She also noted that the shelter is probably not going to be willing to change their policy for County dogs. She said that she thinks they need to look for other alternatives. Neuzil asked what they should budget for in the meantime. M. Sullivan said that the $90,000 is the best they could do. R. Sullivan asked what the status of the 28E is. Stutsman said they need to find out what the notice on it is. M. Sullivan said he can find out. Neuzil said that if the Board can budget for $45,000 or $50,000 for this year, then they better know what the mandate is on the contract. Harney said the also need to look at what is going to happen to these dogs if they are dumped.
Stutsman said that Coralville is thinking of starting their own shelter and wonders if the County might want to join in on that effort. Stutsman said that they might have to budget the full amount for this year, but they definitely need to get this sorted out. Aschenbrenner said that the Board won't get any disagreement from him on that. The Board agreed to leave the figure at $90,000.
Aschenbrenner said that the non-bargaining merit line was given to him by Shramek, so he doesn't know much about that. It increased to $57,500. Neuzil asked why the labor relations is going up by $3,000 when it does not look like they are going to have many contracts to negotiate. Lehman said it could be grievances. M. Sullivan said the funds could be for mediations and grievances. M. Sullivan he can find out why Shramek increased that.
R. Sullivan asked why the postage is being budgeted at the same rate even thought there has been a postage increase. Stutsman said that is insignificant. R. Sullivan he is talking about the central mail not the thirty dollar figure. Aschenbrenner said that this year was an anomaly because it was an election year that required more postage. This year, that figure should not be so high. Aschenbrenner said that $97,000 should be adequate. Stutsman said this could go in the supplemental fund.
Neuzil said that for the planning consultant, he wondered if they were using the Neumann Monson PC Architect Dwight Dobberstein fund. M. Sullivan said that his plan for the building part is going to be part of the land money. Neuzil wondered if they would have enough funds. Aschenbrenner asked if the County is paying for the planning of the North Corridor through that fund. M. Sullivan said he isn’t quite sure because he was not the one to pay any of those claims. He noted that $67,000 from 2005 was for the Howard R. Green company. Neuzil wondered why they couldn't use road funds. M. Sullivan said he didn't think they could. Stutsman said that it is because the Board decided to do this; it is not part of the road plan. M. Sullivan said if the Board is more comfortable having this funded out of central services instead of capital projects, they can do that. Harney asked that they check with Parker to see if they have funds available. Stutsman asked exactly what they are funding for. R. Sullivan said that the budget for 2007 is only $2,000, and he can't imagine that would be enough.
Stutsman said that the NACo line should move. R. Sullivan said that 41315 is the line for transportation, meals, and lodging. M. Sullivan said that they could also consider putting supplies and employee recognition in there. Neuzil said that that seems to belong in central services. He thought that just the things that the Board of Supervisors uses for the Board of Supervisors should be moved. R. Sullivan said that 41315 is the one that jumps out at him. Stutsman said she thinks so as well and asked who will tell Secretary II Jo Hogarty about the change. M. Sullivan said that he will. Aschenbrenner said that the line will need to be broken out into five lines, one for each supervisor. Neuzil said that one line needs to be the D.C. trip and one line needs to be NACo, and both should be in the Board of Supervisors category. Aschenbrenner noted that he can switch accounts or create accounts for the Board as needed.
Neuzil asked about revenues. He wondered if there is anything in the budget regarding the County Attorney or Treasurer who are selling properties. He asked if that is covered in Central Services. Aschenbrenner said that there is a sale of land category and a sale of used equipment category. Neuzil said that the $5,000 from the sale of the old house is not in the budget. Aschenbrenner explained that is because that revenue is for the current year, and that sale might have gone through after Aschenbrenner had prepared the budget. Neuzil said that he thought they could predict a revenue of $100,000. Harney said that money is not close yet. Neuzil said they could predict though. R. Sullivan said that the figure would be more like $60,000 because they have to pay other entities a percentage of the sale. Aschenbrenner said that one good thing on the revenue side is that Kriz believes that they should have quite an increase in general interest revenue. Lehman asked if there are any questions.
Aschenbrenner said that he consulted County Insurance Agent Bob Saunders for this information. He that this department will be increasing personal property insurance, real property insurance, work place safety, and unemployment compensation. He said that there is no change in revenues. He said that a lot of the increase is that they are acquiring assets at this time and have more property and people to insure.
Aschenbrenner said that this department is probably the most difficult one for him to predict from year to year. He does not think that these are discretionary but are mandated by the State. He said that the reimbursement to the youth home in Toledo has been down, at least the last time he looked at the actuals. He expected them to be under $40,000, but they could be double that next year. There is no way to predict, Aschenbrenner said. He basically made no changes in the budget. Harney asked if regular transport funds are being used for the Sheriff. He said it doesn’t look like anything has been used there in line 35305. Aschenbrenner said he would have to look and see because he doesn’t know much about commitment claims. He said that sometimes when he gets the reimbursement from the State, he sometimes pays or subsidizes the cost. Often, the paperwork is so thick that he has to consult with MH/DD or DHS or the Sheriff’s Department to make sure that they each get their fair share of the reimbursement. He has to figure out who actually did the transport and who actually served the papers and so forth. He said it is pretty rare that they would see a transportation cost actually run through this department especially since the budgeted amount is so small. Lehman wondered if there are ever revenues for this department. Aschenbrenner replied that he didn’t think so. He said that any revenues are generally deposited back into the expense account. The Board thanked Aschenbrenner.
Harney said that there are two more items that the Board needs to address: Uptown Bill’s and ICAD. Stutsman mentioned the James Gang as well. Lehman said that regarding Uptown Bill’s, he talked to Tom and suggested that he become a provider. Lehman said he isn’t sure if Tom investigated that or if he would qualify or not. Stutsman said that she thinks Tom was just interested in the increase in rent.
Claiborne said that in the packet that he worked on this week, he turned in a levy over the $3.50. To hit the $3.50, the magic number is $540,720 that they need to reduce. He said that the Board needs to make an adjustment somehow to have starting point before any other things they decide like position for the Sheriff or for Human Resources. Stutsman asked for the number again. Claiborne repeated that $540,720 needs to be decreased. Neuzil said that the figure he has is $912,978. M. Sullivan said that is because Neuzil has an early number before M. Sullivan and Claiborne made some changes. M. Sullivan said that on Monday he has a meeting with Springstead and Associates Representative Tony Roetlin and Claiborne to talk about the budget. They are going to maximize what can be transferred into the General Supplemental Fund and talk about the Rural Fund again. They will also talk about bonding and if there is anything they can bond for that can relieve the levy excess. He said that information should be ready by Monday at 4:00 p.m.
M. Sullivan noted that if the Board wants him to put in Uptown Bill’s, ICAD, and the James Gang in, he can do that, but he needs to know the figure for them. He said he knows that Uptown Bill’s is $10,000 and the James Gang is $1,000, but he does not know how much ICAD is. Harney said that they are asking for $25,000. R. Sullivan said that he things that for next year they should list everyone who requested money even if they are zeroed out. Neuzil said they are in the budget. Stutsman said she thinks R. Sullivan means that the Board should have a separate list of who has asked for what. R. Sullivan said that he wants this just concerning the block grants.
Neuzil said that he would like to see the document that has the new $540,720 figure. M. Sullivan said right now, that figure is simply on a sticky note because it was just recently figured. Claiborne explained the way that he and M. Sullivan arrived at that figure. He said that to take .12307 over the $3.50 times the valuation, which is 4,393,595,911 and multiply that by 1,000. Lehman asked if M. Sullivan and Claiborne knocked anything out the budget. M. Sullivan assured the Board that all he and Claiborne did was narrow the target and that is up to the Board to take things out of the budget. Neuzil asked that when M. Sullivan and Claiborne look at the bonding that they look into the possibility of bonding out the election machines for the remaining $200,000. M. Sullivan said that they certainly will. He also noted that the County can levy that at any time during the budget year. Neuzil said that if the County bonds for the $200,000, that would free up that much for this year’s budget. M. Sullivan said that if they bond for this year’s budget and next year’s, then they could do that, but he thinks that County Auditor Tom Slockett is thinking of purchasing the machines before next year. Stutsman said that Slockett has already purchased ten machines. M. Sullivan said that he is talking about bonding in the next fiscal year not the current fiscal year, but if the Board wants him to do that, he can. R. Sullivan asked that M. Sullivan check out the postage issue as well.
The Board agreed to meet again on Monday at 4:00 p.m. and on Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. Claiborne suggested that the goal for Monday be for the Board to meet the $540,720 number and then talk about anything that the Board might want to add or subtract. Then, they could firm up the budget on Tuesday so that he can get the final numbers put in on Tuesday and Wednesday. M. Sullivan explained that once he and Claiborne know what the Board wants in terms of firm numbers, they would like about week to work on it. Administrative Secretary Casie Kadlec said that Monday’s budget work session is scheduled for 4:00 p.m., but Shramek said that she thinks the first grievance is going to last at least an hour and the second one will last a while as well. She said that, as required, a representative from PPME will be there, and that person’s presentation will take at least an hour.
Stutsman left at 12:50 p.m.
Claiborne said that if they start at 5:00 p.m. and quit at 6:30 p.m., they can get a good start. Kadlec said that the 15th was the original deadline, but if Claiborne thinks he can get everything together in less time, then the Board can have another work session. Neuzil said that they also have from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday. M. Sullivan said to keep in mind that after he and Claiborne meet with Roetlin, they are going to have a list of recommendations for the Board to consider. So, they won’t have to go through every single department again. Harney said that they really need to know is if they are going to look seriously at any of the decision packages. M. Sullivan said that the number in the tentative budget does not include any decision packages at all. Claiborne said that some are. For example, the Board approved allowing the County Recorder to change one of her employees to 40 hours, he said. Neuzil said that the session is going to come down to discretionary money, plus County Conservation and the Sheriff’s Department and Public Health. R. Sullivan said that Shramek’s request is also out there. M. Sullivan said that he thinks the Board needs more time. Claiborne asked Kadlec if they are not allowed to change the budget after the 15th. She replied that they cannot change it after the 22nd or 23rd, but she figured that Claiborne would need a week to get the budget totally ready. So, if the Board met on the 16th, then Claiborne would still have four or five days to solidify the budget. Kadlec mentioned that if the Board absolutely needed to, they could recess their meeting on the 14th instead of adjourn, and then they would not have to put out a new agenda. Neuzil said that he needs to know now if they are going to put the meeting on the 16th because that would mean that he could not go to Des Moines. R. Sullivan said that realistically, they have made it through all of the requests. Neuzil said that he thinks they can get done by March 14 because they will have five and a half hours to figure out the budget. R. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil said that what would help is some assistance in some areas in which they cannot cut. Claiborne said that he thinks the numbers will look much better after they talk about the bonding. He said that the new phone system for DHS is not necessarily needed because the new building will come with a new system. So, there is some money there. R. Sullivan said that one expense that never goes away and only goes up is when they add positions. He said that he would like to look at that issue independently. Neuzil said that the big ticket items are the Sheriff’s request of $490,000, Conservation’s request of $150,000, and Human Resources’s request of $55,000. He added the block grants, which will near $100,000.
R. Sullivan said that one of the things that the Sheriff mentioned was rural patrol. M. Sullivan said that he will be talking to Pulkrabek about that. He said that that is a policy call on the Board’s part, and the Farm Bureau is really sensitive to that. R. Sullivan said that is something like $550,000 that could be moved from general to rural. Neuzil said that even the Human Rights Ordinance could be a rural issue. Claiborne said that he heard they are not anywhere near the cap on the rural fund. R. Sullivan said that they were at something like 40% on that. Claiborne asked Kadlec when the State form needs to be ready. Kadlec said that the Board is going to finish on the 14th or the 16th, and that gives Claiborne a week to get everything into the spreadsheets, to get the State form done, and so on. Then, on the morning of March 23, she needs the State budget form to mail to the newspapers. At the point, nothing can change.
Adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary