BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pat Harney, Chairperson

Larry Meyers

Terrence Neuzil

Sally Stutsman

Rod Sullivan

Agenda

 

Boardroom – 2nd Floor

Johnson County Administration Building

913 South Dubuque Street

Iowa City, Iowa   52240

 

Friday, December 28, 2007

 

INFORMAL MEETING

 

Budget Work Session

 

1.    Call to order 9:00 a.m.

 

2.    Discussion re:   the following Department Budgets:

 

          a)    Secondary Roads  (49)

          b)    Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities  (46)

          c)    Other

 

3.    Discussion re:   FY 2009 County Budget

 

4.    Discussion from the public

 

5.    Adjourn

 MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

DECEMBER 28, 2007

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

County Engineer Greg Parker: FY09 Budget......................................................................... 1

Secondary Roads (49).............................................................................................. 1

Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Kris Artley and Financial and Statistical Supervisor Deb Guard: FY09 Budget.................................................................................................................. 9

Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities (46)......................................................... 9

 

      Chairperson Harney 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, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.

 

County Engineer Greg Parker: FY09 Budget

Secondary Roads (49)

 

      Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan stated that County Engineer Greg Parker had a decision package with one item under non-personnel with an increase in estimated expenditures of $349,037.  This has been adjusted based on prices required from the IDOT contracts, materials, and parts.  There was an increase in revenues that were estimated at $92,494.22 and included the 3% tax increase, $500,000 Rural Basic (CIP) and the $4,934 from the other worksheet.  Other than that, there are no other capital expenditure requests and no personnel requests.  If there is any other item they wanted Parker to cover specifically in the expenditures and revenues, he would.

 

      Harney asked if the decision package was just estimated extra costs in, for example, bridge work.  M. Sullivan said that the adjustments that were made in the budget worksheets estimated an increase of $349,037.  On the revenue side of the worksheet, there were increases that were estimated at $92,594.22.  Stutsman asked if the sizeable increase of $70,000 that Parker was requesting was in rock.  Parker said this higher amount was to cover the increased cost of rock, not to increase the amount.  The rock that they obtain from River Products and other suppliers is going up due to their increased fuel costs and operational activities to make the rock.  They are passing these costs directly to the customers.  Parker said they are trying to flat line the increases to cover what they did the previous year, but this does not increase the amount of rock for their use.  This is unfortunate because they are not able to maintain the roads as they should be.  He realizes that all County budgets are tight but Secondary Roads are not maintaining their budgetary needs to support the infrastructure they have.

 

      Neuzil asked if, as a department head, Parker should be requesting a higher, sufficient amount to keep from falling short.  He asked if the requested amount is going to provide for more than they are currently maintaining.  Parker said his expenditures were increasing, but his revenues were not keeping up.  He was trying to keep his expenditures close to the revenue amount.  The difference was going to have to be covered by something, and he did not want to tap into the cash reserve for that.  His budget is $350,000 more than last year and his expenditure request also is.  Neuzil said he felt Secondary Roads must request an amount to keep up with what they needed to do.  Parker said he was trying very hard to keep everything in check.  For example, they try to base their expenditures on an average year, and this winter is not average.  They have already reached 100% max capacity of ordering salt.  They must make adjustments throughout the year to cover the fluctuations.  They also have a high expenditure for overtime and salt and sand usage.  In the spring, they may have to cut out a construction project to cover those expenditures.  They also may request an amendment as needed to adjust amounts. 

 

      R. Sullivan said he wanted to discuss the line item for chemicals and abrasives.  It appears they spent $115,000 in FY07.  He asked why it is budgeted for less in FY08 and for an in between amount in FY09.  Parker said R. Sullivan had a valid point for expenditures.  They try to base the futures off of average winters.  In FY07, which was two years ago, there wasn't much salt and sand use until January, and then they were hit hard.  R. Sullivan said Parker was just trying to shoot for a middle amount then.  Parker said that the $26,000 increase was to cover what the current contract amount was.  They are in a three year contract.  For salt purchases, they jumped on to the Department of Transportation (DOT) contract.  They have done that in the past.  There is a statewide bid that goes out, and this past year they signed a three year contract.  This enables him to be sure of the salt price for three years.  In the budget adjustment, they anticipate the price to increase.  The contract requires them to annually purchase 80% of the amount they had requested.  The contract also requires them to provide 120% of what the bid was.  Anything over 120%, the County has to find.  Since the County has already purchased 100%, they are becoming concerned because the State is hurting for salt and some locations are not able to provide any. 

 

      Harney said the budget shows $30,000 for sand, chemicals, and abrasives.  They show $86,000 under chemical and abrasives.  He asked if that was that a duplication.  Parker said no.  The chemicals/chemical abrasive was salt.  The sand was for the mix.  Sand is $8.00 a ton and salt is $45.00 a ton.  This accounts for the large price differential.  He explained that the Secondary Roads budget is a complicated thing to review.  There are areas of expenditures that may have ten items in a specific area that adds up to a million dollars.  The DOT budget allows them to over or under expend that amount 10% without doing a budget amendment.  Since the bottom line includes ten items, Parker is able to float those numbers around to cover that expenditure.  M. Sullivan said the Secondary Roads budget is one that there will be the most frequent adjustments in. 

 

      Harney asked if the $250,000 was for the new facility.  Parker said Secondary Roads will do a spring amendment this fiscal year for $250,000 which will come out of cash reserves to help pay for the new office.  Parker said he discussed this with M. Sullivan, Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne and Facilities Director David Kempf and they decided to break the $500,000 into two fiscal years.  He reduced the $500,000 in 08 which they amended to cover the $400,000 expenditure for the shed.  The $250,000 is next years half of the $500,000 for the SEATS and Secondary Roads office building.  R. Sullivan said the shed money is there.  Parker said yes, it has been approved and they amended the budget to cover that in the fall budget amendment. 

 

      Stutsman asked Parker about the money for allocation to upgrade gravel roads.  Parker said that money is set aside for that specific purpose.  It is not a part of his operational budget.  It is a separate, designated, capital improvement fund source.  M. Sullivan said it was in its own fund because it is a Rural Fund taxation issue.  Stutsman asked if it was included in this year's budget again.  M. Sullivan said yes.  R. Sullivan said it was $500,000 last year and another $500,000 this year.  They just did not expend any of it.  This would allow them to maybe spend a million.  Parker said that yes, they were at that level.  When they initially set that up, they had discussed the fact that it may take one or two years to build the capital up to be able to do one plus projects.  The Board has set up projects and prioritized those.  Sioux Avenue has been pulled off and tabled for now.  They will be sending out letters to the Osage people in the next 30 days.  They will try to set up a spring meeting for that.  Parker said $400,000 of the half million was used for rural road upgrades.  $100,000 has been designated for the trails.  The $500,000 amount was an increase in revenues, but it is not part of this budget.  It is Secondary Roads revenue expenditure with its own budget. 

 

      Neuzil asked what the 3% increase that was indicated on the worksheet was.  When he was planning the budget, Parker said Claiborne had indicated to him to plan on a $3% increase in across the board revenues.  Neuzil said when Parker says revenue, did he mean tax increases of 3% on the rural side of the budget.  Parker said correct.  He does not receive any fees for services as other departments do.  Claiborne said the 3% increase amount was just an estimate. 

 

      Stutsman said in previous years Board discussions, other engineers have spoke of the fund balance.  She asked Parker if he felt it was healthy or were they delving into it more than they should be.  Parker said if Stutsman was referring to the cash reserve balance, yes, they were tapping into it.  In his past experience, when you start doing that, they should be using the money for one time expenditures or a one time budget expense due to a natural disaster.  The capital budget should definitely not be used for an ongoing expense such as operational expenses.  Parker said since he has been with the County, he has been trying to build the fund balance up in anticipation of replacing the shed.  The $400,000 estimated expenditure that was amended this fall is coming from that capital cash reserve fund.  He wanted to continue to build on that, as the Board has requested they look at another site to combine with Swisher and Solon in the effort to minimize facilities.  That would be another capital expenditure as is the SEATS and Secondary Roads office building.  R. Sullivan asked if Parker knew that fund balance.  Parker said it was around $3 million.  R. Sullivan asked how that compared to where they ought to be.  Parker said the Code requires that they have a minimum percentage based on what the total budget was.  They are currently above that amount.  They definitely do not want to drop below $1.5 million.  Many things could happen to dip into that amount.  They may not be related directly to his departmental expenditures.  There may be a tax issue at the Auditors Office, for example. 

 

      Neuzil said that the issue involving Oakdale Boulevard uses some internal money.  He asked if that was part of that or something different.  Parker said anything over and above the $1.5 million in Federal funds that they received towards that project, will need to find additional funding sources for.  Based on the estimate they have, they will absorb that into the construction budget.  They receive $2.6 million a year for construction.  Considering the roads and the needs that the County has, obviously that is not enough. 

 

      Parker explained that over the next five years, most of the construction dollars are going towards upgrading the Department of Transportation (DOT) roads.  When that is completed, they will move back towards maintaining the roads the County had before.  Neuzil said he knew that the agreement with the DOT meant ten years of road maintenance for them and not the County.  Parker said when they transferred the Transfer of Jurisdiction roads to the County, the DOT agreed to give the County $247,000 a year for ten years.  They are in year four of that agreement, and at the end of ten years, that amount of money will no longer be available to them.  Parker said they use that amount of money to manage and operate their budget.  In the future, the Board will need to consider what to do about the loss of that revenue source.  Neuzil agreed.  Harney said although they would eventually lose that money, they would have accomplished the upgrade of those roads and there will not be that expenditure again for a while.  Stutsman said that amount was not near covering what was necessary.  Harney said he realized that.  R. Sullivan said that was the cost of Highway 965.  Parker said he knew of four road projects right now that would amount to millions of dollars.  The $250,000 that they do receive would not cover 50% of the expenditures that they are upgrading those roads to. 

 

      Stutsman said that Parker needs to be very specific with the Board in regards to Oakdale Boulevard and how much it will cost the Secondary Roads fund if they do go with the more expensive alignment.  This will have a tremendous impact on the other projects.  The Board and the public needs to be very clear about the plans for that.  The decision has not been made and they must consider its expense and if the County can handle that.  Harney said they must consider the impact of placing a long bridge there and the cost if it would need to be replaced in 40 or 50 years.  Neuzil said they also need to see if Coralville will match the additional expense.  Stutsman said Coralville has not committed anything to them.  They have already picked an alignment and may not budge.

 

      Neuzil said ultimately, as a Board, they might not be in support of it if they can not make an agreement of what route to take.  That would mean there would be money for other projects.  Stutsman said she hoped that would not happen.  R. Sullivan said they would have to act or the money will go back to Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG).  R. Sullivan said they received the $1.5 million from JCCOG after Iowa City had two projects that never came to be.  Parker said Iowa City is watching this project progress very closely.  Stutsman said if the money goes back, it will never be done.  R. Sullivan and Harney agreed. 

 

      Parker said he hoped to have the data gathered about the Oakdale project to present a recommendation to the Board by the end of January.  He wants to be able to discuss the expenditures, the recommendations, the alignments and other issues.  He would also look at what the future maintenance responsibilities would be.  The maintenance and replacement of bridges are expensive.  Neuzil and Stutsman said when they have that information in front of them, they will then be able to make a decision.  Meyers asked what the life span of a bridge was.  Parker said typically 50 years.  They do have bridges in the County that are 100 years old.  Stutsman said the amount of traffic this new bridge would receive would make a difference.  Harney said the right-of-way for that road is set up to eventually become four lanes.  Parker said he thought the amount of traffic there will continually increase and this road will become a main arterial. 

 

      Stutsman said that after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, she knew that Parker had reevaluated the condition of the County’s bridges and found many that were in bad shape.  Stutsman asked if Parker is comfortable with the replacement schedule for the bridges they have.  Parker said the replacement schedule for the bridges include two options.  They would either close it or replace it.  They currently have a by-annual bridge inspection program.  After the bridge inspector gives his report, he indicates what needs to be done to maintain it.  If it is deemed to be structurally deficient, they must put a weight limit on it.  A functionally obsolete bridge means it has a width or height restriction that does not meet today’s use standards.  They have some bridges that are in both of those categories.  In that case, they limit the use of that road which specifically impacts agricultural use.  They want to keep the paved road bridges upgraded and maintained.  They do not have enough bridge funds to get everything done, but they are doing all they can to maintain them with what they have available.  The signs that are placed on the structures indicate what the bridges would be able to handle.  Some structures, such as the Mehaffey Bridge, are inspected annually.  It is on the 5 Year Road Program.  They have escrowed dollars set aside to cover that bridge expenditure.  The estimate for that keeps going higher than what they have saved.  That will amount to about a $4 million replacement cost and will require a two year construction season.

 

      Harney said the decision package does not address the maintenance issue in conjunction with SEATS.  Part of that would have to come from the SEATS budget.  They would need a reference to that to reflect what they were going to be doing.  Parker said he and SEATS Director Tom Brase have had conversations on how they would best be able to handle the combination of their efforts.  Parker and Brase both felt that they could see how the first year goes and then reevaluate what their needs would be.  Parker wanted to be cautious about the needs since they are very unclear at this time what they will be.  They will almost be doubling the fleet maintenance with this addition and other departments have approached him also about fleet maintenance since they will be in the new facility.  There are many things that could impact what their needs will be.  They will come forth in the next budget cycle with a recommendation.  If they allow one department to join they will all want to.  He does not know if they can handle all of that and if they have enough staff. 

 

      Harney said when they built this building, one of the arguments for the new, costly equipment was the cost savings of sharing a mechanic and doing repairs.  Parker agreed.  They must strongly consider how they will combine all of those efforts together.  What he is dealing with is the fact that all of his mechanics are out doing snow removal right now.  His mechanical staff are backup to the Roads department.  They are not doing any maintenance of equipment because they are not there.  If there is not any staff in the building, they will not be able to work on the SEATS buses that are in need of repair.  It will be a difficult balance to maintain and will be a big shift in the operational maintenance activities. 

 

      Meyers asked if his mechanics knew how to repair the special features on the SEATS buses, such as the lifts.  Parker said they do have a few issues with that since the buses are carrying passengers.  If there were an accident, they would have to go back two months prior to it to clear them for drug and alcohol testing.  That is not included in their contracts right now and how they currently treat their Commercial Driving Licenses (CDLs).  M. Sullivan said it is good to be cautious about this matter.  There is the possibility that in the long term they are creating another division.  It is hard to predict what will be needed in terms of employees in the future for this.  Parker said Secondary Roads budgets are only to be utilized for Secondary Roads activities.  They will need to keep track of that which means that they have an additional administrative tool to follow.  The current staff is loaded right now.

 

      Stutsman wanted to comment about the in-house mechanics.  She said that the County depends on property tax dollars.  Those dollars come from people who run businesses.  If they start pulling in all of those dollars from what they pay to the private sector, it does have an impact on the community and businesses.  There are lots of things to weigh.  If they do everything in-house, it will be taking away business from others.   M. Sullivan said in the final assessment, they may find that the maintenance costs they are currently paying in contracts may be less than the cost to develop a division.  Stutsman agreed.  Parker said next year they will have the data to show what the additional expenditures were for SEATS.  R. Sullivan said they would be able to make a more informed decision. 

 

      Meyers asked if Parker sends out a significant amount of mechanical work.  Parker said they do not do everything in house.  They continually use additional help.  They do not do tires or body work.  R. Sullivan said Parker has more specialized mechanics, but Brase does not.  SEATS must use a lot of community businesses.   Stutsman said if other departments start utilizing the County mechanics, it will start adding up.  Harney said the SEATS vehicles must have a certified mechanic work on the lifts.  Parker said they would need to start specialized training in that area. Stutsman said doing specialized work is justified, but the routine maintenance should be proceeded with cautiously.

 

      Parker has already received requests for access to the fuel island.  They want to stop using Iowa City for fuel.  The charges there have increased.  The Board may want to keep this in mind.  They have purchased the software and it is all automated, but it will be another administrative function that Parker would have to pick up and charge the other departments for.  Secondary Roads is Johnson County and they want to work with the other departments as best as they can.  He is required by Code to separate all the expenses and charge back.  Harney agreed.  They would need to consider the cost of adding pumps and tanks and the maintenance required of those.  There is also the distance of driving out there compared to staying in town to fuel up.  Meyers did not realize the fuel costs had increased.  R. Sullivan said it is a matter of convenience.  The Sheriff had asked if he could fuel at the Tiffin shed or the Secondary Roads shed without coming back in to town.  Parker said the majority of their stored fuel was diesel.  There are some departments that could benefit from that. 

 

      M. Sullivan said in the initial assessment of fuel, with the administrative fee that is added to the per gallon cost in Iowa City, he believed it would be more expensive for the County to administrate it out there than to continue doing what they are doing now.  There would be more expensive administration time in one department to serve all the departments.  He was not opposed to the idea, but the convenience factor may not be worth dealing with it financially.  Neuzil said he remembered an idea floating around about a hiring a fleet manager.  Everyone has vehicles sitting unutilized in parking lots.  There may be a better way to handle that.  Stutsman said they might be better off just renting a vehicle.  Parker said it will be a formative year next year. 

 

      Harney asked if Parker anticipated any remodeling when they move out of their offices.  Parker said when they move the administrative staff out of the existing office space and into the new space, there will be some conversions.  The existing offices and conference room will be removed by his staff at their convenience.  That area will be converted into two additional shop bay areas to put trucks in.  The other office space area utilization is yet to be determined.  He knows of some storage space issues to work through.  Harney said Parker needed to be aware that too extensive of a remodeling project will subject them to the use of the ADA standards.  Parker said that they do have offsets in the flooring with the different levels.  Parker would consider that.  He knew it had to be a safe removal of everything.  They have the Auditor’s, Treasurer’s, and Recorder’s office files stored above those offices and they will need to be moved to the new cold storage facility that will be located on the north side of their building. 

 

      Parker said the 5 Year Road Construction Program is coming up.  There are no changes to that from an expenditure standpoint.  They are spreading out their projects.  Herbert Hoover was in the fifth year twelve, so they are spreading that into the next thirteen.  They are not adding any new projects or taking any away.  It will be the same as the Board had approved last year.  They will just extend Herbert Hoover out and once they get past the five years, they will go back to the upgrade and maintenance of the existing County roads.  Harney asked what the plan was for Herbert Hoover.  Parker said it would still be done in the fifth year, but it will be carried over into the next fiscal since it was such an expensive project amounting to $3 or 4 million.  It may have to be phased into a two year construction season.  This will be in the year 2013 monies.  After that is completed, they will consider some other roads that need to replaced.

 

      R. Sullivan asked Parker if the CIP will be in the 5 Year Road Plan.  Parker said it was not added as part of the fifth year but it could be amended.  There would be a lot of things to work through.  If the Osage project goes through and all the neighbors grant the right-of-way, which is a Board requirement, they will have to go through a design on it.  That would be included in the following 5 Year Road construction for the summer.  The $400,000 would be dedicated towards that project.  Neuzil asked if the smaller Observatory Road towards Hills needs right-of-way.  Parker said it was the same thing for Green Castle.  He had hoped they did not have to acquire a right-of-way for those.  R. Sullivan asked if they would happen without programming them in.  Parker said no, they would have to be programmed in, but he did not know if they would be in this years program.  He was not going to add them as part of it, and although it was not recommended, they could amend the 5 Year Road Program.  He wanted to keep it as the Board had approved it unless there was an emergency and the Board had to amend it.  It is a dynamic program and projects don’t always receive what they need to keep moving.  Parker said he would recommend holding an informal discussion, overview and review and then a formal since there would not be any changes to discuss.  The public was aware of it and had seen the same 5 Year Road Program last year, although the projects may not be happening at the pace they would like them to.

 

      Neuzil said the list may get longer if they decide to put some separated trails in.  Parker said the Board had requested him to look at the additional costs for that as part of the 5 Year Road Program.  They had put together some preliminary numbers on that.  The Oakcrest Hill Road from Hwy 921 South to 520th Street was $1.2 million for the separated trail.  The same Oakcrest Hill Road from 520th Street, which is Hills, down to the Washington county line was $1 million.  This amounts to $2.3 million which does not include right-of-way acquisition or bridges that may have to be built.  From North Liberty to Sugar Bottom is $750,000.  Those are not included in the 5 Year Road Construction plan as part of the estimate.  From Hills to east of the Wapsi it was $1.6 million which did not include a possible bridge construction for that.  Herbert Hoover Highway was in the end of the 5 Year Road Construction Plan amounted to $1.2 million and that did not include right-of-way acquisition which may be agricultural and not condemnable. 

 

      R. Sullivan said the Mehaffey Bridge Road one has a lot of potential since it includes Corps ground.  It would be part of the connection between Solon and Ely and Iowa City.  Neuzil said he felt he Board was fairly committed to that trail to get the connectivity.  The Oakcrest Hill Road would need to be decided.  They could think about making it the width of the Sand Road shoulders for bicyclists.  If they don’t have a separated trail, they could at least make the shoulder width wider.  Parker said the Board has requested Secondary Roads to add paved shoulders to any road construction project.  They would have to determine how wide they can make the shoulders.  This will all be included in the informal review of the 5 Year Road Plan.  Parker would just need direction from the Board to tell him what can and can’t be done.  He receives $2.6 million of funding a year and with each of these being a million dollars, he is shelving another project to get it accomplished.  Neuzil said they could raise the rural tax base.  Meyers asked if there was any possibility of the Trails Committee receiving some type of a grant for this.  Parker said the Trails Committee is actively seeking grants for projects.  One they are working on now is the Dubuque Street trail.  That was estimated at $750,000 and is their number one priority right now.  They could reprioritize and resubmit.  The $100,000 they receive annually now from the $500,000 increase in the rural is building so this year they will have $200,000.  In a few years, that will reduce those expenditures and make it more attainable. 

 

      Stutsman said the right-of-way acquisition is the big issue.  Herbert Hoover and Oakcrest Hill Road won’t become dedicated trails.  Trails are not a priority for them to give up agricultural land.  Parker said if the Board wants them to look at that as an option, it would be guaranteed to push back the construction.  On those projects, they would not look to acquire the land right away.  R. Sullivan said they need to focus on Mehaffey Bridge Road as a separated trail.  Stutsman included Dubuque Street also.  Neuzil said Herbert Hoover Highway should also be considered since it is a reconstruction project.  Parker said that is in the 5 Year Road Construction Program.  Harney asked Parker to supply the Board the numbers for the estimates he gave for the trails expense.  Parker said the staff is very cautious about giving out estimates, and he would eventually if they could just be patient.  What he wanted to project with the numbers was that the cost to pave a mile of separated trail amounts to a million dollars a mile. 

 

      M. Sullivan said Dubuque Street scored very high in the consideration of the Trails Committee.  It is likely that this and next years State Trail money is already earmarked.  The application was very competitive.  None of the trails that were picked were in Linn or Johnson County.  They do not know with any degree of certainty when they will receive any grant money.  Harney thought they were committed until the year 2010 or 2011, but you must apply to be considered.  R. Sullivan said the people are pressuring the legislature that the DOT spent too much of the DOT money in Polk County.  Two-thirds of the DOT budget has went to Polk County the last few years.  The people are beginning to think it is not fair.  Stutsman said she is not happy when the Legislature states that they are not going to raise the vehicle registration tax before the session even starts.  They fear that if they raise the tax they will not be re-elected.  There was not one Legislator defeated the last time that it was raised. 

 

      Recessed at 9:58 a.m.; reconvened at 10:05 a.m.

 

Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Kris Artley and FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL SUPERVISOR DEB GUARD: FY09 Budget

Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities (46)

 

      Financial and Statistical Supervisor Deb Guard said it was proposed to Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities to try to maintain the same budget as they had utilized the previous year.  She was willing to try to do that, but she felt that the Board needed to be aware of some issues and wanted to gain some input and guidance before she formally approved living within those confines. 

 

      First, Guard said that she wanted the fund balance to not be touched if left over, which was $558,000 in FY07.  The fund balance dropped by about one million dollars.  R. Sullivan said that that amount was by far, the lowest it has ever been.  M. Sullivan said that is why it should not be touched. 

 

      Second, the FY08 budget that Guard received had no explanation for anything.  The numbers that she has been receiving on a monthly basis do not coincide.  She did find a notation that it was the budget with the State Payment Program dollars.  The numbers had come from the Auditor's Office.  She would like an explanation on how that budget was developed.  In her research of how the numbers were arrived it, she found them to trace back to a temp employee that is no longer an employee of Johnson County.  She has not been able to find where he obtained his information.  She found that the FY08 contract binder was short of some of the contracts that she knew should be included.  Guard has been trying to get those put together.  It has been very challenging. 

 

      Guard said that it was very obvious in the budget that was prepared that the budget was exceeding the revenues for this Fiscal Year.  In January they are going to tighten down as quickly as they can in numerous areas.  R. Sullivan and Neuzil have asked that they have Planning Council meetings in January, February, and March.  She has the dates and they will be held in the conference room.  M. Sullivan said he would send out those meeting times in an e-mail.  R. Sullivan said they would have to change the plan by March to have any impact in April, May, or June, which is the end of the Fiscal Year.  Mental Health/Development Disabilities Director Kris Artley said they have to have the hearing here and submit it to the State.  They will have 45 days to approve it and then it would be time to implement it.

 

      Artley said although there were slight differences, the Auditor's and Budget Coordinator's numbers she has do not agree.  She wasn't sure which numbers to reference but assumed to use the Auditor's Office since they are submitted to the State.  If they take the revenues that Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne proposed for FY08 and reduplicate them in FY09, with the caveat that she is doing some very intense analysis of what the State Payment Program dollars are being generated back for that particular program.  The State is paying for those clients and they need to make any adjustments whether it be higher or lower.  To live with that amount of money, they have to keep the budget at that dollar amount.  They need to have reality of the State Payment revenue reflected. 

 

      Artley asked if the numbers the Budget Coordinator reflected were inflated by any amount.  Guard said no.  Currently, they have $2 million budgeted for the State Payment Program (SPP) for FY08 and they have received $1,586,000.  They have already spent $828,000 for six months which averages to $227,000 a month in expenditures.  For the amount of money that they have received from the State, they will run out of SPP dollars before the end of February.  A six month time period allows for a good average.  It is still less than $2 million at $1.6 million.  Stutsman asked if they were still going to get those State dollars.  Guard said they would reimburse them dollar for dollar once they run out of money.  This still over-inflates the budget by about $200,000.  Artley said they do not really trust that the State will get them their dollars in a timely manner. 

 

      Artley said that in order to determine what is available to utilize for services, they will need to get to a bottom line number for the employees salaries, wages, and benefits.  She takes the total package number of revenues and subtracts it off the top.  The amount left over is what she has to work with for the service package.  They are a capped fund, not a budget.  R. Sullivan said that every department has this issue since collective bargaining is not completely finished.  Guard said if she knew the amount of the decision packages, she could deduct that amount.  R. Sullivan asked if Claiborne had given her the amount of around 3.5% as a base to work with.  Artley said no.  R. Sullivan said that amount was just an estimate to use.  Artley said she was going to meet with Claiborne and Guard to discuss getting the chart of accounts in line with what the State reports require.  She would prefer that they put all of the salaries and wages in a chunk in the administrative area.  After the fiscal year is over, the numbers of percentages that are targeted to the different areas can be pulled and flushed over to the actual chart of account's line item. 

 

      Artley asked M. Sullivan if historically departments had received information on what to budget for health insurance.  Stutsman said this years amount was not figured yet.  Artley asked if anyone knew the average increase amount that they have had in the past.  M. Sullivan said he only knew the increase in the aggregate since he never really looked at it as a break down.  He anticipated that this next year the increase in the aggregate will be close to or at 5%.  This past year they had some large claims under the self-insured program.  The previous two years, they were very flat staying even or at 1%.  R. Sullivan said the first year he was on the Board it was 19%.  Artley said she always budgeted somewhere between 10 to 12% and reduced it when the time came.  M. Sullivan said they will spread that number out over the single and family plans in addition to the deductibles that they have.  Generally, the health insurance numbers are obtained at the end from the Auditor’s Office.  Human Resources initially put it together but he did not know if it got sent to the department heads. 

 

      Artley asked how they should operate with a capped fund.  She asked what would happen if she obligates all of her dollars and they come back with a number that is higher than 5%.  Neuzil said her department is different than all of the others, but he felt that the numbers would come from the Auditor's Office.  Stutsman said that was where the fund balance came in to even that out.  R. Sullivan said in January, February, and March they will be talking about this and they will know what adjustments will need to be made. They know they will have to tighten the screws, but it will be a question of how much.  M. Sullivan said they had the flexibility of having the fund balance higher than where it is now.  For other departments, they would simply amend that and take it from a service area.  They have even issued debt service for some of the insurance issues in the past.  This does not apply to the MH/DD department at all.  If they had the additional fund balance there, it would have supplied the cushion. M. Sullivan said he would work with them and Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek and Claiborne to firm up some numbers for their department. 

 

      Artley said currently, there is no line item for the Habilitation Service that is a new waiver.  There are expenses for that this fiscal year and it will be impacting the budget next year.  They will get that chart of accounts on next year.  Internally, there is an issue with the fact that they have no mechanism at the moment to say what they are obligated to pay.  They are only making estimates on amounts for prescriptions, therapy, or psychiatric services.  She thinks this was all dating back to the way a contract was set up initially and how it was interpreted.  Stutsman said she thought there was a system set in place for all of that.  Guard said yes, except for the way that certain contracts are set up. 

 

      Guard explained that the Community Mental Health Center has 52 units of psychotherapy authorized for the year.  The chances that an individual is going to use 52 units is small.  A lot of the items are over inflated.  The same circumstances exist with vocational services.  When she is actually processing claims, she will see that 50 units were authorized on a regular basis every month for something, but they are only averaging an amount of 25-30 units.  That inflates the monthly costs by over 15 units for just one person in one service. For prescription medication, there is no cap dollar on the maximum allowance.  There is an automatic $500 amount in the budget, but it is not a true reflection.  Guard felt the only way to combat this was to start averaging by using the numbers entered in the budget every month.  This was still not true encumbrance, which is the number of dollars that you have obligated yourself to pay within a month.  M. Sullivan said that would better reflect the reality of the utilization rates.

 

      Neuzil asked if they wanted to match their amounts with the amounts that the Boards' system is matching with. Artley agreed and said they are going to try to resolve all of these issues.  It will not happen overnight because they have to work through the providers and retrain staff.  Guard said there are many historical issues to overcome.  Harney asked if it will affect what they get from the State.   Artley said it was for her for budgeting.  She can not pull any numbers today that mean reality the way they are entered into the system.  Guard said the other issue that impacts that is state billing such as waiver services or Iowa City Free Medical services.  They have received bills from the State that go back three or four years.  They are not able to anticipate the receipt of those and cannot possibly budget for that.  That happens on a regular basis and are not isolated cases.  Guard said her department will think that they have paid a bill and the State will come back and say that the amount was for more. 

 

      Artley asked if the County or the individual departments are expected to fund their phone systems when they get to the new building.  M.  Sullivan said the County.  It is a central services function.  They will not need to budget for that.  Central services will also maintain the system.  Information Services Director Jean Shultz will manage the technology components.  Stutsman said that they may need to clarify that with the State since this is a capped fund.  All of the expenses from this department are to come out of this fund.  Because of that, they may need to bill them for that.  The intention for all of the other departments is to take it out of central services.  Guard said they had run into that situation with computer equipment.  It all came directly out of their budget.  Neuzil asked Guard who paid for things like heat and electricity.  Guard said that comes through the local administrative expense that Human Services Accountant Kathy Lynch breaks down based on square footage.  R. Sullivan said M. Sullivan has those amounts built into the new building in terms of expense, but Maximus is going to look at that and they should pull out the percentages of expenses that go to MH/DD.  Artley said that she would like it broken down further than MH/DD.  R. Sullivan said that she would have to do that and break it down into case management percentages.  Guard asked if he was referring more to the capital expenditures, not the ongoing costs.  R. Sullivan said he thought in regards to capital expenditures, Maximus could do that. Stutsman said she thought it needed to be included as a budget line item in their budget.  She thought the Code was very specific that every cost incurred to run the M/DD Department had to come out of the MH/DD budget.    

 

      M. Sullivan said if that were the case, then the telephone should be included.  The capital part of this has already been built into this project as far as installing the new systems.  M. Sullivan asked if MH/DD has been paying phone maintenance fees or has IS been taking care of that.  Guard said she thought they were billed by IS for maintenance on an annual basis.  M. Sullivan said they will probably maintain that same system.  R. Sullivan said Maximus should be doing that.  Stutsman said it still had to be a line item in their budget.  Guard said Maximus only impacts them indirectly through the cost report.  It has not done anything to the MH/DD budget as far as what they have said is the percentage.  When they do their cost report it will say 11% which refers to expenses relative to the cost report.  It is 11% of the personnel cost which is the actual salary line, not the benefit package at all.  It only affects what they are getting repaid for in the targeted case management units.  M. Sullivan said everything Maximus does is indirect cost reimbursements at a set percentage.  Artley said the only thing that you can not do since this is a County owned facility is bill them back rent. 

 

      Artley said for this fiscal year Claiborne indicated that they were anticipating almost $13.5 million.  When she took a half years expenses and doubled that, she arrived at over $12 million.  She added in one half year of the jail alternatives and mobile crisis team coordinator and it came to approximately 44 to cover all of that expense.  Six months were included for the two account clerks and the QA Specialist that was just hired.  She threw in a four month contract coordinator that brought the amount up to $12,377,000 leaving approximately $1,032,000 for all of the mandated rate increases that are coming their way immediately.  Also, they would like to settle up with the Mental Health Center for the last fiscal year which has yet to be dealt with. 

 

      Artley explained that in the past six weeks she has had a couple of providers that wanted to discuss rate adjustments.  They are dealing with the minimum wage increase that began January 1.  They needed approval to submit their new rates to the State.  They have not received that yet, but they were extremely conscientious about going through every individual service budget for every client that they served and evaluating where they could cut corners and costs to deal with that.  They were looking at average increases of about a 4%.  On a daily basis, she is receiving letters from various providers stating that they have been approved by the State to either change their rates 1/01/08, 12/01/07, 8/01/07 and one on 7/01/07.  If they send her the certification from the State that states that they have been approved, they will enter those rates in since they don’t have any choice.  As mandated services, they have to pay.  If the provider doesn’t have a letter, they are sending back information to them stating that they must have it.  It cannot be projected amounts.  She wants a copy of the letter of confirmation from the State. 

 

      Neuzil said when they renegotiate contracts they may not be able to do as much with the next budget.  Artley agreed.  They are going to have to tighten down on services.  That is why they want those planning council meetings so that they can prioritize what services are going from the bottom up if things get as tight as it appears they would.  This years budget for next year says that there will be service cuts.  The $1 million is not that much to get through.  Neuzil asked why Claiborne is not anticipating any increase in revenues when there has always been in the past.  Artley reminded the Board that the recent legislation that was passed now provides that the State was going to be running the Mental Health Centers starting July 1, 2008.  Mental Health personnel still don’t know how that will play out.  MH/DD has filled out numerous surveys explaining what the County has contributed towards these facilities.  She did not think the State had been fully aware of how much they had been subsidized.  She felt they will take the money away from the counties in order to do that.  That is why she did not feel there would be an increase in revenue. 

 

      Stutsman asked if that meant they would not contract with the Mental Health Center at all after July 1.  Artley said they would have to contract and try to negotiate rates.  She did not know if the State will pick up the bill.  They have not said either way.  There are some services that Mental Health Centers provide that are not billable services.  That is why they get into the per capita realm since they are offsetting those expenses that they can not bill back.  Some examples are consultations or education for the community.  That is why they are called community based services.  Neuzil asked if the State would take over mental illness.  Artley said they have indicated that they would take back emergency services and mobile crisis teams.  In the larger counties, this would work, but in the majority of the state, the mobile crisis team will not work since there just is not the personnel there. 

 

      Neuzil said that they will have to submit the budget as if that is not going to happen.  Artley said if the revenues stay as they are right now, she hoped that they would not go down.  Neuzil said he has never seen the MH/DD fund for the counties go down.  Johnson County always grows.  M. Sullivan said he had not talked to Claiborne specifically about how these anticipated revenue amounts came about.  R. Sullivan said the Governor had sent out a kind of warning that they were tight on money.  Of all of the suggestions that they are receiving, one was some of the counties asking if they could just increase their levies by a few cents.  This was the only suggestion that will not cost the State any money.  These entities are saying that they will take some of the burden.  He is going to look very hard at that.  No other groups are coming to him saying that they will pay for something.  R.  Sullivan said that they will receive bad press from a mom pushing her child to the Capital saying that they are on the waiting list.  If some of the bigger counties are willing to put some money towards this, he will begin to see that it is a pretty good deal. 

 

      Stutsman said she was concerned that the next year, they will come to the counties for more things.  R. Sullivan said absolutely, there are no free rides for anyone.  Artley said this year there is a one liner that gave the County permission to take money from the General Fund or wherever else necessary, and slop it into the Mental Health fund to survive the year.  She discouraged her previous board not to touch that money.  That is saying to the State that they have the money to support the system.  She was hoping the Board took that stand too. 

 

      Meyers left the meeting at 10:50 a.m.

 

      Artley said when they prepared the payroll worksheet information to send to Claiborne, they had much different circumstances then.  She wanted to go over the sheet and what has transpired.  The Social Worker II position was filled.  Next Wednesday, they will only have a part-time social worker position open since another part-time social worker is taking one of the full time positions.  There is one account clerk and word processor III position still open.  She was not sure if the contract coordinator position was ever open or not since she received an e-mail from Shramek stating that the job descriptions were not finalized but the drafts were approved by the Board for budget purposes.  Artley noted that former Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Elaine Sweet opted to go the temporary route instead of filling the jobs.  The Board members indicated the position was still open.

 

      Artley continued by saying the quality assurance and mobile crisis coordinator positions were filled.  She would delete the jail alternatives position request.  She would like to request a new position for a clinical supervisor and a social worker II.  The social worker II would be for potential future growth subject to the employee meeting a certain number of case loads.  The jail alternatives position was to handle the drug court that would be started in January.  She felt that the new coordinator position would meet some of that responsibility and free up some of the time of the other two people they have now.  Harney asked if County Attorney Janet Lyness knew of the request being dropped.  Artley said yes.  Artley explained that County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek would have liked to have had this position remain open but Artley did not feel they could support it at this time. 

 

      Artley explained that their first decision package was in conjunction with a car.  She had hoped they could get by for less than $24,000.  R. Sullivan said he thought the new vehicle request was high by $5,000-$6,000.  Artley said this would include gasoline and oil changes, etc.  R. Sullivan said he was referring to the $21,000 amount.  He felt they could find a car for $14,000 to $15,000.  Artley said she lifted this information from data that was presented to the Board last year.  Harney asked if it was a going to be more of a road or city vehicle.  Artley said both. 

 

      Stutsman asked if the social worker II position would be reimbursed by Medicaid.  Artley said mostly, but they all carry split case loads.  She thought it would average 60-70% reimbursement.  Neuzil asked if the three positions that need to be filled are titled as she wanted or did they need to be adjusted to equal the needs.  If she needed a contract coordinator and a budget analyst maybe they could potentially be put together into one position.  He felt Artley could work with M. Sullivan or Human Resources to put that on the Board's agenda.  Stutsman asked if she was looking to fill those positions. 

 

      Guard said the account clerk and word processor fall under her area.  For the first time in three years this past October, they hired three women to do some of the work that Guard used to do.  She was being paid too much money to do that type of work.  She needed to be doing analysis and management, not data entry.  For the past three months she has been involved in their training, but over the next three months she should be better able to tell if they really need to fill the other positions.  She hesitates to have taxpayers pay for a person that does not have a full work load.  Artley and Guard described the word processor III as a position that would do more clerical work for case management.  The targeted case management billing has historically been done by the current word processor III and is really out of their expertise and realm.  It is not really a clerical function.  It is more of an accounting function. 

 

      Neuzil asked Artley if she anticipated needing any additional personnel other than the social worker II and the clinical supervisor.  Artley said no, if she is able to change the job descriptions and would be able to incorporate in their needs.  Right now they have a temp worker managing the med fund.  She was hired 2 1/2 years ago as a 4-6 day project person and they desperately need her.  She is doing an excellent job on managing the monies that are spent.  A lot of money is spent on prescriptions in this County.

 

      Harney asked Artley how they justified hiring two new people yet needing to cut services.  Artley said that was an issue with the State not doing their part.  R. Sullivan said that was a discussion that they would need to have.  Neuzil said he understood the social worker II was being hired with the goal of reducing the caseload that keeps growing.   Artley agreed and said they are averaging about 34 cases and she would not consider that until they are up near 38 cases apiece.  Stutsman asked Artley how many people the two clinical supervisors are supervising now.  Artley said 24 people between the two of them.  They are spending an inordinate amount of their time doing clerical things with them.  She wanted to pull part of that away and give that responsibility to the secretary.  To do clinical supervision on 12 people leaves them spinning their wheels.  They cannot attend meetings or offer good guidance with that many people.  Harney asked what a good balance number to supervise would be.  Artley said 7-8 people maximum. 

 

      Neuzil suggested that as Artley is putting together this budget, she considers the three positions that are currently listed.  If she anticipates needing more help than that and if their pay grade would need to be higher than the 18 or 19 as listed, the Board would like to know.  She could combine the contract coordinator position with someone that has a CPA background into one position.  He assumed the word processor III could be the additional part time person and the account clerk could be the secretary.  Artley said the only part time position they have is the social worker position.  Neuzil said the point being that as far as budgeting, Artley may need to increase the position number if she anticipates needing more.  Artley said the contract coordinator is at pay grade 19 and that is appropriate based on the job description.  Harney said consideration was needed that if they add these positions, would there be space in the new building for them.  He thought the offices were full.  R. Sullivan said that Kempf had built in a couple of extra office spaces.  M. Sullivan said Kempf considered vacancies as new office spaces in the planning to each of the divisions in the new building.  R. Sullivan said he added 10% to every department outside of the conference rooms that could be converted.  M. Sullivan said they made the State double up in the larger rooms instead of giving them individualized rooms like the County.  The State was going to spend the Local Administrative Expense indirect costs back to Johnson County anyway so they were not getting any more square footage.  If they wanted to add more personnel, the County said that was fine, but no more square footage.  

 

      Stutsman said she was very happy that Artley and Guard were evaluating this subject and filling these positions so that they can see if it will all work out and fill the needs of the department.  Artley said she would be excited to put the new hires to work.  She still feels they need to do something with the contract coordinator position that just disappeared last May. 

 

      R. Sullivan said that Planning and Zoning is projected to be given a new vehicle in this budget.  Their decision package is asking for $17,000 for a new van.  He is convinced that the amount MH/DD is requesting is $5,000-$6,000 too high on the car.  He also felt that the gas price should be adjusted down.  Harney said he did not think that the projected price was too far off.  Neuzil asked if this was a new vehicle addition or a replacement.  Artley said it was a Taurus and had 146,000 miles but has been a good vehicle and they felt they could keep it.  R. Sullivan said they could check with County Assessor Bill Greazel to find out where he is getting their vehicles and what they cost.  R. Sullivan said he knows that Greazel has purchased his vehicles for a far lower price.  Neuzil said they could also contact Pulkrabek since his civil division has been buying Hyundai’s for $13,000-14,000.  Stutsman said they could also just state the amount of money allotted to them for the purchase and they will have to figure it out.  Neuzil said it appears that there was need for an additional car now.  If they could hold off until the next year, they could replace the Taurus.

 

      R. Sullivan left the meeting at 10:58 a.m. 

 

      Artley said the opening of the Health and Human Services Building will take the equipment away from their department as it is owned by the DHS.  She did not find documentation of it, but she assumed MH/DD did not pay for it.  The County is collecting local administrative expense reimbursement on it.  She has 36 employees so she wanted to request two copier machines like the Board of Supervisors has.  M. Sullivan would be able to help get a very reasonable price on it. 

 

      Artley said the third decision package has to do with the clinical supervisor and Artley's best estimate of what they will need.  They obviously need another computer.  Two people are supervising 24 people.  They are not able to do the clinical pieces that Artley wants them to do which is hampering their billing capabilities.  Because of the time constraints they face they are not able to keep on top of the staff to ensure that they are producing the month's billable services.  She knows they have missed a lot of them.  Harney asked if the $77,000 was for one clinical supervisor.  Artley said that amount included all of the benefits included for that position.  The actual pay is around $50,000.  Approximately 60-70% of that would be reimbursed through Medicaid since they also supervise the County social work.  Harney asked Artley how much of these expenses would be picked up by the MH/DD budget.  Artley and M. Sullivan said all of it.  It does not come back on the general fund at all.  Neuzil said the revenues should go up with the new individuals being hired since they would then receive reimbursement for 60-70%.  Artley agreed.  Neuzil said Artley's predecessor did not fill the three positions and it seems there is an obvious need for them. 

 

      Artley said if they stick with this year's budget, do the necessary adjustments for wages, salary, and benefit increases, and do the waiver rate increases that are being forced upon them, she feels they will be cutting some services.  To what degree, she does not know as she still has rate requests coming in.  For example, one person in behavioral technology had a 27% rate increase.  She has several people at Reach for Your Potential and Systems Unlimited averaging a 4% increase.  That is much more tolerable.  Neuzil said these are discussions that need to be addressed in January, February, and March.  They can look at the Services Management Plan, some line items in that particular budget, and administrative exceptions that are huge.  Stutsman said they will have to be prepared as the last time they cut services it was not easy. 

 

      Artley said when they look at the administrative exceptions, the majority of them are just approved.  She did not know why because it is in the management plan that there are caps on certain services.  They have one provider that stated they would be reviewing all of the clientele very carefully for work services and may be reducing each one of them by up to four hours per week because they are not able to provide enough staff to provide for their needs.  That will make a lot of parents angry but it is out of Artley's control.  MH/DD is asking that they bring the case manager in to discuss this since they are part of the team and the clients advocate.  There would be the potential that MH/DD would have to fill those four hours with another service to meet the clients needs.

 

      Neuzil said the main thing would be that the Planning Council is part of the process.  The Board needs to look at the management plan and say what has to be done.  Artley said that is why the service matrix is so useful since mandated services are defined and they also have more optional choices.  Stutsman said it is so much easier to give services than to take away.  Artley said the prescription and rent services are the highest.  Guard said they have been paying the rent for a client for over six years.  The other choice is institutionalization so it is cheaper.  Neuzil said this is supposed to be funding of last resort and some people have made this funding a first.  Things like this just happen.  Stutsman understood asking the State to give Johnson County the authority to do its own levy.  That will come with some real, unintended consequences.  She said that there was a reason why Senate File 69 came into play in the first place.

 

      Artley said there are some surveys on the website now that the community services affiliate wants every county to fill in.  One pertains to asking if they have previously had to cut services or are they planning to cut services in the future.  She felt they were compiling data to take to the Legislature which would be great.  They can then see on paper what is happening.  Neuzil said if the State says they are taking over mental illness, then they need to take the complete package.  The County should not have to supplement anything.  Stutsman said they never research things enough.  They often find out that it costs them more money than they bargained for.  Artley said even the surveys are not well thought out.  She filled one out in September and has not heard any results of it yet. 

 

      Neuzil said with these decision packages, Artley needs to insert that into the FY09 budget.  Artley said she needed to get those dollars in.  Neuzil said the Board would then need an updated sheet that matches the Auditor’s.  He then asked M. Sullivan if he could talk with Claiborne to get the numbers all to match and everyone on the same page.  Neuzil told Artley if she did insert those numbers, it will leave less for some other line items which would need to be figured out fairly soon.  Artley said she felt they may need to make recommendations for certain caps. 

 

      She explained that one of the strategic plan goals was to implement the interim assistance reimbursement program through Social Security.  She was very familiar with that program through her past experience.  They would sign up with Social Security as an agency and when a client wants a certain type of service, those services cannot be Medicaid reimbursable.  These would be for things like maintenance or rent.  That is then tracked, which would be the responsibility of the new half time social worker.  People have to get through the Social Security system so that the eligibility determination is made.  If they are SSI eligible, they would receive a retroactive payment which could go back months or years.  Off the top of that first payment, the dollars that the County has paid out would come back to the County as a revenue source.  Her department will be tracking that.  Neuzil said that would help one of the line items that is searching.  Artley agreed and said it could also help the maintenance portion that is paid out to some clients when they go out to RCS. 

 

      Stutsman stated that the County gets lobbied pretty heavily by the mental health center.  She asked if they can expect to be again.  Artley said yes.  She is receiving communication from them right now that they are in need of an adjustment right now.  Harney said the Board has also received the message about the $16,000 and he wanted to increase the per capita.  Artley said they made quarterly contract set up for that amount and they were not to exceed $16,000 on fees for services.  Artley pays the actual cost on the fee for services.  The pay per capita pays for the other incidentals that they cannot build into their billing process, such as the consultation education in the community.  That used to be called a Block Grant.  The actual fee for service last fiscal year was capped.  Every quarter it could not exceed a certain dollar amount.  It went over because people needed the service.

 

      Neuzil said when it was averaged out, it was under and Lyness did not know if they could give them the money or not if the contract was still in effect.  Guard said it was the difference between what the third party payer pays and what they bill out to Johnson County.  It did not go over even what the fourth quarter amount added together was.  They did not know if it was above and beyond what the actual cost was.  Harney said Artley and Guard needed to discuss that issue with Lyness.  Artley said she had sent her an e-mail and Lyness handed it over to one of her subordinates and she was not happy with the response she got.  She is still working on it.  Stutsman said this needed to be resolved.

 

      Neuzil told Artley the Board understood that there would likely be some budgetary changes since, in this case, it was hard to use last year's numbers.  Artley said she wanted to commend Guard in front of the Board.  When it came time to do the actual cost report, not only did she get the numbers in there, she had a detailed step-by-step of why.  Next year it will be a lot easier.  Guard said it was important that if someone else were to step in and take over there should be as little transition as possible.

 

      Adjourned at 11:26 a.m.

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

Attest:  Tom Slockett, Auditor

By:

On the _______ day of _____________________, 2008

By John Deeth, Recording Secretary

Sent to the Board of Supervisors on March 4, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.