MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 6, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FY11 County Budget Work Session......................................................................................... 1
FY11 Budget Personnel Requests.......................................................................................... 21
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 1:03 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne he asked County Treasurer Tom Kriz to attend the meeting to address any bonding issues. Claiborne said before discussing the General Basic Fund, which is the big challenge for the day, he asked Board members to refer to the current bonds file. He directed the Board to the FY11 Levy section and said there are several bonds that have retired since FY08. Some bonds will retire in FY12, and some will retire a few years later. The payment on this series of bonds this year is approximately $.15. The Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC) equipment bond payment is almost $.20. Claiborne said the budget for the JECC Building comes out of the General Supplemental Fund, which is still a work in progress. He said, altogether, the Debt Levy is about $.35. Claiborne said it was just short of $.70 when he did the tax paper so the Debt Levy has dropped in half.
Rettig asked if $.35 is the amount that would be levied if the County does not bond for any other projects in FY11. Claiborne confirmed this and said neither Conservation nor the Board has bonded yet. He said he knows the Board has been considering the Shueyville Road project for a significant period of time. Claiborne said the current levy rates are actually a little high because the Transfer of Jurisdiction (TJ) Road valuations have increased over $300 million. With this increase in taxable valuation, the additional levy could be $.18 or $.19. Claiborne asked whether the Board is comfortable with a $.35 levy and adding an additional $.20 for two or three years. He reminded the Board that there is a revenue stream that can be used to replenish the General Basic Fund. When a bond is paid off early, people who contribute to the General Basic Fund actually pay twice because they pay the General Basic, then they pay the Debt Levy. Claiborne said the Shueyville Road project is kind of a Rural Basic Fund issue anyway. The General Basic Fund will be paid back over quite some time, amounting to $1.7 to $1.8 million. He said this revenue stream would be set up right away, and the County would then bond for only two years for the $2 million project. It would be too costly to bond for 20 years and try to coordinate the revenue stream with the bond payback.
Neuzil asked Claiborne if he meant that there is room to keep the level of bonding around $.35. Claiborne confirmed and said that the level of bonding in FY10 was $.70. Neuzil said that if the Board does not do anything, it will be down to about $.35. He asked, if the money is put towards the Shueyville Road project, what would be the amount of the Debt Service Fund Levy. Claiborne replied approximately $.55. Stutsman asked why the levy would come down. Claiborne explained that two series of bonds are retiring, and Conservation did not bond. Neuzil asked if the money would have to be repaid back into the General Fund, or could it go into the Rural Fund. Claiborne agreed with Neuzil's comment that it gets repaid back into the General Fund.
Neuzil said there could be potential savings through Claiborne’s suggestion of using some of County Engineer Greg Parker’s funding that would have gone towards this project for maintenance, wouldn’t have to be used out of the Rural Fund, that could be reallocated to other areas. Claiborne said yes and asked if the quote for patching was around $600,000. Sullivan said he thinks it was $300,000 a year for two years. Neuzil said this could indirectly benefit the Rural Fund. Claiborne said it is the Board’s decision. If the Board decides to do this, the revenue stream can go back to General Basic or Rural. Neuzil said it makes sense for it to go back to the General Basic Fund.
Neuzil said he was concerned if financing this project with the Debt Services Levy would limit the Board’s ability to consider a new ambulance facility. Stutsman said the County still has a lot of debt capability. Rettig said she recalls Kriz having said that the County would not get favorable bond ratings if it went over $10 million and asked if that rings a bell with anyone. Kriz said yes, once the amount exceeds $10 million, there is a difference between bank qualified and non-bank qualified. He said that this leads not necessarily to an unfavorable rating, but to a higher interest rate. Kriz said in his opinion, a higher interest rate is unfavorable.
Rettig noted that the JECC equipment bond is $11 million in and of itself, and then asked if the County would not be penalized because it is spread out. Kriz answered that the interest rate grows as time goes on. That bond had to be spread out over 11 years in order to meet the requirements to pay it back. Kriz said a loan of this size is not going to jeopardize anything. Rettig asked Kriz if when he said $10 million, did he mean $10 million at once or total borrowing capacity. Kriz replied he meant in one calendar year. Rettig said okay, and added that she is trying to do the math to figure out what they are carrying over. Kriz said it is out of that picture, it would be starting today, January 6, 2010 through December 2010. He said if they do cumulative projects, it would go over that. Rettig stated that the advantage to borrowing to fund current projects is that the County can access Tax Incentive Financing (TIF) money. Kriz confirmed this, adding as long as it is out of Debt Service. Rettig then stated that the disadvantage is that the County will be responsible for paying interest, as opposed to simply paying cash for the projects this year.
Rettig said that because she does not have a business in a TIF district, she actually pays more because of the TIFs. Rettig asked where is a break even point that justifies the additional debt and interest rate to spread the tax burden out over more people. She said she does not know if the Board has ever discussed that. Kriz said he does not know the answer to that. Neuzil said the Board has had that discussion, and that former Springsted Consultant Tony Roetlin used to do it. Sullivan said Roetlin had figured it for them on a previous project. Kriz added that that was early on with voting equipment, and health insurance. Sullivan said the TIF numbers have changed and this is a different project. Claiborne said General Supplemental and General Basic use the same valuation as last year, $5.1 billion. Tapping into the TIF by bonding, the valuation is almost $5.9 billion, which is an additional roughly $700 million over which the tax burden can be spread.
Stutsman stated that she did not have any vote in any of these TIFs. As a member of the unincorporated area, she said she has no say in electing any of the City Council members who establish these TIFs. She asked why she has an additional tax burden because of all these TIFs. She expressed that it would be better to spread out the taxes over the different TIF districts. Claiborne agreed, saying that it is better to bond than to take money out of the General Basic Fund. Stutsman concurred and said that if they do not bond, the 5 Year Road Plan will have to be completely redone because they do not have the money in the budget. She asked whether the Board is prepared to tell the community that the Sharon Center Bridge will be put off another year, along with other projects that people have been waiting for.
Neuzil said that if the Board chooses not to use the bonding mechanism allowed by the Legislature, a road project would likely have to be bumped. However, he noted that the Shueyville Road is a unique situation in that it is technically a rural road although it is within the city limits. Neuzil said that there technically is room for the proposed ambulance building as well as this project. In other words, the County taxed for $1 million because the people asked to be taxed for $1 million. However, he said that this coming year, the people are not making requests for this tax. Neuzil said that technically, the overall taxes for Johnson County should decrease because Conservation is not asking for any money. Stutsman said Conservation could ask for $5 million next year. Neuzil said that then taxes will increase because of that, but he questions whether the County should spend that extra $1 million.
Claiborne said that his recent discussions with Conservation Director Harry Graves were because the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation said they would do the interim financing. Claiborne said that he is sure that Graves would go to them for the funding if something came up, and the Board could then set up an appropriate payback schedule to the Heritage Foundation. Sullivan noted that the County may end up having to pay some amount of interest to the Heritage Foundation, but this is probably still worthwhile if it's $2 million that would be paid off over a period of three to four years. Rettig noted that this would be no different from the County borrowing the money themselves.
Neuzil said that he thinks that Johnson County taxes should go down this year, at least in the portion of the overall structure dealing with Conservation, because the people have not requested anything. Rettig said nothing was bonded for the Conservation Bond so it is not in this budget in the first place from this Fiscal Year. Neuzil said that in FY10, the County bonded $1 million in their budget. Claiborne noted that it was a one year bond that has already been paid off. Stutsman said she understands that, but somebody is going to pay for this project, whether it's taken from Secondary Roads. Neuzil clarified that he was talking about adding the extra project in and how it would be funded, unless the County taxed somewhere else to pay for the Ambulance building.
Stutsman then noted that there is currently no plan for the ambulance building, so it is possible that it may not even be funded in FY11. Neuzil agreed that it may not be funded in FY11, but he asked where room would become available to pay for it, and if they would have to wait for the bond to retire. Claiborne responded that in FY12, the last payment of another series of bonds is scheduled, which would again create more room in the budget. Neuzil suggested that if the County is interested in the ambulance building but chooses not to increase taxes in this portion of the levy, then the ambulance building will most likely be on hold for awhile. Conversely, he suggested that the Board could assume the project will occur, and fund for it now.
Claiborne said that some General Basic project money could be set aside in FY11 and FY12. He said the ambulance building is about a $2 million project and asked if that is right. Sullivan questioned whether they should even consider bonding. Claiborne said they could cash flow it. Neuzil said the Board just got in a discussion about why they want to bond. Sullivan said he doesn't know enough about the Ambulance building project to begin making room for it in the budget. Neuzil said the Board just talked about it earlier in the day and noted that although there may be no major plans on the table yet, if a plan is presented to the Board within the next two weeks, it is still on the table.
Stutsman asked to confirm whether the Board is committed to try to figure out how to make the Shueyville Road project work, and she asked if everyone is on board with that. Sullivan said there are so many things going on within this discussion and said he wanted to address something else. Sullivan said he thought the Board did not bond the Conservation. Rettig said it didn't make sense to bond one year. Kriz said that the initial request was to build $1 million into the budget for funds for this year. He said the County has not yet borrowed the money; they made an inter-fund transfer to fund it. Kriz said the cost to borrow $1 million or $300,000 will be the same, and he was waiting to see if Graves or the Conservation Board came up with something they could group together. Kriz said that it was in fact built in, but it was absorbed through the County’s side of the budget. Rettig asked to confirm that it was not levied in the Debt Service. Kriz said that it was levied in the Debt Service Levy. Claiborne said he bonded for that. Harney said that means there should be $1 million coming back into the Board's budget when they do bond. Kriz said they have not borrowed it. Stutsman asked if the Board taxed for it and Kriz said yes. Rettig summarized that it has been taxed for, the bond has not been issued, and taxpayers have already started paying what they owe. Kriz said that is exactly right. He said that what might occur is that he borrows the money for one or seven days, and it would be funded out of what has been taxed for. He said the longer they go, the less interest they pay, but they can't just flow it out of the money. Kriz said the law requires him to borrow the money even if it is for only one day.
Rettig asked, of last year's $.70 debt levy, what portion was the $1 million for the Conservation Bond. Claiborne said the payment was $1,030,000, which would make the portion toward the Conservation Bond approximately $.18. Kriz said that sounds about right. Rettig asked if the $.18 gap in the levy was created because the Conservation Bond passed, would the $.18 borrowing capacity be used in a year when Conservation doesn't want or need it. Rettig expressed that unfortunately, it does make sense to have a certain amount of debt because of the TIF situation. She said she thinks that if the amount ebbs and flows it can be difficult for the taxpayers.
Neuzil noted that it could be difficult to pay off for another project if Graves asks for $2 million next year. Stutsman said the Board could just tell Graves no, they do not have the $2 million. Neuzil said that at the very least, Graves could request $1 million. Sullivan said remember what Graves can do if he buys a million dollar project. Neuzil said he knows, but asked if it is right for them not to tax anything for two years. Claiborne then added that there is some room in the budget. He said since they dropped $.35 doing nothing, and adding the Shueyville Road project increases that to roughly $.55, the levy is currently at $.70 so there is still a $.15 drop even if the Shueyville Road project continues. He said valuations will be high, but if the road is done in FY11, it is being paid back in FY12 so the levy is still at $.55. If Graves comes in and asks for $1 million, it is roughly $.17 this time. Harney said Graves could ask for $2 or $3 million, and no one will know until he asks. Claiborne said then they can set up a payment schedule.
Kriz said that Dorsey and Whitney LLP Bond Counsel Robert Josten said the Board has the right to set a limit for what can be done. He said Josten said the Board has a right to decline requests. Neuzil noted if the County decides to keep the amount level, including the $.18 for the Conservation Bond, it gives the County the opportunity to have a few additional dollars for a project or two. However, Neuzil wondered if the County would have the ability to provide $1 million for an Ambulance building project the following year, which would require taking off one of the County’s projects of road and ambulance to supplement back into where the $.18 comes from. Sullivan suggested that perhaps that would not be necessary, as Graves will most likely take a loan with the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, and payments and interest would begin the following year.
Neuzil said that he does not want the Board to commit to too many projects, knowing that the taxpayers, through Graves, will have another $19 million plus. Rettig said that it was said to keep the amount of bonding at around $1 million per year. She then said that if the $1 million isn’t bonded this year, then in theory, next year Conservation could ask for $2 million. Rettig said that if the $.18 is taken now and spent on something that is a three year bond, it makes no sense to bond less than $2 million, preferably $3 million. Neuzil again stated that he does not want to obligate the Board to too many projects when they also are obligated to get a certain amount of money.
Rettig then asked what bonds will be rolling off in FY11. Claiborne said that upper series bonds 1, 2, and 3 retired at the end of FY10, which freed up FY11 slightly. He said the County is still paying this current series, the equipment bond, and General Supplemental. After FY12, Claiborne said that another series of bonds will retire. Overall, he said that FY11 will see a decrease, FY12 will not, and FY13 will again see a decrease. Kriz said that one particular bond was structured so that the load was heaviest the first five years, and then the payment drops from approximately $650,000 down to about $180,000 for a balance of about four years.
Harney noted that if the County borrows against the Heritage Trust, then they will be paying double interest on top of the principal. He said if the Board bonds for the Shueyville Road project, for possibly two or three years, and if other projects come up, they are right back up there or higher, and it still doesn't give the Board money to do other desired projects without jacking up the levy. Kriz said that if Graves borrows from the Heritage Trust, the County does not borrow that money until it is time to pay it back. Harney said they will have to pay the interest on that. Kriz said yes. Harney said they have to pay that interest plus whatever they pay on the bond. Kriz said they haven't borrowed the bond yet. He said that interest payments would be incorporated into the portion of money needed, including any accrued interest.
Sullivan said the alternative is that the County can do nothing for the next 20 years out of fear, which would not be feasible. Rettig noted that payment would only be made to one source, but Harney again said that the County would technically be paying double: the interest paid to Heritage Trust, and for the bond itself. Stutsman said she thinks the most equitable way to fund the project is bonding. There are too many unknowns to do otherwise. Claiborne said there are two advantages to bonding: it will save about $600,000 for Secondary Roads, and the County will get most of the money back over time.
Sullivan said that if the County does this through the 5 Year Road Plan, then Shueyville has no incentive to pay the County back. Neuzil said that he wants to make certain the County Attorney can draft an agreement that does require the project to be paid back. However, he noted that something unique about the project is that most of it will be paid back anyway. Neuzil noted that he does not necessarily think that it is right that a rural road must be paid for by Debt Service, which all taxpayers pay into. However, he again noted that this is a unique situation in that Shueyville Road is located within the city, and the project will be paid back. Sullivan agrees that this is a unique situation where this approach is appropriate. Claiborne also noted that the revenue stream will be going back into the General Basic Fund.
Stutsman asked if the Board is in agreement to look at the bonding capability the County has to fund this project. Claiborne said that nothing will be final until the Board's final meeting when Claiborne can present all the numbers and levies. At that point, the Board may decide against the Shueyville Road project.
Rettig asked, if the County were to pursue the Shueyville Road project and the ambulance medical examiner building this year, which would amount to $3.2 million, because they know the Conservation Bond will come in a year from now, they decide to pay off whatever the amount is, but more in the first year than in the second and third. She stated they could hit the $.70 level and then back off $.18. Rettig said there would be a mathematical way to pay down more in the first year than in the second and third and asked if that is correct. Kriz said yes, that it can be done. Rettig then asked if that would free up Debt Levy for the Conservation Bond to come in when the projects are caught up. She said hypothetically, if the cap of the Debt Levy was set at $.70, it could then be possible to load the payments heavier in the first year and less in the following two years. Kriz confirmed this.
Harney said he is in favor of moving ahead to check into the bonding. He said he will rely on the experts regarding how to manage it. Harney said he is having a problem with the fact that the voters voted for the Conservation issue, so the County should not stop their projects for that. He said it is similar to the Joint Emergency Communications Center.
Rettig agreed that people voted to tax themselves, so the tax should not necessarily stop. Harney said they do need to manage better but at the same time, he does not think it should stop anything. Stutsman said that should not determine the Board's decision making. Neuzil said he wants to emphasize that last year the County absorbed the Conservation Bond, but this year the County is actually taking the room that was created by that and spending it on something other than Conservation. Rettig said it was supposed to go to $.88 last year and the Board held it at $.70. Neuzil said that next year, the County may only have around $.58 cents to use, since Conservation takes the other. Stutsman said that she is confident that the Board will be able to work cooperatively with Conservation throughout the process. Harney said he would recommend that Claiborne look into this and when they get the final dollar amounts, they can make a decision.
Stutsman asked if there are three votes to direct Claiborne to look into the bonding for the Shueyville Road project. Neuzil said that he will work with Claiborne on some of the Shueyville information, and they will also have to communicate with the County Attorney. Claiborne said that last summer Josten cautioned the Board that there is a red flag. The current agreement needs to be reworked with the County Attorney. He said there is a non-appropriation agreement and the Board does not want that. Claiborne explained that a non-appropriation agreement makes it possible for the Shueyville City Council, on a year by year basis, to elect not to send Johnson County the payment. Stutsman said they are far from working out these details. Kriz stated that the process with the County Attorney needs to start soon because this is a long process and Josten is extremely concerned. Stutsman said the agreement must be iron-clad. Kriz restated that they need to start the process with the County Attorney because that will take some time.
Sullivan said he would like to give Claiborne and Kriz the okay for pursuing this as a funding mechanism, but he still has some basic nuts and bolts questions he would like to address before making a final vote. Neuzil said that is the hiccup here, because the Board may not have the iron clad agreement before Claiborne needs to know what the final budget is going to look like. Neuzil said this is the issue. Stutsman said she thinks the Board could at least have the numbers in so that they can at least know where they are at in terms of budget. Claiborne suggested that in the worst case scenario, the Board can put the bonding in the budget for FY11, and if the Board finds out later that it is not working and the Board is are not happy, they can make changes. Claiborne said the Board can never go beyond the budget, but they do not have to spend the budget, either.
Sullivan noted that if the bonding is put in the budget now, and in one month County Attorney Janet Lyness does not think an agreement can be reached, Claiborne still has time to pull it out of the budget. Claiborne said that there are publishing deadlines, so if the budget has been published already, at the public hearing he would just say that the Board backed out of this Debt Service.
Neuzil said that there seems to be agreement within the Board that the members would like to keep the levy at the level of about $.70. He said the question remains of what the Board fills adds in the extra room in the levy, in addition to this project, and he asked if there is still around $.18 left. Stutsman said she thought the Board was just filling the levy up to $.50. Claiborne said that right now the levy says $.55. Stutsman said that she has no desire to keep the levy at $.70. Neuzil said that that means the levy will spike up again next year when Conservation submits a request. Claiborne said that roughly $.15 could be about $1 million with the new valuation, and he asked if Neuzil is saying that he would like to bond $1 million to put toward the ambulance building. Neuzil said that is what he keeps getting at, and he said that if the Board wants to keep things level, then the levy would stay level at $.70. Neuzil said that otherwise, next year Conservation will make another request, and the levy that had dipped down will be back up. He said he thought he just heard that everyone wanted to keep things level.
Neuzil said this means that there are some dollars that are eligible to be used for another project because Conservation is not asking for money this year. Harney said he thinks the Ambulance Service would be better off if the Board sets that money aside for them, and if the project takes another year, so be it. He said the Board could cash flow it. Rettig asked if the County can tax for the Debt Levy in FY11 and not spend the money until FY12. Claiborne said if it is within a reasonable amount of time. Kriz confirmed that it is possible as long as it is spent within a reasonable amount of time. He said it this is just like the $1 million the County has taxed for Conservation. Kriz said it may not be spent by June 30, 2010, but the County has about another six months to figure out how to use the money. He said that the County has to show progress toward the means. Stutsman said she thought the County had to identify a specific project. Kriz agreed and said that the County cannot just say that they want the money, but they have to show progress toward the ends. Sullivan said that all the County really has to do is start spending some of the money on an architect. Kriz said it could be on an architect, site developer, or anything like that.
Stutsman asked if the Board should be using that money to pay ahead on some of the other bonds. Neuzil said that he does not think they can do that. Kriz said that the bonds for the JECC cannot be prepaid. He reminded the Board that the County had to go to a national market, so the bonds are there for the ten year or 11 year period. He said the County can prepay the bond, but they still pay all the interest, so there is no reason whatsoever to do that. Kriz said that the one Hills Bank bond rolls off with approximately $760,000 in June. He said the other bond the County structured with U.S. Bank does not have a prepayment penalty. Kriz said this is the bond that is loaded heavier in the beginning and then drops off, so the Board could prepay on this bond.
Rettig said she thinks there is an argument to have a debt to spread the payment of a debt back for projects amongst all of the property owners. She said she is uncertain where that level is, and she said she does not want to see big spikes in the levy. Rettig said that is why she asked Kriz if there is a way to front-load a loan so that the County is still doing the same thing. She said the County is working on the Shueyville Road Project and the ambulance/medical examiner building, and the County front-loads that loan, freeing up in year two the $.18 that the Conservation Bond might use. Rettig said she thinks the levy probably needs to be $.70 or slightly below. She expressed that if people see a drop of $.15, and then one or two years from now the County brings the levy back up $.15 or $.20, it puts a big hit on everybody. Rettig said she would rather see the levy be more level.
Claiborne said the County is committed to a $.35 levy, and if the Board does the Shueyville Road Project the level becomes $.55, and if the Board does a $1 million one year bond the levy is $.70. He said that if next year, Conservation requests $1 million or more, the County would just not bond the other $1 million for the ambulance building. Neuzil asked if the County would be obligated to continue to finish the ambulance building. Neuzil said he would not want the levy to go above $.70, so he asked if there is a way to fund another project like an ambulance building if Graves comes in and says he needs this money. Neuzil said that it sounds like the County has a little bit of room because of the Heritage Trust where they could be able to finish another project.
Rettig said the other thing the Board could do is bond the first $1 million and pay cash for the second $1 million. Neuzil said this is true and is very possible. Stutsman agreed. Rettig said this is keeping the debt load at $.70, but the County has moved the money around. Neuzil responded that there is an incentive for using the Debt Service, and he said the Board wants to remember their initial goals of building the County's reserves, which is another part of not using $1 million. Sullivan said that when the Board members talk about spikes, they are not really talking about what they bond or don’t bond. He said this adds to it, but they are really talking about what the bottom line is when a person opens their bill. Sullivan said the County has the rollback going the other way now, which will also make a difference. He said he thinks the Board has to give some consideration to that as they budget this year. He said that in Iowa City, the overall budget is going down and the levy rate is going down, but an owner of a $100,000 house is paying $22 more. Neuzil said this is because of the rollback. Sullivan suggested that the bottom line for them is that they are paying $22 more. He said the Board has to keep in mind that even if they keep the levy at $.70, people are going to pay more. Sullivan expressed that there might be some interest in getting the levy a few cents lower. Stutsman agreed.
Neuzil said that there could be room to adjust things a little bit as far as how much the Board plans to borrow in the Debt Services Levy. He said there seems to be agreement amongst Board members that they at least want to keep that level. Claiborne noted that the decision will not be final for a few weeks until he completes the State form, and even after that is published, the Board can make adjustments. Stutsman said they can’t spend more, but they can certainly spend less. Claiborne asked if the Board wants him to include the Shueyville Road project as well as the $1 million for the ambulance building. Rettig replied that it probably is not going to be $1 million based on what was just discussed. Neuzil said that whatever the additional amount is what they had from the past year. He said is okay with that.
Stutsman said she would like both scenarios, with the ambulance building and without it. She said she is inclined to agree with Sullivan just to keep the levy at $.70 and she thinks there will still be a spike. Rettig said that is what she meant when she said that the amount may not be quite $1 million. Neuzil asked if at least at this point, the Board would keep the levy tax rate the same as it was last year. Claiborne agreed. Stutsman said she would not, and she thinks that keeping it at $.70 is still going to be a spike. Sullivan agreed, and he said that if the Board keeps the levy the exact same, the rollbacks could go the other way and people are going to pay more. Neuzil said his spike is different than Sullivan’s, and he said his spike is the extra $1 million that Conservation asks for next year.
Neuzil expressed that the $22 per household spike of which Sullivan is speaking is not unreasonable. Sullivan responded that he does not think $1 million spread across an $84 million budget over a couple years would be that much of a spike. Stutsman asked if Claiborne has enough direction, and Claiborne confirmed that he does.
Claiborne directed the Board members to the Net Tax file. He said that today’s conversation was bonding, but now it is going to be about the General Basic. He said that this page is part of the State form packet that he works on. Claiborne presented the expenses and revenues for the General Basic departments. He said these are bare bones and are just their operating personnel with no extras. He said that the current level is $313,000 or roughly under $314,000, but the level must reach $315,000 in order to tap into the General Supplemental Fund. He said the County needs to do this for the JECC building and insurance. Claiborne said that the mark-up is $1.955 million to hit that point. Sullivan asked if the $.36 the County is currently short of equals this $1.955 million. Claiborne confirmed this. He reminded the Board that these are preliminary numbers because he said that valuations change and this can fluctuate slightly. He said that this has been the County’s Capital Projects money that was used to pay the HHS Building and to use at the Board’s discretion.
Claiborne said that based on the 1.955 markup, the maximum transfer to Secondary Roads is $915,000. He said that every single year, the County has done the minimum. Claiborne reminded the Board that they had asked County Engineer Greg Parker to prepare a list of what he could do with the maximum transfers this year. If the County proceeds with the maximum transfers possible, then Secondary Roads return to providing the level of service that the Board is more comfortable with. Sullivan asked what the minimum amount was that they transferred last year. Claiborne responded that it could have been $686,000, but he believes $700,000 was the amount transferred to Secondary Roads last year. He said this year, $915,000 is plugged into the budget for transfer. Sullivan said this is a couple hundred thousand dollars more.
Claiborne said that he plugged $3.6 million into the budget for the Rural Basic Fund, although the County is only obligated to $2.7 million. Claiborne said that to start out the budget talks, he put in the maximums. Rettig asked Claiborne how he calculated the expense, for example, how the Ambulance expenses of just over $3 million. She asked what he used for input on salaries and benefits. Claiborne responded that that is their overall budget, and the Board saw the non-personnel budget. Claiborne said that the Auditor’s Office does the numbers for personnel, and Claiborne enters the COLA’s into the budget. He said Ambulance’s entire budget is $3.016 million. Rettig said she understands that, and she asked if that amount is everything except benefits. Claiborne replied that no, the $3.016 million is their entire budget. Rettig asked what Claiborne used as an input for salaries and benefits. Sullivan asked what increase in wages were figured in by Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards. Claiborne responded that with COLA and Step increases, around 5% was figured in. He said that historically, this has been accurate. Rettig asked if that incorporates everything including benefits. Claiborne said yes.
Rettig asked if the amount of $3.016 million includes all expenses for Ambulance, including all of last year’s employee expenses, plus 5% of that. Claiborne said that the Board saw numbers for non-personnel when they did Ambulance, and personnel is done through the Auditor’s Office. Claiborne said this includes all benefits, salaries, and everything. He said he then takes that number, and based on negotiations from Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek, he forecasts an amount, 5% this time, that covers the increase in cost of living expenses, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS), and health insurance. Claiborne said this is the entire budget.
Claiborne said that the GS Transfer 11 document describes what the County is repaid from the General Supplemental Fund. He said this is County-wide including all departments, FICA, IPERS, health insurance, Department 41 Substance Abuse-per Iowa Code, Emergency Management, and Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA). Claiborne said MECCA is a function of the Sheriff’s Office. Claiborne said the Auditor’s Office wants to see an unexpended budget. Claiborne stated that there is $9 million coming back into General Basic that the County is spending in benefits. Rettig continued to try to clarify her question. She said that this is General Supplemental. Claiborne confirmed that it is General Supplemental reimbursing General Basic.
Rettig asked whether FICA, IPERS, and health insurance all fall under the General Supplemental Fund. She said that the tax askings for Ambulance in the General Basic Fund are $1.3 million and cost $.24 in the levy. Claiborne agreed. She said that Claiborne is only inputting the increase in salaries in that number, not FICA or IPERS which would appear on a different tax asking, and she asked if this is correct. Claiborne said no, that number reflects everything, the entire Ambulance budget including benefits. He said per the Code, the County pays it, taxes for it in the General Basic Fund, and is allowed to recover just the benefits portion from the General Supplemental Fund. He said the tax askings of $1.3 million, or $.24, is the entire operation for Ambulance, both personnel and non-personnel.
Rettig asked if taxpayers are taxed for Ambulance employees’ insurance both in the General Basic and General Supplemental Funds. Claiborne said yes. Rettig asked if 5% is built into the budget. Claiborne said that it is 7% for insurance, which he was told ahead of time, and 5% between COLA and the rest. Stutsman said that this number is an estimate. Claiborne agreed said that it is between COLA and all of that. Stutsman said that the negotiations have not been settled, and this is just an estimate that the Board uses. Rettig said that this number includes everything, including the new benefits offered this year such as vision. Claiborne confirmed this.
He directed Board members back to his screen where the regular revenue and expenses are reflected with personnel and benefits. Claiborne said that $915,000 is the maximum transfer to Secondary Roads. The 760A2 technology is everything requested by Information Services Director Jean Schultz, such as the Administration Building phone system. He said that the Board can back off from whatever they decide not to fund.
Claiborne said he and the Board is going to cover everything in detail under the category of Capital Expenditures, which includes car replacement costs, the mortuary cot for the Medical Examiner, and other such expenses. Claiborne said he did not include the Ambulance road. Claiborne said that if the Board does everything, they would have $1.9 million left. He expressed that this is an estimate for the Conservation Trust that is always adjusted later in the year. He said there is $9 million coming back from General Supplemental, which leaves $313,000 with the mark-up.
Neuzil said that this budget is fairly similar to that of last year, except the transfer, which is going to take a little bit of money out of there. Claiborne directed the Board to look at Schultz’s technology budget. Claiborne said that a lot of things on the 2011 budget column are just standard maintenance contracts that the Board is already aware of. He said that the only things he can back out of based on the Board’s decisions include the Hardware Purchase Attorney, and a request for a Case Expeditor. Claiborne said if the Board says no, then some of the items on the budget will back out. He stated that the Board approved the position for the Medical Examiner’s Office, so that will be in the budget. Rettig said that Conservation will be getting the used Mental Health/Disability Services (MH/DS) computers. Claiborne said that is the Board's decision, which would save money in the budget if they approve the used computers. Stutsman asked if Claiborne included the new computers for MH/DS in the budget. Claiborne said no, that money has to come out of their own fund.
Claiborne said that the only items on the budget that can be backed out of are the new computers for Conservation and a personnel request for the County Auditor’s Office, because the Board already approved the Medical Examiner's request. Claiborne said if the Board says no to those, he will be pulling out some money. Sullivan said this is about $10,000 that is either saved or spent on that. Claiborne pointed out a support document for that transfer, and he said it is based on the Board’s decisions. He said he showed the Board the maximum transfer for Secondary Roads, and they went over current bonds.
Claiborne said that for Department 44, the $265,000 budget is composed of $225,000 for the remodel of Jail Dispatch, $20,000 for television replacement throughout the Jail, and $20,000 for Administration landscaping. Claiborne said that for the shooting range, he believes the Board started last year setting aside $25,000 a year for four years. He said if the Board is not comfortable with the budget of $265,000, they can say no to some of these expenses.
Claiborne said that the Board approved $40,000 for Ambulance to purchase a chassis, so Ambulance Director Steve Spenler told Claiborne to knock the budget down to $90,000 for ambulance replacement. Claiborne said he could not recall what the County Auditor’s Office requested. He said there is nothing unusual with the Sheriff’s Office budget. Claiborne said the Medical Examiner budget includes $25,110 for the truck, cot, and the lights and generator. He said that these are some things the Board can decide on. The amount in the budget for the phone system in the Administration Building is $46,600.
Claiborne said that the Trails budget, out of Capital Expenditure, has been at $100,000 for the past few years. Claiborne explained that all these numbers are not the Rural Fund, but they will be talking about the Rural Fund at the next meeting. He said that today they are focusing on what affects General Basic. Stutsman asked how much money the County has for Trails and whether anything has been spent yet. Claiborne said he would have to look. Neuzil said that they did spend some.
Neuzil asked about the vehicle from Emergency Management. Claiborne said that it is under Department 20 Block Grants. He said the next meeting will address MH/DS, Rural Basic, and Block Grants. He expressed that it is a very aggressive agenda, and he hopes they can cover it all. Claiborne said the tally sheet spells everything out, and he had all of the supporting documents to show the Board that it is in the budget at $3.13. Sullivan said that if the Board chooses not to do something on the budget, basically whatever is not spent becomes savings. He said it is probably not going to change the tax impact on the public. Claiborne said that instead of the $1.9 million, the number would be closer to $2 million.
Claiborne said that personnel is in the budget, but he did not get an official decision from the Board. He said if the Board agrees to Department 44 the way it is, then that is OK. He said that he listed these out through the whole budget process. He stated that there are things under Medical Examiner. Claiborne said he did not include Road Safety in the budget. He said the Board said yes to the chassis, but at the budget meeting for Ambulance, it did not seem as though the Board was very excited about the Road Safety project. He said that it can be put into the budget or not. Sullivan asked if the Board wants to try to go down through each topic. Stutsman said she thinks they should. Neuzil also agreed.
Neuzil asked if the net tax in the budget includes all new requests for employees. Claiborne said no, and that is why the $1.9 million markup could go down if new employees are added. Neuzil said that it does include all those things like computer requests for those employees. Claiborne agreed, and he said if the Board says no to the new employees, then he will need to reduce the technology budget. Neuzil said that the budget does not include the employees themselves, but it does include all the amenities for the employees. Claiborne confirmed this. He asked if the Board wants to start with the non-personnel and work down through the list. Stutsman agreed.
Neuzil said that he wanted everyone to know that during the budget strategic planning process, the Board laid out a few budget goals and he produced a page which listed the budget goals. Rettig said she has never seen this list, so she asked if someone could give her a copy sometime. Neuzil said that the first budget goal was to pay off the HHS Building debt. The second goal was to keep tax increases minimal while maintaining and addressing level of service, particularly in the areas of response time for Ambulance, response time for Sheriff's deputies, and maintenance of roads and prioritization of projects. Neuzil read the third goal which was to build up reserves, and the fourth was to develop trust of elected officials and department heads. Neuzil said this is something to keep in mind, that the Board did lay out a few goals, and he said that the goal of paying off the HHS debt sounds like it will be accomplished.
Stutsman suggested they discuss the Medical Examiner’s budget. Rettig expressed that she doesn’t even know what a mortuary cot is. Neuzil said that there was a request from Medical Examiner Administrator Michael Hensch to improve the mechanism currently used for a mortuary cot, because it is insufficient to handle very large individuals. Claiborne added that the new mortuary cot can maneuver much better than an ambulance cot. Stutsman said she has no problem with approving those three items. Rettig agreed. Sullivan said he is not sure how to express himself delicately, but, like a lot of the County's department heads, Hensch is a perfectionist and wants to do the very best. However, the Board has had to tell other perfectionists, for example Spenler and Schultz, that the Board has to set limits on what it has been willing to fund toward that cause. Sullivan said the Medical Examiner budget has grown tremendously out of necessity, but he wants to send the message that providing the very best for every department might not always be affordable. Sullivan said he understands wanting the very best, because he wants that too, but it might not always be affordable.
Stutsman said that the new mortuary cot could probably prevent some back injuries. Sullivan said that he was referring more to other proposed expenses for the Medical Examiner’s budget, such as lights, generator, and a tent. He said another emergency response professional told him that lights, a generator, and tent are used so rarely that owning them, as opposed to renting them, may not be necessary. Stutsman said that it is always easier for a person to pull their own equipment out of their own truck rather than making a phone call to get it. Stutsman suggested that they remove those items from the budget. Neuzil said that at times in the past, the Board has told departments that they will fund one of two proposed purchases. Neuzil said they could give Hensch the choice of either the mortuary cot or the lights, generator, and tent, and have him prioritize which is more important to his department.
Rettig noted the item of a PC for new office. She asked if this is a support staff person and asked if they need high speed internet. She said the Board just discussed if Conservation could get by with the used computers. Stutsman said the computer is for the person doing the bookwork and reports. Claiborne said he certainly thinks a used one is fine. Rettig said the Board could say that they will provide a given amount of dollars that the department can decide how to spend, along with a used computer. Claiborne asked if he should put a used computer in the budget then. Stutsman said she understands giving the department head discretion, but it is possible that they might try to back the Board into a corner, initially requesting the lights, generator, and tent, but later, when they have a back injury, they will say that they need the mortuary cot. Sullivan said this is true.
Harney said if the Board is only going to approve one of the items, his recommendation would be the mortuary cot. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said he is leaning in that direction, too. Sullivan asked if the computer is for the new office. He said that a couple hundred of the dollars in the budget for the computer are for licensing fees, which can’t be avoided even with a used computer. Claiborne said that rather than $1,700, the cost for a used computer would be about $300. Rettig said that the Medical Examiner's Office is getting a mortuary cot, a used computer, and $300 for licensing, and she said she is alright with that.
Harney asked where Rettig got the amount of $300 for licensing. Rettig said that Claiborne came up with that amount. Claiborne said the number is based off what he has seen, and he thinks the license fee is $300. Stutsman asked if the total cost would then be $2,000 for the computer. Rettig said that the office is instead getting a used computer, so they are only getting $300 there. Claiborne said it would be $300 or whatever the licensing costs, but he thinks it has always been $300 for office. Stutsman said that the licensing fee is all the Board is paying for. Neuzil said that in this scenario, Claiborne would now reduce the net tax by $.3494. Claiborne said he needs to ask Schultz what the price of licensing is.
Stutsman said that the Board has already approved the chassis for Ambulance, and she asked about the Road Safety Program. Sullivan said he thought that program was a luxury. Harney said he thinks it is a luxury that it is not needed. Stutsman asked if there are three votes to eliminate it from the budget right now. Neuzil agreed. Rettig expressed that she is not even sure what he is talking about. Harney said the program monitors the speed of the drivers and all of those things, supposedly helping with safety. Neuzil said he is OK with holding off on that. Stutsman asked about the tough books for Planning and Zoning, but Claiborne said that the Board already said yes to this.
Stutsman asked about giving Conservation three new PC’s. Rettig said that Graves is getting used computers, but he may have licensing fees. Claiborne said he is putting used computers plus a license fee into the budget. Sullivan said that this becomes maybe $1,000 instead of $4,000. Rettig said that someone needs to inform the Board when the County runs out of used computers. Neuzil said there are a lot at MH/DS that they need to get rid of.
Stutsman asked about the Department of Human Services' (DHS) request to increase funerals budget from $2,200 to $2,500. Neuzil, Stutsman, and Sullivan agreed. Stutsman asked about the request to use bonus dollars to replace two vehicles for Public Health. Claiborne said to remember the H1N1 flu situation, because this could be a one time opportunity for the Board to take advantage of. Sullivan said he thought Public Health Director Doug Beardsley made a pretty good case that the County may not have this money again. Stutsman said that this is to replace vehicles, not to buy additional vehicles. Harney said that is why Beardsley is getting it. Stutsman said she is OK with replacing the vehicles. Neuzil asked if the County would have to tax for that money. Claiborne said no, it is the money coming in from H1N1. Neuzil said that the County is not taxing for it. Claiborne confirmed this, and he said it is just a decision the Board must make. Stutsman said it is a decision for the Board to make whether they want to put it into Beardsley’s budget or put it in the General Fund. Harney said that Neuzil is saying that the County is not taxing for the money; it is coming out of Public Health's budget.
Rettig said that if she remembers correctly, one of the cars is significantly older than the other one. She expressed that just because there is money available does not mean a car should be replaced. Neuzil said he heard a pretty good argument there is some necessity to replace both vehicles. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said that one car was a lot more in need than the other, but he thinks they were both in reasonable need of replacement. Stutsman said the cars are either replaced now or replaced later. Stutsman asked if there are three people who are OK with replacing those two vehicles. Neuzil and Harney agreed.
Stutsman asked about Secondary Roads. Claiborne said that he would make a note in the budget to look into the Shueyville Road project. Stutsman asked about the Sheriff Office’s request for four deputies. Claiborne said this is for vehicles if the Board says yes to the deputies. Stutsman said she is not ready to say yes to four deputies yet. Sullivan said that the Board will have to hold off on this until they get to discussing employees.
Stutsman asked about the ELMO Projector. Claiborne said this is for the Board, in the new Board Room. Stutsman asked if the Board is OK with that. Neuzil and Sullivan agreed. She asked about the block grants for the Emergency Management truck replacement for $95,000. Rettig asked if this is the difference between $60,000 and $95,000. Claiborne said the Block Grants are in the amount of $225,000, which includes the truck. He said the truck had been $60,000 and the cost went up $35,000, and he asked if this is right.
Stutsman said she could see using the same argument for EMA as the Board used for the Medical Examiner’s Office. Neuzil said that this is a vehicle that the County wanted to have replaced over a two year period. Claiborne said that Spenler found that the truck costs more than what he thought. Neuzil said that the County has already taxed for $60,000 of the costs. Rettig expressed that she thinks the budget should stay at $60,000 this year, and then next year it will be $35,000 or whatever the difference is. Claiborne said that Spenler had a list of vehicle repairs. Neuzil said that Spenler has put a lot of money into fixing the vehicle, which would beg the question of if it can hold on another year now that the County has put all this money into it. He said he would be comfortable with the $60,000 also. Stutsman and Sullivan agreed. Neuzil said that maybe Spenler is in a situation where he can find some additional dollars in his budget, or the vehicle replacement just has to wait another quarter of a year. He said this is with the commitment that the Board will have another $35,000 or $40,000 the following year, so that right now the Board is just approving $60,000 toward the payment plan.
Stutsman asked about the Block Grants 20 whereby the County would pay for Iowa City’s Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) membership. Rettig said that would not be the correct dollar amount because of that start, so it would be about $41,000. Stutsman said she thought it was close to $60,000 by the time they paid for everybody’s share. Sullivan asked if Stutsman means East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG). Stutsman said that no, she means JCCOG. Rettig said that there is a mistake on the paper. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said that it is ECICOG with the assessment paid through JCCOG.
Rettig said if the County pays Iowa City’s share for JCCOG, then they will be paying for everyone’s shares, which will be $40,000 or so. Claiborne said that his notes show $20,000. Stutsman said that $20,000 is only Iowa City’s share. Sullivan said the total amount of $41,000 came as a result of surrounding areas like Coralville saying that if the County is going to pay Iowa City’s share, then they better pay for theirs as well. Rettig said she has the number $41,000 in her head as the total, but she said she is not positive. Neuzil agreed. Sullivan said he thinks that is about right. Stutsman asked if the Board wants this. Rettig said no. Stutsman said she is not interested in this plan. Rettig said she is interested in the County paying their fair share only.
Stutsman asked if the Board is in agreement to approve the new Administration Building phone system. Neuzil and Sullivan agreed. Stutsman asked whether the Board wants to keep Trail expenditures at $100,000. Neuzil asked if that is what the Board did last year. Claiborne said that the Board has done that for many years. Rettig said this is for General Basic and not Rural, and she asked if she is correct. Sullivan confirmed. Neuzil said the Board reduced Rural last year but kept $100,000 in this one. Claiborne said that Rural is different. Sullivan said he would like to stay consistent with this, and Rettig agreed.
Stutsman asked the Board how they felt about appending $225,000 for remodeling the Jail Dispatch under Capital Expenditures. Rettig said she missed out on this discussion, and she asked if remodeling costs a quarter of a million dollars. Neuzil and Harney confirmed this. Harney said they are basically converting where the Emergency Management Office was into the Jail Booking area. He said that this is so when they bring prisoners in, they have the secure areas. He says they can also take care of people at the front of the building when they walk in. Neuzil said the plan also reconfigures the lobby area to actually utilize the space for more offices. Sullivan said the counter that is used for records that is currently located to the right of the front door would come all the way up to where the door is. He said the lobby would be reclaimed as office space.
Rettig said that this money would be found in the savings of moving dispatch out to the JECC. Neuzil said not necessarily; he said there is going to be an influx of dollars, but this would just be a capital project. Rettig said she understands, but the County is going to have a savings by moving dispatchers to the JECC. Neuzil agreed and said that there will be about $600,000 extra that will be moved from the General Fund to the General Supplemental Fund via the JECC. Claiborne said they may not necessarily see those savings until the following year, because like this building, it takes a year or two to get a baseline on the savings. Claiborne said eventually there will be savings. Neuzil said that they are not spending $600,000, however, and it would take a full year to realize that. Claiborne agreed. Rettig said she understands. Stutsman asked if the Board is OK with the Jail Dispatch remodeling, and Neuzil and Harney agreed.
Stutsman asked about the Jail television replacements. Rettig said she missed the argument on this topic, and she asked how come the televisions in the Jail do not work. She noted that she does not have a flat screen in her own home. Stutsman said she does not think she would talk to the general public about this. Neuzil said that if this is related to security equipment it is one thing, but if these are televisions in the cells, he is not interested. Harney said he thinks the televisions are for the cells, but he cannot remember what the problem is. Neuzil requested a final follow-up on that question to make sure.
Stutsman asked Board members about landscaping at the Administration Building for $20,000. Claiborne said that the Board may want to ask Facilities Manager Dave Kempf about this. Stutsman said that she is OK with the budget for the shooting range. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil said that he is OK with the landscaping. Harney said that the landscaping is for the Administration Building, not for the area next door, which would have been his concern. Sullivan said that his concern is whether the County wants to spend on landscaping when there are still some uncertainties. Neuzil said that the project is over an 18 month period. Sullivan said that is true. Stutsman asked what needs to be landscaped. Harney said for one thing, Kempf tore out all of the bushes. Neuzil explained to Kempf that the Board is discussing the Administration Building landscaping and where the budget dollars would be broken into.
Kempf said many of the plants and trees around the building have reached their life expectancy and are getting overgrown. He said that they talked about adding some new screening along where the air conditioning fencing is, and generally doing a landscaping overhaul around the building. Harney said that $20,000 sounds like a lot, because they need to replace the trees and the medians. Kempf agreed. He said he did not get estimates; $20,000 is just a number he came up with, and he said it is plenty. Neuzil asked if that includes the benches and the new lighting system in the parking lot. Kempf said it includes some of the new benches. He said it would probably not cover overhauling all of the lighting, but they would do some enhanced lighting. Kempf said he wanted to do some new signage on the north-facing side of the Administration Building to match the signage that is on the south-facing side of the Health and Human Services Building. He said there possibly would be some lighting on it and that type of thing, but it is not replacing the parking lot lighting, per se. Harney asked about a bike rack. Rettig said there is a bike rack there but it is thrown in the grass. Kempf said they need to get some concrete under it, and he said there will be concrete under it. Neuzil said the main thing is that the landscaping goes beyond just trees. Kempf agreed.
Harney asked if Kempf thinks the landscaping will take $20,000 or $10,000. Kempf said it is one of those situations where if Facilities Management gets any money towards it, then that is what they will use. Harney said he has no problem putting that in the budget, because it seems that money could always be used for something else around these buildings if it doesn’t go to landscaping. Stutsman said she is going to have a hard time telling taxpayers in the current economy that the County is spending $20,000 on landscape for the Administration Building. She said that to the average person, a plan for landscaping may look great, so she could agree to maybe $10,000.
Sullivan suggested designating less money toward landscaping, because the benches are certainly in need of replacement. Kempf agreed that they need to be replaced. Neuzil said he is OK with putting $10,000 in the budget to let Kempf prioritize how to spend the money. Kempf said he will present a plan to the Board before beginning any landscaping. Neuzil said he thinks the Space Needs Committee could address that.
Sullivan told Kempf that the Board also had a question about the Jail television replacements. Kempf said the request is to replace the televisions in the cell blocks. Stutsman asked if these are for entertainment or monitoring. Kempf said that they are for entertainment. He said that he spoke with Jail Captain Dave Wagner who said that he is not aware of any regulation requiring the County to supply televisions in the cells. Kempf said the problem is that the only televisions there now are the old cathode-ray tube style, and they cannot be bought anymore. He said that they have been buying used televisions. Harney asked if those televisions are still working. Kempf replied that the Jail has enough working sets as of right now, but they are out of televisions.
Neuzil asked if this cost would be to replace the whole thing. Kempf said yes. He said the problem is that if the County buys LCD televisions, which are what is available right now, they will also have to purchase mounting hardware and protective devices to secure the televisions high up on the wall. He said this is so the televisions are not tampered with. Harney asked if every cell has a television. Kempf said no, they are in every cell block. He stated that the County is going to spend as much for the device to secure the televisions as on the television sets.
Rettig said that the $20,000 is to replace all of the televisions. Kempf confirmed this. Rettig said she does not own an LCD television at home. Kempf said if she buys a new television, he will take her old one. Kempf said that the Jail is picking up used televisions when they can find them. Neuzil said that the Board could start the process with an amount of $5,000. Kempf said that this could definitely be a phased process. He said the problem is that they never know which television is going to go bad, so he would recommend that they get a couple televisions on hand and replace and upgrade as needed. Stutsman asked how much the Board wants to budget for this, and she asked if they want to do $5,000. Rettig said she does not know, and asked how many cell blocks there are. Harney replied that there are ten. Rettig asked if it is a $300 television and a mounting system. Kempf said that the mounting system is about $600 in addition to the $350 television. He said they will also have to install new cabling, because the televisions will be placed up high so that inmates cannot get to them. Harney suggested the County buy the inmates cards instead. Kempf replied that might be easier. Stutsman suggested buying books. Kempf said that he just brought the request to the Board as it was made of him.
Rettig said she understands. She said that unfortunately, in order to have less disruption in a Jail, the inmates need to have something to do. She said she wishes inmates were doing something other than watching soap operas all day, but she does think that the Board needs to provide televisions, and possibly on a phased schedule. She added that two or three is likely the number that will need replacement soon. Rettig said according to her calculations, this would cost $3,000. Neuzil said that he is OK with that $3,000. Kempf expressed that he would like to have a little more money than that because the TVs are currently at their life expectancy. Stutsman asked how much Kempf would like to have. Kempf replied that he would like at least $5,000. Stutsman asked if there are three votes for $5,000. Harney, Neuzil, and Sullivan agreed. Kempf said at the very least, he would like to see $5,000. Rettig said that she is hesitantly OK with that amount.
Neuzil asked if Kempf would accept old TV donations from the Board. Kempf said yes, and said the Jail will take 19-inch tube televisions. Claiborne asked if a 27-inch television is too big. Kempf said maybe, but they have to be the plastic style. Rettig asked to confirm that the 19-inch tube televisions are actually needed. Kempf replied yes. Rettig said the Board should put the word out that the Jail needs this.
Sullivan asked if the County has budgeted anything for the acquisition of the four remaining houses on Capitol Street. Kempf replied no. Sullivan asked if that is something the Board wants to budget for. Kempf replied he thinks this is a discussion that the Board needs to have, whether they are still setting aside the $1 million per year, if they intend to earmark money toward acquisition through Capital Projects, or if they want to set some additional funding aside. Harney said he thought this was included in last year’s budget. Kempf said no. Sullivan said that last year’s budget included the three houses that the County did buy. Harney said he thought there was money in the budget for demolition. Kempf said yes there is money for the demolition of those three houses, but Sullivan is talking about the acquisition of the other four houses.
Neuzil said that his understanding through the Finance Committee is that the fund created of what will be left of the net tax, which right now is around $1.5 million, is to go towards Reserve/Capital Projects. Kempf said he did not have any money earmarked for acquisition, however. Harney asked if that is something the County can bond for if they are able to. Neuzil said yes. Harney said he would prefer to do that. Neuzil said that the Board is not getting too specific about discussing that project yet. Stutsman said the Board is not there yet, so purchasing those properties will be saved for future discussion.
Stutsman said the Board did approve the Medical Examiner Supervisor reclassification. She asked about the two full-time upgrades for Ambulance. Rettig said this is actually four half-time positions, and she asked if this is correct. Sullivan confirmed this. Stutsman said this was going to save over-time expenses, and she asked if this is correct. Neuzil said it didn’t sound like it would save very much. Sullivan explained that it would save some over-time, but not $76,000 worth. Stutsman said it is just staffing another ambulance. Neuzil said it is basically to help staff the part-time group in the new west side. Sullivan said it is also includes late night staffing. Claiborne reminded the Board that whatever they do whittles away the $1.9 million.
Sullivan asked how much the Board has saved. Claiborne said they saved $3,500. Sullivan said Department 10 saved about $5,000. Claiborne said that Road Safety was not in the budget, so ignore that one. Sullivan said there is a $3,000 savings in Department 24, so that is $8,000. Neuzil said Block Grants in Department 20 saved $35,000. Sullivan said this adds up to $43,000. Johnson said to add in about $20,000 for Iowa City’s JCCOG. Sullivan said the $20,000 makes it $76,000 and the Jail televisions make the total $91,000, and Administrative Building Landscaping makes it $101,000. Stutsman summarized that the Board has saved, or said no to, $101,000.
Stutsman asked how the Board feels about the two full-time upgrades for Ambulance. Rettig said this is similar to her discussion with MH/DS Director Kris Artley. She said just because something shows the County should have something, does not mean it is easy for her to add full-time equivalents (FTE). Rettig said it is easier for her to approve one-time expenses than FTE’s. Rettig explained that the Board is asking everybody to hold the line, and it is tough for her to give some departments everything they want. Rettig said she wants to look at the broader picture of the County’s capitals and reserves. She explained that she has the same opinion on Ambulance as she does on the Sheriff’s Office; she thinks the County probably needs to start increasing, but not necessarily all in one year. She said she is curious about other Board member's opinions.
Harney asked if part of the FTE’s were offset by over-time. Neuzil said he does not think so. Sullivan said he thinks some was, but only $8,000 or $9,000. Stutsman said the main thing is that there is additional coverage in the County for longer periods of time, basically by adding another shift. Neuzil said the upgrades are to add a half-time shift on the west side and to increase staffing during peak times later in the evening. He reminded the Board of one of their initial budgetary priorities, that being response time for Ambulance. Sullivan suggested it might be easier to negate other requests first, for example, he said he is not interested in giving the Auditor’s Office any more positions right now. Neuzil suggested the Board just go down the list of budgetary requests in order.
Stutsman suggested that the Board talk about Ambulance. She said that Neuzil brings up a good point in saying that improving Ambulance response time is one of the Board’s priorities. She said it seemed like it was either two-full-time FTE's for Ambulance or nothing. Neuzil said that the request is actually for four half-time employees. Sullivan said this is for four half-time employees. Neuzil said that that this is because Ambulance Director Steve Spenler did not yet want a full-time staff on the west side. Claiborne said this is to expand the appointment of current part-time employees; Spenler is not hiring new people. Harney said he thinks the Board can hold off on approving the new FTE’s, because the County does not even have a facility on the west side yet. Stutsman said she thought it was for the Coralville location as well. Harney said that they are discussing the west side location.
Rettig asked if the Board is able to access Spenler’s comments justifying this request. Stutsman asked what day Spenler came in. Claiborne said that he just has the budget sheets, and he does not know if Administrative Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz can get the minutes very fast. Rettig said she meant to ask if Spenler’s comments are on the Board's computer. Stutsman said it is on there. Reading from a document provided by Spenler at an October 21, 2009 meeting, Neuzil said, “Spenler would add four half-time positions; they would not require any additional benefits for health unless they applied. The Ambulance Department has not had any full-time employees added since 2004.” Stutsman continued reading from Spenler's report, “Spenler said it would allow Ambulance to keep up with increasing demand for service, provide quality care, and keep response time at an acceptable volume." Stutsman added that Spenler’s document said the volume has increased over 25% since the last time full-time staff was added.
Neuzil said he is OK with keeping the positions for Ambulance in the budget. Stutsman agreed. Harney said he has no problem with keeping them in the budget, but his concern is if next year, Spenler is going to want to convert those position to full-time or three-quarters, the County would then be paying for all the employee benefits. Neuzil said if Spenler justifies it, then this is true. Harney said if he remembered correctly, Spenler does not have benefits in the budget. Rettig replied that there is $3,800 for wages and $1,800 for benefits with family health. Stutsman said she thought they were part-time employees that Spenler would take to full-time. Johnson said that he thinks what Spenler was saying was that what he has calculated for benefits is probably a little high, because he did not include benefits in the amount. Stutsman asked if there are three Board members who want to leave the Ambulance positions in the budget. Sullivan Neuzil, and Stutsman said yes, that there are three votes to do that.
Stutsman asked the Board about the part-time Office Assistant for Conservation. Sullivan said he was under the impression that the Board did not have any say in this decision, although they do have overall say in the budget. He stated that Graves kept his budget exactly flat and then added this position. Sullivan thinks this puts the Board in a difficult position, because they can either say that Graves gets less than he got last year, or something else. Neuzil said he thought department heads have to get approval from the Board for a new hire. Sullivan said he thought this was addressed in the Iowa State Supreme Court with Conservation. He said the Court said that the Supervisors could control the budget. Neuzil said that the Conservation Department could say they are adding a new employee, but the following year, the Board could tell Conservation they are getting less funding. Sullivan said right. Stutsman said exactly, the Board can do this with all the departments, although they don’t. Sullivan noted that the Board has not tended to do this.
Stutsman stated that she thinks the position for Conservation is warranted, and she would say yes to it. Sullivan said he thinks it is already in the budget. Stutsman said the Board could say no to the Conservation Department and cut their budget. Rettig said it is a flat-line budget, but Graves is just choosing to spend it differently. She said the problem is in the second year, Graves could come back to the Board requesting $18,000 more because he does not have room in his budget. Sullivan said Graves did it differently than Hensch, who put a $7,000 savings in his budget. Sullivan stated that Graves’ budget is exactly the same as last year, so he could have written in zero as the amount of new cost. Sullivan said that the problem is that next year; Graves may want $17,000 more. Harney said that is what he is afraid will happen. Stutsman agreed that it will happen. She asked if the Board wants to say no, and Graves can go ahead and fund the position anyway. Sullivan said the Board’s dilemma comes back to the working relationship with the Conservation Board.
Neuzil expressed that he is confused, because he thought this is an additional request $17,830 beyond Conservation's budget. Neuzil said that is what he had in his notes. Rettig said this topic was discussed before her term on the Board began. Neuzil said he does not have down that Graves was asking for permission to hire somebody, he has in his notes that Graves was asking for an additional $17,000. Rettig said that she was not here, but she remembers it was a flat request. Neuzil agreed that it is a flat request, but the question is if this is an addition beyond that. Sullivan said he sees that Graves kept his bottom line. Neuzil said Sullivan is correct. Neuzil said he has a note that says Graves has reduced his operating expenses by $17,830, but he is asking for a half-time position for the same amount. He said, in other words, Graves cut down on everything else to get this position. That being said, Graves is not asking for any additional dollars over the previous year, so Neuzil said he would be OK with that.
Sullivan said this gets into the issue brought up by Rettig and Harney; when the County hires a new position it takes on a long term liability. Harney asked if Graves has one full-time employee now. Stutsman confirmed this. Neuzil stated that Graves is not asking for any additional dollars this year. Stutsman pointed out that this can be a deceiving way to budget, because a person can flat-line a budget and know that if the Board approves it, the position will be stuck in the budget for good. She said she thinks it is a little misleading. Rettig said that this year, the Board asked people to hold their budget even, everything but salaries. She said that if the Conservation position is warranted, it should compete for FTE’s just like the positions in Ambulance and the Sheriff’s Office. Rettig said that if it is warranted, then that is fine, but it is a personnel decision.
Rettig said the Board could tell Graves what his budget is, and he could still hire the person because the Conservation Board can do that. Stutsman added unless the Board cuts his budget by $17,000. Neuzil said that is the question. Rettig said she thinks the reason Conservation wants this is for rentals. Rettig said Graves justifies it wherever it is, reservations and so on. Stutsman said the budget year is not that tight, but the bottom line is how many more staff does the Board want to add to County government. She said that adding a few here and a few there can all of a sudden add up. Harney said he thinks the Board can wait a year on this position. Neuzil said he is OK with this request, simply because Graves has cut out the money for it. He asked if the Board doesn’t fund the position, should they cut Graves’ budget by $17,830. Sullivan said this gets into the discussion the Board just had about non-personnel, and to what extent does the Board substitute its judgment for the director’s judgment. He said this is part of what the Board does, although they try not to do it too much, but it is just a hard call.
Stutsman asked how the Board can send the message to Graves not to assume that his budget will be raised by $17,000 or $20,000 next year to cover this. Sullivan said a better thing would be to say that next year will probably be a flat budget year again. Stutsman asked if there are three Board members who want to approve the part-time Office Assistant position. Neuzil agreed. Harney said he would like to wait a year. Rettig said she is OK with this because the budget is flat. Sullivan said he is OK with this.
Stutsman asked Board members about the Case Expeditor for the Attorney’s Office. Stutsman said that County Attorney Janet Lyness made the argument that she could supposedly save money by having this person in place. Sullivan confirmed that Lyness said that, and he said he questions if this position can do anything with the current State budget. He said that they have furloughs, hiring freezes, they are not hiring new clerks, and Lyness does not even have a place for the new employee to work. Stutsman said this is true. Rettig said she was not here when Lyness presented her budget, and she asked if this conversation has been had with her since all of the furloughs and cuts have occurred.
Neuzil said Lyness’s request has been in for a few years. He said that each time Lyness presents this job description, it seems to change a little. For example, two or three years ago, the position focused more on how to reduce jail time, but now it seems to have changed. Stutsman said that makes her suspicious about how much the Attorney’s Office needs the position if the job description can be tweaked each year. Neuzil said he finds it difficult to approve this request because the Attorney’s Office has not made any large budget cuts like some other departments have done. Claiborne said that Lyness could not provide supporting numbers. He said that Lyness had a rough figure based on what Scott County pays for a similar position, and they save around $100,000. Claiborne said Lyness could not document a specific supporting figure, however. Stutsman expressed that for all the reasons that the Board has pointed out, she would like to wait on the position. Sullivan and Neuzil said they would like to wait also.
Stutsman asked about the Sheriff Office’s request for four full-time equivalents for Patrol Deputies. She also asked the Board about ideas on how to utilize the $668,000 plus savings from dispatch. Neuzil stated that County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek’s original request was for two positions, but when the State Patrol issues surfaced he requested an additional two positions. Neuzil said Iowa City has reinvested its' dispatch services revenue dollars into Public Safety. He said the Board will be asked how Johnson County utilized its' dispatch services revenue. Neuzil said he is not suggesting that all the dispatch money go into Public Safety, but he does not have a problem with putting a portion of the money into hiring additional deputies. Harney noted that the State decided not to lay off State Troopers. Neuzil said looking at the last editorial, the question is whether they will use the Road Use Tax Fund and if that is legal. Harney said he doesn’t mind approving two positions. Stutsman said she is OK with two. She asked if that $260,000 includes cars and everything. Rettig replied that no, the cars are $100,000.
Rettig said the only problem with what Neuzil just said is that the JECC was sold to the public on a promise of it reducing taxes. Rettig said she can produce articles that quote some Board members as saying that. She said she can see herself approving two deputies for the Sheriff’s Office but not four. She expressed that she does not think the County can keep up with growth by adding more employees, and she thinks the Board needs to measure this decision very carefully. Rettig said she studied the patrol schedule at the Sheriff’s Office, and she understands that there are serious amounts of time that the County is without two patrol deputies. She said that if the Board adds two deputies, it will end that shortage in the evening hours, and there would be times during the day when there are only two patrol deputies. Rettig expressed that she doesn’t see how the Board can do all of this at once.
Rettig asked how many dispatchers, or FTE’s, will be off the County payroll and at JECC. Sullivan replied nine or ten. Neuzil reported that the correct number is eleven. Rettig said if the Board adds positions here and there, does the County see any reduction in its overall number of employees. She said that she can understand two new positions, but she has a hard time getting to four in one year. Neuzil replied that he is also comfortable with two new deputies, but he noted that Pulkrabek laid out a plan of where the County ought to be, and in the rural population there should be about one patrol per thousand residents. Neuzil said that with the additional two deputies, they would be pretty close to that. He expressed that the Board must be prepared to look at this number again next year and the year after, particularly as the Board starts to get a real number from the 2010 Census. Rettig agreed with this. Neuzil said he is OK with two deputies.
Harney said another way to approach the decision could be to approve the four new deputies and no new cars. He said he knows some people disagree with him about this. Harney expressed that he thinks the deputies can share cars. Rettig responded that would only save $100,000. Stutsman said she has never been satisfied with the answers she has received about the City contracts. She asked why the County keeps adding deputies to patrol Tiffin and North Liberty when those cities should be expanding their own police forces. Stutsman said the Board did raise the contract fee, but that fee does not begin to cover the costs. Neuzil said that the contract fee gets pretty close. He said the problem with the contract fee is the fact that previous Johnson County Sheriff Bob Carpenter and the Board of Supervisors at that time, were not on top things. Sullivan noted that they are catching up. Neuzil agreed. Stutsman said that the Board will never catch up. She said Tiffin will have their contract, and she asked how many additional hours Johnson County patrols spend out there than what is stated in the contract. Stutsman said Tiffin has it figured out, and they know that the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office has to respond when they call. Neuzil said they got their hours reduced as far as their regular times. Stutsman said that when they get a call from the school, they have to respond.
Sullivan said he thinks once the parents of kids in Tiffin realize how little patrol they actually get, they will have to beat on the door of their own City Council members to say that they need more patrol. Stutsman replied that the Board is enabling that. Sullivan said that for every Tiffin, there is a Solon, who said that they appreciate the service and are willing to pay more. Neuzil and Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said one reason for that is that Solon has law enforcement on their City Council. Stutsman emphasized that when a City wants to develop land like bigger cities, they need to realize that comes with responsibilities, and one of these responsibilities includes public safety. Stutsman said that is her own editorial comment, but she is okay with two new deputies. Sullivan said he can also support two. He said he thinks that in the Board's next strategic planning meeting, they should ask if this issue is still a priority. Stutsman said that maybe that could be a goal. Rettig said this could even be a goal for two years from now, because she is not suggesting the County add two more deputies next year. Neuzil said that it is somewhat scary to hear that there are only two deputies on patrol at one time. Rettig said it is scary, especially at night. Neuzil said it is scary, especially if the State is not going to start covering some of this.
Stutsman asked if any Board members hear any citizen complaints that the Sheriff's Office was non-responsive. Neuzil said the only complaints he hears are that there are not enough patrol deputies to watch speed. Rettig said she has heard complaints from west of North Liberty, she was not even on the Board but she still was receiving complaints. Sullivan said that deputies sometimes just have to get out of bed. He said that Pulkrabek and Sheriff’s Major Steve Dolezal once had to respond to a bar fight in the middle of the night in Lone Tree, and it took both of them to break up the fight and make arrests. At the same time, however, there was a car wreck on 120th Street, which was literally 30 miles away from where they were. Harney noted that this will happen no matter how many deputies are on staff. Stutsman agreed. Harney expressed that the demand for law enforcement is constant.
Neuzil said he is going back to the basis that the County needs to keep up with the growth of the population. He said the projection shows a bump in population in two years, and he said that projections over the next ten to 15 years show a significant increase in number of people. Neuzil expressed that hiring deputies now is a good way to at least start catching up. Sullivan agreed. Rettig said that the arguments for the Medical Examiner’s Office, Ambulance Department, Attorney’s Office, and Sheriff’s Office are all kind of the same. She stated that as the population grows, so does their workload. Rettig expressed that this is true with everyone, but these departments in particular, especially when noting that murders and suicides more than doubled last year. Rettig said she could get to two deputies now, and although she is not saying she would want two more next year but she thinks there will be an argument for two more soon.
Neuzil said that if the County takes a survey of this community, he thinks public safety is going to be pretty close to the top of their list of priorities. Stutsman said this would be the main priority other than libraries. Neuzil agreed that outside of libraries, it would be public safety. Sullivan said the other safe aspect of approving two deputies now is that during the day, Sheriff’s Captain/Chief Deputy Joseph Lalla is available for patrol if necessary. Sullivan said this option is not available at night, unless someone is called from their home. Neuzil said this is good progress for the County to be in a position where they can justify at least two new deputies based on their strategic plan.
Stutsman summarized that the Board agreed to approve two deputies. Rettig asked if the Board will have the right to revise and extend their remarks about all this if the numbers don't add up. Stutsman said yes. Neuzil said that the Board has not seen what the impact on the taxpayer is yet. Harney said this is all tentative. Rettig recapped that the Board is leaning in this direction. Stutsman said right, this is the direction the Board is giving Claiborne to move to the next step.
Stutsman asked if the Board is interested in approving either of the positions for the Auditor’s Office. Sullivan said he is not interested because he found it frustrating when the Board was told that cross-training employees for Payroll and Accounts Payable (AP) is not possible. He said that everyone in the Auditor’s Office is trained to do Elections, so he has a hard time believing that the smart people there cannot be trained. Claiborne said he has always wondered what the people in the Auditor’s Office do when there is no election going on or when there is only one election all year. Sullivan asked why some of those people could not do minutes. Stutsman said she is not in support of the minutes person, but she can understand the need for an Account Clerk. She said that Account Clerk Carla Scherbring is the only person in the Auditor’s Office who does that, and it is a pretty specialized job that people do not just walk into. Stutsman said, not to minimize minute taking, but it is much easier for a person who does not take minutes on a daily basis to perform that job than for someone to learn all the codes and idiosyncrasies of payroll. Stutsman said that the County does not want any mistakes on payroll.
Stutsman said she is supportive of the Account Clerk position, and she asked if anyone else on the Board agrees. Neuzil said he is OK with holding off. Sullivan said he still wants to know more about cross-training in the Auditor’s Office before he would approve a new position. Rettig agreed with Sullivan. Stutsman asked the Board if they want more information on that or if they want to just say no now. Stutsman said that she would she would like to get more information. Neuzil said that right now the answer from the Board is tentatively no, but they can ask for more information.
Stutsman asked about MH/DS, but then she said that MH/DS is to be discussed at a later meeting. Claiborne said he is still waiting on their budget. Neuzil said that budget won’t impact the tax on this schedule. Claiborne said right, MH/DS is a totally separate fund.
Rettig said that the Board needs to look at Sheriff’s Deputy Vehicles request. Claiborne said he put a note in there to approve two new vehicles. Rettig said that the Board did not necessarily approve two, but that is what Harney wanted. Claiborne said he will mark down to approve two deputies and indicated that the vehicles are still up for debate.
Neuzil said that Harney had noted that if it was four deputies versus two deputies and two cars and he asked if Harney was suggesting no vehicles for all four deputies. Harney replied that he feels they can share cars. He said that Pulkrabek says that the deputies with their own cars take better care of them and run them for a greater number of years than if there were two people driving them. Harney said, however, that it is quite an investment for the County to be making for every deputy to have their own car. He said he would like to know if they are using the cars personally to go to and from work. Harney said he knows the deputies are on call, but he said that stipulation has been taken away from the tax rules, so the deputies should be filing that driving time as a benefit. Stutsman said that she thinks they do, or she hopes they do. Harney said he does not think so, because in the past if employees were on call, they did not have to file this driving time. Harney says that they have changed that law, and he does not know if the deputies are claiming this driving or not.
Rettig said the request is for four deputies and vehicle replacement, but the County still has to buy the four cars, and she does not understand how the County does that for only $95,000. Harney said the State bid is about $23,000. Neuzil said the Sheriff’s Office budget for all cars is about $150,000, so they do not replace every car every year. He said that the vehicle budget has been level for many years. Rettig said she understands that, but she asked how much it would cost to buy four brand new cars and equip them with radios. Neuzil said it would cost $95,000. Rettig said that would only be $25,000 per car. Neuzil agreed. Harney said there are some hidden costs. Rettig said the estimate says the $95,000 also covers fuel, and she expressed that she does not think that is enough money Harney said there are also hidden costs, because now they are replacing the car and the lights, but the radios are going to be provided by the JECC.
Stutsman asked for clarification if when a deputy is not on duty, their car sits in front of their house and does not do anything. Neuzil said yes. Stutsman said she thinks that is a waste. Neuzil said that they are on-call, however, and that is the question. Harney said that Pulkrabek says the deputies who live in Shueyville, for example, can’t go all the way to Iowa City to get a vehicle to respond to a call from North Liberty. Neuzil said that some deputies who live in a particular area will monitor that area more by having a vehicle rather than having to drive to Iowa City to retrieve a car to take back to that area. Sullivan said that the deputies are supposed to have the cars parked facing the road. Neuzil said that when driving around the County, he will see Sheriff’s patrol vehicles and they are always parked almost on the road right at the end of their driveway.
Sullivan said that the Board is only talking about vehicles for patrol deputies, because deputies working in the Jail do not have their own cars. Harney said that he just has an issue about the cars. He expressed that some of the cars for the Sheriff’s Office are actually sports cars and that they are not plain law enforcement vehicles. He said that each deputy picks their own car. Neuzil noted that these cars are three to five years old now. Stutsman said that there is a replacement schedule so that everybody’s car gets replaced on a regular basis. Harney said it is a question of whether the Board wants the deputies to have vehicles at their homes. Neuzil said he is OK with approving two deputies with whatever two deputies would need to function. Sullivan said that the Board could assume this cost to be half of the number currently in the budget. Harney asked if this is for the two vehicles. Neuzil said he is OK with that. Stutsman said that she is not alright with this.
Stutsman said that the Board needs to send a message to everybody, not just one department, that things will not be the same, and these budget issues will be with the County for a long time. Neuzil asked if anyone else on the Board wants to provide the patrol deputies with vehicles. Claiborne said that Harney said no to the cars, and he asked if this is correct. Rettig said she needs more information because she understands why deputies in certain areas need their own car, but she is curious why deputies in town would need a car at home. She said she thinks Pulkrabek ought to give the Board another memo about this topic. Sullivan said he is okay with funding two vehicles but then having this topic be a discussion point with the Sheriff in the next several months.
Stutsman asked if the Police Department provides cars to all their officers. Harney replied that they share cars. Neuzil noted that they also have three times the number of employees than the County Sheriff’s Office does. Rettig said that the Police Department does not patrol in Solon. Harney said that the Police Department allows investigators to take cars home if they are on-call. He noted that the Fire Chief lets his Fire Marshall and other employees take home cars, as they all have their own. Rettig said that if a deputy lives in Solon, and that is that deputy's patrol assignment, that deputy would have to drive to Iowa City, get a car and drive back. She expressed that it makes sense that the deputy would need a car at home. She said she is curious whether two people who live in town actually need to have their own cars. Rettig said she does not know the answer to this.
Stutsman said she understands the need for a car if the deputy is on-call, but if the deputy is off duty for three days, then the car is sitting in the driveway doing nothing for that time period, which is a waste. She asked if that is a good use of the County’s resources. Sullivan said that is a good question. Sullivan said he is familiar with the deputy who lives very close to Sutliff. Sullivan said that many times when this deputy has not been on call, he has gotten a regular phone call to respond to Sutliff, because it is a mile drive for him as opposed to 25 miles for everyone else. Sullivan said he remembers hearing a previous administration as well as Pulkrabek saying that if there was not a deputy that lived there, they would almost want to pay somebody to live there because of the convenience. Sullivan said he thinks the Sheriff’s Office has had this same situation in the past with Lone Tree and some other places. He said it relates to what Rettig said in that if the deputies live in Iowa City, they might not be getting that kind of benefit because they could just go to the Sheriff’s Office, get their car, and be gone. Harney said that it is hard to control. Sullivan agreed.
Stutsman said that this society has gotten to a mindset where everybody wants their own car and their own office no matter what it costs. She thinks the County has gotten far off field from the idea of trying to cut and minimize costs. Stutsman said that people want whatever they can have to make their jobs as easy as possible, and she expressed that it is a lot easier for a deputy to have their own company car. Sullivan said he does not necessarily disagree with what Harney has been saying, but Sullivan thinks it is asking the Sheriff to run his department in a different way than he has been for the last five years. Harney said that Pulkrabek is the elected official. Stutsman said that the Board still controls elected officials' budgets.
Sullivan said he would almost rather have this discussion with Pulkrabek after the budget is worked out. He said he would rather deal with the issue during the next budget year after the Board has had time to talk about it. Sullivan said it seems that if the Board says they are adding two deputies but does not fund the other things necessary for the way Pulkrabek is used to running his department, then Pulkrabek may say that the Board is only really funding one deputy. Sullivan said that they could fight about this forever, but he would like the Board to give Pulkrabek half of the $95,000 he requested in order to fund two deputies and vehicles. He said this would be with the understanding that the Board wants to have some discussion about the car policy and will take that into consideration in future budgets.
Harney said he does not want to run Pulkrabek’s department, but he would want some way to encourage Pulkrabek to take a second look at how he does it. Harney said he is not saying he knows better than Pulkrabek. Sullivan said that the way for Harney to do that is through the budget. Stutsman said that the Board will approve two deputies and two cars this year and then two deputies and two cars next year. Rettig said that the Board did not say that. Rettig said she did not agree to two cars and two deputies for next year. Stutsman agreed, but she suggested the Board move on. Sullivan asked what the Board decided. Claiborne said that the Board approved two deputies and two vehicles. Neuzil said they did not approve the four deputies with four vehicles. Stutsman said no, not this year.
Claiborne directed the Board to the tally sheet. He said he will readjust the net tax based on the changes made by the Board. He asked if the Board wants to leave in the maximum transfer to Secondary Roads. Sullivan said he likes that idea. Stutsman agreed. She asked if there are three people that want this. Harney agreed, and he asked what the maximum transfer would give Parker for Secondary Roads. He asked if that is all that Parker gets other than what he gets through State and Federal funding. Claiborne said Parker gets $915,000. Neuzil asked what Parker got last year as compared to this year. Rettig said Parker told the Board he got around $700,000 last year, so there is about $200,000 new funding. Rettig asked if that is correct. Claiborne said he did not bring the transfer sheet, but that would show what Parker got last year and this year. Harney said he thinks they need to transfer the maximum amount because Parker had to spend so much in the last few years with all the floods, snowfalls, and everything else.
Neuzil asked if the amount of savings from dispatch revenue is incorporated in the budget yet. Claiborne said in an indirect way, when he put the Sheriff Office’s budget in, the personnel expenses were lower. Neuzil said this is why the $1.9 million markup is where it is. Claiborne said it is in part because of that. Neuzil said it is in part because that room was created. Sullivan said that looking at the tally sheet for what the Board put in and took out of the budget, it would amount to about $55,000 more spending, so the $1.955 million markup would be almost exactly $1.9 million. This would be after certain items are removed from the budget as the Board has just decided, and personnel costs are added in. Claiborne said he will do this and send the Board an update.
Neuzil asked if the JECC gave the Board a budget yet. Claiborne said no. Stutsman asked Harney when that is expected. Harney said that that the JECC has a meeting coming up and they are putting it together. Neuzil said that the Board can assume at this point that it will be the same levy as last year. Claiborne agreed, and he said that it does not affect the General Basic Fund because it is a General Supplemental pass-through. He stated that this will not affect the $1.9 million. Rettig said the levy last year was $.77, and she asked if this is correct. Claiborne replied no, that was the previous year. He said that last year, it totaled to just short of $.50. Harney said he thinks it will be the same this year, but he will double check.
Neuzil said that Claiborne calculated the employee salaries, and he asked if Claiborne incorporates that along with the elected officials as a part of the whole package. Claiborne said he has not heard about elected officials yet. Stutsman asked if they are included along with personnel. Neuzil asked if Claiborne or the Auditor’s Office included employee salaries as a part of the package, or if they need to know specific numbers. Claiborne said he put a projection into the budget, and he said over the years it has been OK. Neuzil said the Board probably needs to come to some sort of resolution at the next budget meeting if they are going to make a request to the Compensation Board. Neuzil said this might be something for them to add to the agenda or at least to have some discussion about under the budget heading. Stutsman agreed that the Board should talk about that.
Neuzil said there is no progress on the Public Health Building, and there are no projections there for additional revenues or things of that nature. He asked if anyone knows about any progress. Harney said he thinks the Board needs to pursue that. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil stated that the Board has not heard of any additional State cuts, in particular unfunded mandates. He said he was thinking particularly of the tax credits. Neuzil asked if there is anything there that the Board needs to be thinking about. He asked if the County is getting tax credits or not, and if they should tax or not tax. Claiborne said he adjusted the re-estimate on some of the credits, so that is in the final budget of FY10 and starting FY11. Stutsman said that historically, the County has not picked that up from the State, so she does not know why they would. Neuzil said the rumor is that that would potentially be around $50,000 that the County would not get revenue from, which would in turn have an impact on transfers. Neuzil said they just do not know that.
Claiborne said he put down around $60,000 as a re-estimate in some of the tax credit areas. Stutsman said that if the County is not expending anything and is not getting any money, then it does not make any difference. She asked if this is correct. Claiborne said that if there is a lower revenue than what the County budgets for, it affects the subsidy. Rettig said that the County has already been given the credit; they would just not be reimbursed for it. Neuzil agreed, saying it is just that much less revenue. He said he just wanted to make sure Claiborne was on top of that. Claiborne acknowledged that he is.
Neuzil said the Board will be discussing library funding, among other things, at the next meeting. Rettig asked if that meeting is on January 12, 2010. Neuzil confirmed this. He asked if Claiborne got the requests from all the libraries yet. Claiborne said yes. Rettig asked what the January 12, 2010 meeting will address, and if it is Rural Block Grants. Claiborne said that the Board will discuss MH/DS, the Rural Basic Fund which includes libraries, Trails funding, and Capital Improvement, and Block Grants. He said the Board will go over Block Grant 20 to see if there are any changes. Claiborne said that toward the end of the month, there will be one or two more meetings where the whole budget packet is presented so that the Board can see what it looks like and see the effects of the levy. Claiborne said he still needs to get the budget from MH/DS.
Sullivan said he still wants to know what is going to happen with the rollback, and he stated he does not know what exactly it means to the County right now. Neuzil said it means the County will have more money. Claiborne said that will be one of the final steps. Stutsman expressed that the County will get more money, but the people are going to pay higher taxes. Claiborne said that until everything is done and put into the budget, nothing is final yet. Sullivan said that it will affect the $1.9 million markup. Neuzil stated that it will make it higher, so there will be more room for reserves. Claiborne said that he put the rollback in the tax sheet, and he said he thinks it will mostly affect the levy sheet and how it affects differently priced houses. He said the rollback is already entered. Sullivan said that now all the Board is worrying about is how it affects the $100,000 home owner.
Claiborne said the Assessor revaluation, or the one thing that was withheld a couple years ago, is also on the sheet. Neuzil said there have been some adjustments on assessments that have raised some growth as well. Claiborne agreed and said that both of these things have already been put into the budget. Neuzil expressed that it would be nice to know what the impact on taxpayers will be. Neuzil said that as soon as Claiborne starts to get some feelings of that, the Board will all want to know. Claiborne said that will be one of the last things. Neuzil said that the Board may have to go back and say they can only approve one employee instead of two, and make cuts wherever they can to adjust that. He noted that they could not cut out the General Fund, but it could fall under Debt Services or the General Supplemental Fund.
Neuzil said he is still somewhat concerned about how much funding the Board is putting into Secondary Roads, but he said that will be addressed in the next meeting with the Rural Basic Fund. Claiborne said before next time, the Board can look at the document on Secondary Roads. Claiborne said he knows there was a big conversation about level of service, so maybe the Board can give Parker some direction on the maximum transfers he is being given. Claiborne said he will email all of these documents to the Board.
Rettig asked for an estimate of the timeline for the January 12, 2010 meeting. Claiborne said he does not know how long the MH/DS discussion will take. Neuzil said the Board budge normally allots three hours. Rettig said she will be leaving early at 11:30 a.m. unless the Board can change the start time. Stutsman asked if the Board wants to consider changing the start time. Neuzil said the Board can try to get done with the meeting by about 11:00 a.m.
Adjourned at 3:19 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary