MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 12, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Mental Health/Disability Services (46)
Discussion: FY 2011 County Budget
Vice-Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 8:35 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, and Rod Sullivan; absent: Sally Stutsman.
Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne said Iowa Valley Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Foods is something he needs the Board to decide on. Sullivan asked if the Board did $15,000 last year. Claiborne replied that this is actually a new request. Rettig asked if they are discussing the Local Foods Initiative. Neuzil asked if the Board had money in the Rural Basic Block Grant that they had put towards this in the past. He said it seemed like they had some money for advertising and a few other items in the past and that he thought the Board had placed some money in there. Claiborne asked if Neuzil is talking about Rural Basic. Neuzil said yes. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said they had $5,000 for rural economic development. Neuzil said that is what he was referring to. Johnson said it is his understanding that most of those funds haven't been used much in the past.
Neuzil said he is not interested in expanding any block grants. His reason is that the Board has placed a hold on every department except under certain circumstances and they've also put a hold on every block grant. He said he'd rather see the Board utilize the $5,000 they already have for rural economic development. Sullivan asked Claiborne to go back to the spreadsheet he was on since Sullivan had not seen it before. Neuzil stated it is under rural economic development under block grants. Sullivan asked if the $5,000 would be out of the Rural Fund. Claiborne said it is actually at zero. Neuzil asked where the Board came up with that money before. Johnson said that was where the Board was using matching funds for the Historical Society. Sullivan asked what the Rural Enterprise Grant Fund is. Johnson said that was where the Board had received a request for $25,000 from the Economic Development Group and the Board had decided to put $10,000 in the fund and called it entrepreneurial projects because the Board knew that if they funded that group, then other groups would come forward and want funding, too. Neuzil stated that line 52 of the spreadsheet is where the money came from before. Sullivan asked if this is the Rural Fund and not General Basic. Neuzil said no, it is General Basic. He said it is the Board saying they would put $5,000 towards economic development. He said since the Board represents the rural community in that regard, that is where that money came from. Neuzil stated that it is a consistent amount of money that they started last year.
Neuzil directed the Board to line 66 on the spreadsheet and stated that line is new money and that he does not support new money, but that it is in there for now, since the Board told Claiborne to keep it in there. Harney said he thought the Board had placed that money in there for entrepreneurial projects. Neuzil stated they did. Harney said he thought they were treating the local foods issue separately from entrepreneurial projects. He said the Board has been supporting that all the way through until recently. Neuzil said they have, but that he is suggesting using line 52 for those kinds of expenditures to get the local foods going. Rettig said she is not clear whether the Board had received a request for $15,000 or where else that number came from. Neuzil asked if Rettig was referring to line 66. Rettig said no she was referring to an amount that was mentioned earlier in the meeting. Sullivan said he thinks $15,000 was the amount that Linn County put in last year. Claiborne said he received a letter that Stutsman had forwarded to him, so he placed it on the tally sheet. Sullivan said he believes that was just to match what Linn County was contributing. Johnson said he had talked to Stutsman since she was going to be absent at this meeting, and she is a strong advocate for that funding and it's known that other counties contribute a lot more. Rettig asked what the letter said they were going to do with the $15,000 request. Claiborne said that part of that money would be for supporting the position at RC&D, the local foods. Sullivan said his understanding of it was that a person at RC&D would connect someone who wants tomatoes with someone who grows tomatoes. The same would be true for someone who wants dairy products and someone who has dairy cattle.
Neuzil said that if the Board is coming up with new ideas, initiatives, and requests, then the Board should have opened that up for everything. To him, it means the Board is opening up new expenditures at a time when they had said they wouldn't. He said he is uncomfortable with starting new programs and projects without a more strategic way of identifying five, ten, or 15 of those and then prioritizing what is most important. He said the Board is getting into a habit of throwing $10,000 here and $15,000 there for another request. He stated that would be $25,000 of new projects that he didn't think they were going to fund. Harney said another thing about Iowa Valley RC&D is that it's not just Johnson County, but several counties. He said he has concerns about how much money they want to put into that and new projects while they hold others back. Harney gave an example of the Medical Examiner, who had put in a request for new lights, which Harney found reasonable, but the Board cut that out of the budget even though it was a smaller amount than what they are discussing today. Rettig said that nothing was spent last year out of the $5,000. Neuzil corrected Rettig and said $1,500 was used to apply for a match grant with the Historical Society for brochures to promote rural and urban economic development.
Claiborne said it was his understanding that maybe in the past there wasn't a process for identifying things out of the rural economic development grant. Neuzil said that is correct. Sullivan said the Board wanted to make sure they had some money available. Johnson said this was something that the Economic Development Committee would be developing a process for and overseeing.
Sullivan asked Claiborne if he could put the RC&D discussion on hold. He said since Stutsman is absent for this meeting, and since she's been deeply involved in the issue, it would be best to have her present. Claiborne asked if January 22, 2010 would work. Sullivan asked the other Board members if they would mind. Claiborne asked that the discussion be placed on the agenda for January 22, 2010. Neuzil asked Claiborne if they would be discussing block grants anyway on January 22, 2010. Claiborne said that was actually on the agenda for today, but they could move that to January 22, 2010, too. Sullivan asked if they could just wait to discuss the one $15,000 request. Rettig said that was a good idea. She thinks local foods would be big for Johnson County, but that she is unsure how to promote that.
Claiborne told the Board that the Historical Society asked for an increase. He said he had them in flat like everyone else. He asked if the Board wished to increase them to $15,715. Harney said they should be kept flat. Johnson said it would be a 5% increase. Sullivan said the Board has been very generous. Neuzil agreed with Harney. Rettig said they asked people to keep it flat or bring it in at 2%. She said she would need a compelling reason why the Board should increase anything. Rettig asked if the Historical Society gave a reason for the increase request. Neuzil said he assumed it was for payroll and everything else. Rettig requested clarification on whether the Historical Society had asked for funds to match a grant or specific leveraging. Johnson said no, it was just continuing cost increases.
Claiborne said there was a valuation change. About $8 million was shifted to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. Claiborne stated that is why he put approximately $1.7 million as available in the General Basic as of now. Sullivan asked if that is a little over $1 million less than what Claiborne had guessed. Claiborne said he had earlier showed either $1.8 million or $1.9 million. Sullivan corrected himself and said he meant $100,000. Rettig asked if that is the General Basic Levy. She asked if because the valuations have changed, there would be another $1.7 million in there. Claiborne said that is the amount to reach the $3.50 cap. Rettig said ok. Neuzil asked if that number included the $1 million they normally include for capital projects. Claiborne said that is where this came from. Neuzil told Rettig that in order to reach the $3.50 cap, any additional money is used to pay off debt or capital projects. Rettig said it makes sense that they should save for capital projects. Claiborne said that was how the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building was paid for.
Claiborne directed the Board to look at the adjustment for the Emergency Management Association (EMA). There is a block grant request for $150,000, similar to last year. Additionally, instead of $95,000 for the truck, it was lowered to $60,000. Claiborne said Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) Director Mike Sullivan said to put $2 million in for JECC as the Board did for FY10. He said that is for operating and comes out of General Supplemental. Claiborne said although this is General Basic it is part of the General Supplemental transfer. Rettig asked Claiborne where he was on the $2 million. Claiborne replied that he is looking at line seven. Claiborne stated that this is not a cost to General Basic, rather it was shifted from General Supplemental. Rettig asked about the levy for $2 million. Claiborne said the total was just short of $0.50, but that was with operating and the two bonds. He told Rettig that he wouldn't know the answer until the end of the budget cycle. Neuzil stated that is consistent with what JECC requested in the past. They aren’t going to ask for more or less. Claiborne said that JECC has a baseline that they have to build this building, based on experience, they expect that $2 million amount to decrease. Neuzil said he assumes they have quite a bit of reserve. Claiborne said that hopefully in FY12 they will see a reduction. He asked the Board if they have anything specific they wish to talk about in reference to the spreadsheet.
Sullivan said he is comfortable with the discussions the Board had with Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia. Neuzil stated he is ok with keeping things as they were in the past in regards to the Agricultural Association and Iowa City Area Development (ICAD). He said he doesn’t have any basis to not continue to do what they had in the past. He said the only thing he still has an issue with is line 66, based on the fact that the Board hasn't expanded any others. He is uncomfortable telling the Crisis Center they didn't get a 4% increase, yet the Board added $10,000 to another block grant item. He said he'd like to keep this the same. By zeroing that out, Neuzil does believe that the Economic Development Committee after FY11 would have some money coming off of some committed block grants with ICAD, which he thinks is $20,000. Neuzil stated that if they kept that fund and put that toward entrepreneurial projects that would at least not cause the block grants to increase.
Rettig said she was present as a citizen when a man made a presentation requesting $25,000 from the Board. Rettig said it was put in a holding pattern of $10,000 that people could sort of compete for and wasn't necessarily to fund that particular project. Neuzil said yes. Sullivan said one way the Board could approach that is, if this is really for competition in economic development then it wouldn't be a stretch to say the Local Foods fits in there and they could compete for those funds, too. Harney asked if there is a normal grant for ICAD in there. Neuzil said yes. He said he is uncomfortable adding $10,000 or $15,000. Claiborne said the Board could make their final decision when Stutsman is present on January 22, 2010. Neuzil said maybe there would be a compromise there.
Neuzil said he questioned whether line 66 or the block grant out of Rural should come out of Rural or come out of General. Sullivan said line 52 was what he thinks should come out of the Rural Fund. Neuzil said that would be only if the Board was looking at just rural projects. Sullivan said maybe that line isn’t named right. Neuzil stated that is because the Board's commitment for enterprise is rural and it comes out of there. Johnson said it could be that once the Economic Development Committee has a process, there might be one line for all of this and they have a priority for rural and it could simplify things. Neuzil said they have $5,000 to put towards projects, and the Board knows that's a small amount of money. The Board is looking at likely adding $10,000 and the other $15,000 to the $5,000 to total $30,000. Neuzil said he wonders if they should do that at a time when the Board told others no. He said he has a difficult time justifying saying no to everyone else while adding an extra $25,000 for this.
Sullivan said Neuzil's questions are the same ones he had. He said he was comfortable with everything that Correia and Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson presented. He stated he is fine with all of the Board's decisions on the matter thus far. Harney said he has questions for lines 61 on down. He wanted to know if all of the projects the Board made commitments to have been funded. Sullivan asked if he was referring to the matching. He asked what they figured out about Coralville Performing Arts, whether there is a commitment there. Harney stated that he thought they had made a commitment, but he is unsure. Neuzil said Claiborne was going to follow up on that. Claiborne said he followed up on the Block Grant site. Johnson stated he checked on that one. Neuzil stated they should double-check on that. He said he thought there were four years left on that, but that he also thought the Board might have paid it in full. He said they would have to figure that out. Johnson said he did check on that and he thinks they had paid it. Sullivan said he knew that when they were thanking their donors they left out the Board.
Harney asked if the Board gave some money to the Johnson County Community Foundation in the past, though there was none listed. Sullivan said he doesn’t remember the Board doing anything with the Community Foundation. Harney said they've received letters from them thanking the Board for their support. Sullivan said he thought that was because the Board set up a couple of funds there. He said Correia and Ambulance Director Steve Spenler have Funds there. Neuzil said they need to check on Coralville Center for the Performing Arts.
Neuzil said lines 52, 61, and 66 are all the same thing to him. He said the local foods thing is probably one of those lines, depending on whether it would come out of rural or urban. That would be something to check on as well. Sullivan asked about line 63. Neuzil said line 63 means the same as lines 52, 61, and 66. He said that now that the Board is structuring the Economic Development Committee to make recommendations and come up with initiatives, they can't do that without some money. Right now the committee has $5,000, of which $1,500 was allotted for the brochure project. He said he thought they might spend more money out of the $5,000 for an ad in the local foods newspaper. Sullivan stated the Board has done that before. Harney wanted to make sure they're not short in that area anywhere. Neuzil said the Board just needs to decide whether they want to keep the amount at $5,000 or if they should add $10,000 or $25,000. Sullivan asked Johnson if he would follow up with the City of Coralville. Johnson said yes. Neuzil stated he thought they had just given them one check. Johnson said he had checked on that but he is fairly sure that it is paid, but he will double-check on it.
Johnson said he recalled the Board was interested in a group representing the Entrepreneurial Development Center that presented when the Board discussed the Entrepreneurial Fund. He suggested maybe give them $5,000 and having another fund that would contain another $5,000, so the Economic Development Committee would maybe have $10,000. Neuzil stated that he remembers receiving an email from Economic Development Committee Representative Paul Heath stating that if they were going to open it up to primarily organizations in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He asked if the Board would be interested opening it up for organizations within Johnson County. Rettig said she was only present as a citizen at the time, but she thought that that came slightly out of the blue and there were plenty of other people who would want money. Sullivan said the group did a lot of legwork by meeting with each of the Board members individually and gave lengthy presentations. He said they were meticulous and precise, but the University people have a good argument. Neuzil said that the process is rightfully within an Economic Development Committee to help the Board. As policy makers, they can put some money out there and ultimately they decide where the money is spent, but a good recommendation from a process would be beneficial.
Rettig said it is not unlike Correia making recommendations on Social Services. Neuzil said that is correct. Sullivan said that is what the Board is trying to get to. Rettig said she agrees and that it makes sense. Neuzil said Claiborne needs to know if the Board wants to place $5,000, $15,000 or $25,000 in there. Claiborne asked if they would discuss the final amount further at the January 22, 2010 meeting. Neuzil said input from Stutsman on the matter would be helpful, since she's close to the Local Foods Initiative. He said he is not sure if the Initiative made a specific request, or if that amount is based on what Linn County is giving them. Claiborne told the Board they'd review the list again on January 22, 2010. Neuzil told Claiborne to keep all of them in the budget for now, in order to not mess with his numbers. Claiborne said it is in the system as it appears on the spreadsheet.
Neuzil said he doesn’t think line 66 is needed. Sullivan asked if they should eliminate it. Neuzil said that instead of calling it Entrepreneurial Projects, they should put it in the Rural Enterprise Fund Grant. Claiborne asked if they could discuss that on January 22, 2010, too, because he was told to put that in this year. Neuzil said that would be fine. Claiborne stated that 3.6 is what's currently in the system and would remain there unless something changes. Neuzil asked Claiborne what the note on line 58 means. Claiborne stated that it is a note to himself because he can't create general ledger accounts, so he makes notes to himself where he places money and then has Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner create the accounts. Neuzil said he was wondering why it said $22,250 when they allocated $12,000. Claiborne said it is a note from a previous year. Harney asked who tracks the tax break to make sure it comes back online, prorated so that the County gets those tax dollars back. Claiborne responded that the Auditor's Office does.
Mental Health/Disability Services (MH/DS) Director Kris Artley said she would start with the revenues. She took Claiborne's number, $3 million for the current real estate taxes. However, she found an email from County Treasurer Tom Kriz, from late October of 2009 and he had indicated at that juncture that based on whatever TIF does this year, conservatively she could plan on another 1.5%. Kriz had said he thought that was an appropriate amount. Artley asked the Board if that is agreeable for them. She stated she doesn’t know about the TIF and how it applies. Neuzil said they are getting numbers that are closer to what the Board thinks they are. Claiborne said that one thing that's kind of out of the Board’s control, is that the tax lines change up until the final budget is done. The numbers come from the Auditor, and Claiborne said he has to do what the Auditor says. He has to put in the numbers that the Auditor says to tie out from the entire GEMS Program in State form. Claiborne said it's difficult to put a number in the spreadsheet and then count on that number. Artley said she needs every dollar she can get and her original calculations were $3,038,715, which is a little higher than the $3 million. She asked if the Board would be comfortable with raising that. She restated that this was based on Kriz's email to her in October 2009.
Sullivan told Artley that they go by the Auditor's numbers, and if they don't go by the Auditor's numbers in all cases, the Board could come under fire with Iowa Department of Management Representative Jim Nervig. Claiborne stated that he uses whatever Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler gives him. Sullivan said that the foundation of the budget is that they have to be able to tie it back. Artley asked about the incidental things. She said they jump all over the map from year to year. She said she has no clue and she plugged in some rough guesstimates based on prior history on some of them. Claiborne said he plugs in the numbers that he is told to, and apologized for it being strange. Harney said that he knows of other TIFs that are going into effect, too. Neuzil said they don't have the actual number from the Auditor's Office of how much will be in fund 46 for Artley. Claiborne said that is correct. Neuzil said Claiborne did the best he could. Artley said she took Claiborne's number when she would have plugged in $3,038,000. Neuzil said she should use the most accurate number that she has. Claiborne asked if Artley was working off of the worksheet he prepared and sent to her recently from GEMs. Artley said she probably was. Claiborne said the re-estimate comes from the Auditor, and that it was a good, solid place to base the budget off of. Artley said she is for the proposed estimate. Harney said it would be more accurate with the Auditor's number, because that's the number that the Board relies on. Sullivan said that is how the Board does the budget. They have to use the numbers that are given to them by the Auditor's Office.
Artley said the Auditor's Office doesn't give her numbers. Claiborne stated that this document came right from GEMs and the re-estimates are the numbers that are updated from Kistler and Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards. As the year progresses, they update where the taxes are and what they're expecting. Sullivan said he is sure Kriz is correct, but they can't budget on that. He said that when Claiborne submits the budget, it's sworn that it is based on the numbers from the Auditor's Office. If the numbers are not based on what is provided by the Auditor’s Office then the Board needs to justify how they came up with the numbers used. Rettig said the big difference between the re-estimation and the proposed occurs in line 25, Mental Health Property Tax Relief. Artley said they would get to that, but that is the State's proposal. She said her concern is that she doesn't receive numbers from the Auditor's Office. Claiborne said if she were to use GEMs she could get them. Artley said Claiborne's concern was more with the re-estimation, but that her concern is what to propose for FY11. She said she went off the FY09 actual, and what Kriz had told her was a conservative estimate in his opinion, which would project the 1.5% increase for FY11. She said her concern is whether that was appropriate.
Neuzil asked what the estimate is that Artley had used in the past. Artley stated that the first year the Board took the same budget from the previous year and the second year she didn't think they had a whole lot of growth estimated, because at that juncture they didn't see all of the economic issues building in property taxes for the County. She said she is sure it was a little higher than the year before, but not a lot. Neuzil asked Artley what the increase is from the re-estimate to the proposed. He asked if that is around 1%. Artley said it doesn't go up much because it was $2,993,000 and now it is $2,972,000, which is pretty close. Neuzil asked Claiborne when the Board would find out how much in money MH/DS will receive. Claiborne replied that would happen right before he does the State form. He said the budget has be done and then he gives the levies to Kistler, who tells him how it breaks down, and then he inputs the different taxes into it. Neuzil asked Artley how she knew how much money she had to spend in the county she worked in prior to Johnson County. Artley responded she was never in a position that was as economically challenging as it is today and she wasn't losing money because of the State's situation. She just based her estimates on history. That's why when she came to do the proposed budget the only notation she had was based on Kriz's email to her. She took the conservative 1.5% estimate which she took off of the actual. Neuzil said it looked like it was pretty conservative already. Artley agreed. Neuzil said it doesn’t look like she is showing much growth; less than 1%. Claiborne said he is comfortable with her proposed. Neuzil said it looks like it is right in there. He said the question is what happens when they find out the real number and they submit that for publication. He asked if that would mean that Artley has to scramble to re-identify where to put those dollars. He wondered if that comes up into a special fund. Artley said no, it couldn't go into another fund. It would have to go there. Neuzil said he wasn't suggesting taking it out of that fund; he was talking about a specific line.
Harney asked how they would handle it if they budget for the $2,972,975 and actually receive the $3 million. He wanted to know how that would be adjusted in the budget and if it would be a problem. Artley said it would be a problem, because she has a capped fund. If she receives more dollars, then she has to pull them in someplace. She said right now she's looking at services to cut. Harney asked if Artley were to receive more than she initially thought, then she could cut what she needed to, if she had to. Artley said no, if the revenues coming in are higher then she will be able to sustain. Harney said he meant that if they budget for the higher, and it's actually lower, then she could cut what she had planned on. Artley said she would have to cut. She said it is a lot easier to cut than to add. Harney said he would go with the proposed number. Neuzil asked why it shows up less in the end. Artley said she would explain that later, but she wanted to explain her methodology so that the Board understood it. Artley asked if the Board will give her the little bit more in the first line item, to bump up the amount to $3,038,715.
Sullivan said he is still confused. Neuzil asked why they don’t have a more accurate number. Sullivan said there is a certain amount of property out there taxed at a set rate, and so here's how much there will be. He said they use the Auditor's numbers. He said he's worried about doing something different. Harney said that was his original concern, because Iowa City will TIF all of the area that is proposed to the Board. Sullivan asked if he was referring to north of the interstate. Harney said yes, plus a couple of other communities are TIFing. Sullivan said he doesn't question Kriz when he gives an estimate, but that the Board has always built the budgets off of the Auditor's numbers. Artley said Kriz's comment was that, it looks like the County may see an increase in property tax values after TIF district data comes in at year end of about 1.5%. The County Finance Committee, along with the Budget Director Rich, is recommending that all of budgets come in flat again. Artley said she went back to the FY09 actual and then increased the 1.5%.
Sullivan said he understands what she did, he is just trying to think through the process. It seems to him that would be unique among the departments in terms of the way they've approached this budget. He said it is unique anyway. Artley said it is unique because it is a capped fund. Claiborne said it has property tax dollars and revenues, where some are just revenues and expense. He said Department 18 has tax revenue coming in, but with no cap. Sullivan asked if the Department of Management personnel were sitting in the audience, what number would they tell the Board to use. Claiborne said they would tell them to go with the proposed, because if it changes at the very end, he would communicate that to the Board. He said usually it would come in a little higher. Sullivan said that is exactly what Claiborne has been saying. Artley said that would be a problem, because she would have to go in and add the services, as opposed to cutting them. Rettig said she isn’t sure they have any other choice. She told Artley that the Board has to accept someone's number as the basis for budgeting. In the Board's case that number would be from the Auditor.
Artley said she would then need all of the Auditor's numbers, but she doesn't get them. Sullivan said he doesn’t know how else they could do it then. Neuzil said the Auditor doesn't have those numbers available yet. Artley said she understands, she is just saying that she doesn't have the Auditor's numbers available to her when she tries to figure out the budget. Neuzil said that is why the Board is holding her budget work session later than any other in the County. Artley said she understands that. Harney asked if she could use the lower number, but also have her budget prepared how it would be using the higher number. Artley said that under normal circumstances, that would be easier. She asked the Board if they could revisit this subject and cover the rest of the budget before returning to this issue. Artley said she doesn't know what the MidAmerican Tax Credit is, and she hasn't seen any history there, so she watches that one.
Artley directed the Board's attention to the Mental Health Property Tax Relief. She stated that that is a calculation provided in a draft form by the State. She said that is their re-esitmate and their proposed amount for FY11. She told the Board they have a document in their possession that she had sent over called FY10 Project Revenues. She asked if it is on their computers. Claiborne asked if it is Projected Revenues. Artley confirmed it is FY10 Projected Revenue Reductions. She stated she wanted the Board to understand how she arrived where she got to. FY09 is on the 1st column, and those are the actual dollars that they received for allowed growth, community services, local purchase, and property tax relief. She stated the amount is $7,430,280. She reminded the Board that halfway through the year for FY10 they changed, so the calculations come up to a little less at $7,308,000. She said for FY11, after they do the post withholding and the Governor's 10% reduction, they are dropping down to $5 million. Rettig asked if that should say Projected FY11 and not FY10. Artley said no, that it is FY10, this year. She said they projected FY10 revenues at $7,308,000 and halfway through the year the State has come to them with a 10% reduction from the Governor which drops them down to $5 million this year. Rettig clarified that they both say projected, but one is actually the budget while the other one is with the withholdings and 10%. Artley said that was her original projected budget. Sullivan asked Artley why the allowable growth is cut so much in FY10. He said it is cut far more than 10%. Artley said that with the State’s calculations, they are losing slightly over 30% in State revenues. Harney said he thought that a legislator had said they had found some money and were going to put more money back into it. Sullivan said he thought there was some stimulus money that was still unspent from last year. Artley said that is why the State keeps labeling numbers as drafts because it's possible more money could come back to MH/DS. Sullivan said her numbers were based on what she was told. Artley said yes. She said the property tax relief is calculated based on the original property tax, a fixed amount of $2,936,246. The 10% reduction does not impact the PALO dollars and for Johnson County that amounted to $40,899. That brought MH/DS down to $2,895,347, and out of that she took the 10% reduction for the property tax relief dollars. Then Artley said she added back in the PALO dollars, which brought it up to $2,646,711, which is the projected amount for FY11. She asked the Board to scroll down and look at the second sheet where they found the original minus the PALO dollars, with the 10% reduction, taken at 90%, and then added the PALO dollars back in. That is for the FY11 property tax relief. Rettig said Artley has the new projection on FY10 with the reductions and everything equaling $2.7 million. Rettig asked if Artley thinks it will go down to $2.6 million. Artley said yes. She said for the current fiscal year they had budgeted for the State Payment Program (SPP) $1,475,000 because they were spending and having turnaround payments of approximately $112,000 per month. She said that has dropped and fluctuates between $68,000 and $88,000. She stated that on November 1, 2009, there was a waiting list put in place so that no new people are coming into the system.
Sullivan asked if that dropped because fewer services were being ordered. Artley reminded him that these are state payment individuals who have no anchor here. She said their numbers have gone down significantly, and with the waiting list, there are just nominal dollars. She said she projected a little over $1 million for the current fiscal year, which is a 31% reduction. She said it is in line with what the other State numbers were. For FY11 Artley said she can't see that there should be much differential, because her expectation is that people will get sick and be committed and committed people go on first. She said she thinks those dollars will stay fairly significant. The bulk of MH/DS people are either through the court commitment or court ordered to outpatient psychiatry services. She said after she gets all of the pieces of the budget, she will add up all of the SPP line items, so that number is subject to change. She said that number could go up or down after the budget is finished.
Artley said that on the budget for the Targeted Case Management (TCM), on January 7, 2010, MH/DS had a teleconference with Iowa Medicaid Enterprise. What they proposed was in order to achieve the 2.5% reduction, which went into place December 1, 2009, they want to provide a perspective cost based rate. Their proposal is that Artley take her actual FY08 rate. They came up with a 6.3% inflation. She said that brings the rate to $3,319.19. Sullivan asked how that would compare to the current rate. Artley said they are still being paid on FY09's proposed rate, which is $314.51. She said they took 2.5% off of that, which brought them down to $306.64. Artley said she went through her calculations and based on what they have today, 616 or 617 clients. She projected out this year, with a little bit of growth for new consumers coming in and figured out what the 1st five months calculated at, what they've actually received, and the last seven months based on that reduced rate. She said that the projections have to be submitted to the Federal level. The State won't hear back until 90 days after the Feds get their questions answered. She said this means she wont' know until the end of the fiscal year if this process is approved. Sullivan said they have to do that, since the State is requiring it. Artley said that the State is not telling MH/DS that they have to budget this way, but rather that this is their proposal in order for them to make their 2.5%. Artley said that she could live with this suggestion more than some of the others suggestions, such as using the actual FY09. She said that's when they got hit because they moved over to the HHS Building and their rate dropped significantly. She said she doesn't want to use that rate. Sullivan said that this sounds like the best of several bad options. Artley agreed.
Artley said that somewhere in the State’s proposal there is methodology listed on how to compute the difference between the actual cost and the perspective cost base rate. If the actual cost exceeds that rate, then the amount paid to the provider shall be the actual cost less 2.5%, not to go lower than the perspective cost based rate. Artley said she is still unclear what this language means. She directed the Board to a prior paragraph in the proposal which had the language she was discussing. So, for FY11 Artley projects revenues based on $319.29 per month. She said in October 2009, they were supposed to go to a 15 minute unit billing rate. Nobody has been talking about that currently. She said that could still be on the table. She said MH/DS is very frustrated. She said that is how she arrived at those numbers, but now she's going to have to double-check the re-estimates because she was unsure if she got them from the Auditor's sheets or not.
Artley said they are very close as far as the re-estimate for this year and the proposed numbers for FY11. She expressed her interest in getting every dollar she could in current real estate taxes. Sullivan stated that the Board has some decisions to make in the MH/DS Department. Artley agreed. She directed the Board to look at their Board of Supervisors summary. Back in the spring of 2007 the community case management technical assistants came out from the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) and did an overview of the TCM program. On May 24, 2007, based on ISAC’s recommendation, the Board formally approved hiring three unit case managers because of the significant case loads. Artley stated she needs to remember that at that juncture, her staff had mixed case loads, which meant they served not only TCM, but also served County social work cases and systems management, such as those individuals placed at Woodward or in Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR). Sullivan asked if those were weighted into the 30 or if the 30 was without those. Artley replied that at that juncture it was 38 and it was with those. Since that time, she stated she has pulled everybody into a dedicated case load, which means case managers only carry TCM cases, which are the cases that require extensive paperwork and documentation so that they can receive payment through Medicaid. All of the County social work and the service maintenance cases have been shifted off to those who do intake and manage that side of the equation. Back at that juncture in 2007, there were 14 full-time case managers, one who was part-time, and one new person who was given one TCM case, but the rest was the County social work. Of the TCM cases, they were only carrying 393 cases, which was what MH/DS billed for back then. Artley stated that they have increased that number to 615, at the time the document was created, but the number had reached 617 at the time of this meeting. She said there were 11 to 15 on the desk waiting to be processed. She stressed that the Board needs to understand is that those were blended case loads, now they're specifically TCM, which really increases the workload. She said when they took that half person out they were averaging 35 clients per case manager today.
Rettig asked if Artley had 18.5 case managers. Artley replied that they did indeed have 18.5 case managers who are dedicated to TCM. Rettig asked if that was a case load of 33. Artley responded that she was told that it was closer to 35 once they removed their part-time employee. Rettig asked if the part-time employee carries cases. Artley said that the employee does, but she's a very seasoned person, so she took the half-time employees out of both sides of the equation. Artley's concern was that in 2007 MH/DS was losing dollars that weren't billable. She said they worked very hard to close that gap significantly, but now it's starting to widen up again. Sullivan asked if Artley meant that people were unable to get their visits in. Artley said yes, but in addition to that, they have gone from 15 minute tracking to minute per minute tracking, which she thinks is ridiculous. Artley said they've also gone from a small assessment to a 28 page document. For every consumer that comes in, at their annual review, the case managers have to go through this document. Every key point that comes up must be documented in their service plan, which is required by Iowa Medicaid Enterprise (IME), and is a nightmare for the case workers. Artley said that MH/DS are finding that IME and Magellan will deny claims at the drop of the hat, similarly to an insurance company. So, the case workers have to fight to go back and figure out what went wrong and why there is a denial of the claim. She said there are ineligibility determinations and de-certifications. She mentioned that St. Luke's Hospital is frustrated with Magellan, who decertifies patients at the drop of a hat and says they won't pay for the individual’s stay anymore. This leads to a delay in processing the case management bills. She said her employees are being maxed out when six people need a new assessment in one month.
Rettig said she thinks it is safe to say that the majority of the departments in the County think that they're being overworked and understaffed. She said that she sees Artley as being worried about $30,000 in balancing the budget, while adding case managers would make it harder to balance. Artley responded that case managers generate revenue. Rettig asked if the case managers would generate enough revenue or if the revenue generated had already been calculated into the budget. Artley said that the difference is that targeted case managers generate revenue. Rettig asked who they are generating the revenue from. Sullivan said the case managers generate money from Medicaid and the State. Artley said Medicaid. She said this is an accredited program. Rettig said that the Board just proved that the State was not going to fund at the level that they have in the past. She stated that Artley is worried about $30,000 to balance her budget. Artley told Rettig that those are for services. Case management is a program within MH/DS’s agency. The State's revenues were cut out from the Central Point of Coordination (CPC) side; the side that pays for clients' services. She said that the side they are currently discussing is a program dedicated to providing intense social work services, and being reimbursed by Medicaid for providing those services. She said they could take all of those people on as County social work, and they wouldn't get paid anything. Sullivan said that the one side is where one might get services from Goodwill or Mental Health. He said that without a case manager a lot of money would be inaccessible. Rettig said she understands that, but they could backfill some of the services individuals need. Artley told Rettig she doesn't understand what Rettig means. Rettig said that hiring another employee doesn't directly affect that individual's needs. She said it might lessen the burden on the employees and lower their case load, but it doesn't necessarily provide direct client services to people in need. She stated she believed it was a balancing act between having more governmental employees versus giving people services they need.
Neuzil said that MH/DS can’t provide individuals with services if they haven't identified, through a targeted case manager, what they need. Artley said the clients need to have a written plan. Neuzil said that it is a balance of administration versus service. Rettig said she understands that, but $50,000 to pay an employee is $50,000 not available for services. Neuzil said that 80% of that isn't paid for by the County. Rettig said that actually it is still paid for by taxpayers. She said she thinks it is a balancing act. Neuzil told Rettig that the Board is working on Johnson County's budget and if there is an opportunity to generate revenue beyond Johnson County's ability the County should go after it. Neuzil said it was fine if Rettig doesn’t believe that, but he does. He said it is their money, but it ultimately comes down to how many TCM clients the County wants to have. He said they have consistently continued to increase that number based on MH/DS’s ability to generate additional revenue outside of Johnson County taxpayers.
Sullivan said that he doesn’t think anyone disagreed with Rettig in terms of the philosophy of what she is saying, but the difficulty is the bureaucracy and the red tape that is created, is not created here, but rather at the State level and somewhat at the Federal level. Sullivan said he gets tired of having the legislators come in and the County tells the State that making these people do all of this work is taking money away from services, and they agree, but don't do anything about it. Artley said what she would really like to emphasize to the legislature would be that the County is almost with IME's proposal for the 24-7 coverage committee Medicaid brought, because all of her providers already offer that service and they're Medicaid providers. Now IME told her, as a provider of case management, that she has to offer that service, which is another $40,000 in her budget. Now there would be two entities providing that service. Neuzil said they should call into question informally whether the County should add additional employees or not. He said she needs to know what to budget for. Artley said she is in desperate need of a new employee because she has 16 cases waiting to be processed.
Sullivan said that in her budget request there were three decision packages for social workers. Artley said she would like one now. Sullivan said that the Board is faced with three. He asked if they are all the same position essentially. Artley said yes. Neuzil said that they're discussing the FY11 budget and they need to figure out if they would want to include three employees. Also, if they choose to add three employees, would they want to look at hiring within the FY10 budget. Artley said they would then reduce the request down to two. Neuzil said that would be put into her FY11 budget anyway. He stated that what Rettig has offered as scrutiny is what the Board has needed for awhile. Rettig told Artley that she was at 18.5 currently and if she added 3, she would be at 21.5, which would put her below. Artley said she didn't want to hire those people on July 1, 2010. Rettig said she understands that, but that the Board is working on the budget based on how many cases she has currently. Rettig said that would put her below ISAC's recommendation of 30 clients at 28 clients per person. She said it is safe to say that every other department in the County would like to be at that level too, but this is a balancing act of how many people they can hire and how that helps the individual. She said that the Sheriff's Department would like six new patrol deputies. She said she understands that is a different pot of money, but she thinks the same level of scrutiny has to apply. The Board must ask how this is helping the individual. She said that adding more staff does help the individual, but not as directly as providing services. Artley said that if she doesn't have the staff to monitor and connect the client with the services then there are no services to be provided. Rettig said that she understands Artley might need another person or two, but she doesn't believe they should add a third. Neuzil said he is comfortable adding two employees, where one of them would start in the FY10 budget. He said that they can reassess next December where they are as far as where those numbers should be and what they're projected to be. He said he'd be comfortable adding a couple more employees and then seeing where things go.
Sullivan said that within the FY10 budget, given the fact that 70% of the money comes from Medicaid Artley can easily hire this one person in the FY10 budget. Artley said she thinks so. Sullivan said that is an important thing to be sure of before the Board gives their ok. Rettig said that this issue isn’t on their agenda. She said they are talking about the FY11 budget. Neuzil said it isn’t, but it is indirectly because Artley needs to know how much to put in for FY11. He said he is comfortable with adding two additional employees for the FY11 budget. If one of those individuals could be hired before the start of the FY11 budget, that would need to be discussed in another conversation. Sullivan said he is comfortable with hiring two people also, but that the discussion of whether an employee could be hired during this fiscal year would need to take place during an informal and formal meeting. Artley told the Board that she doesn't request additional employees until there is a need for them. Rettig said she understands. Artley said her program is accredited and that they don't want to lose the accreditation because they lose the program along with the revenue. Rettig said her point is that putting more people in a building would not necessarily help individuals. Artley said she thinks the case managers would differ. She said those people dedicated their careers to helping people every day of their life. Neuzil said he disagrees with what Rettig said, but that it does remind the Board of administration versus service and what the expectation is. Sullivan said the case managers would probably much rather spend less time dealing with paperwork and spend more time helping people. Artley agreed. Sullivan said they have to continue reaching out to the State legislators in order to get them back to doing that. He said that part of the reason they need more people is due to the paperwork requirements that have been implemented.
Harney asked if the State will pick up the benefits and health insurances. Artley said it picks up everything except enhanced services. She said at one point it was a stable 18% but that it has been impacted by the stimulus monies, too. Harney asked what that is. Neuzil said that the County gets reimbursed about 80%. Artley said that the State pays them and then bills them for the non-Federal share, which historically was 18% of whatever MH/DS expended for case management. That's been reduced because of the stimulus monies. Sullivan said that the number will change with the census. They determine how the relative wealth of each state is how they come up with that percentage; the non-Federal match.
Rettig asked Artley if she were to hire two new employees if the budget would balance. Artley said she hasn't gotten to the employee part yet due to still working on the MR section because that's where all of the variables are. Artley said that on January 11, 2010 she got a $53,000 bill in the mail from the Woodward and Glenwood State Hospital Schools because they hadn't billed the County prior to that. She stated that the bill was for July 2009 through September 2009. Harney said he knew that would catch up with them. Sullivan said that at least they are within the current fiscal year, which is better than they used to do. Artley said CPCs have been choosing not to send the bill because they didn't know how to apply that differential with the stimulus money. She said that last week they received an email stating that enhanced services, the portion they pay to the case management program cost, home community based waiver, which is the bulk of the mental retardation portion of the budget, the ICFMRs, and the money follows the person program, were all billed wrongly, so they will have to re-bill them. She said she didn't know if they had been undercharged or overcharged. Every time they send a bill, MH/DS has to go to the client, to the given month, and record, so if they have a credit or an adjustment, either positive or negative, they have to go back into each client record and mark the change. Artley was told that every one of the pockets of money have been billed incorrectly.
Harney said that he thinks there are at least three board members who agree. He said Artley should go ahead and hire two new employees for FY11. Artley said she would plug those numbers in and see where her budget ends up balancing. Sullivan told Artley she should talk to Johnson about when to place that item on an agenda for further discussion. Neuzil asked if Artley needs direction from the Board on other things. He said it appeared as if Artley would be scheduled to meet with the Board on January 22, 2010 to provide the Board with a more accurate update. Neuzil said they might have more accurate numbers from the Auditor's Office as far as what the Board's totals will be. Artley said that would be helpful. She said she wanted the Board to know that she just got information from the electronic transaction clearinghouse and it would cost them an extra $577 in order to be a part of that. She said that she received in the mail on January 11, 2010 the projection assessment for the County Rate Information System (CRIS) dues, which have been reduced by $189.
Artley said she received notice from Polk County, that the representative from Quilogy, who handles the management information system mechanics, has been acquired by a company called Aspect. She stated she didn't know how that will impact their arrangement with Polk County, but at this juncture they have to rely on that process even though the community systems network is starting to be pulled up in various smaller counties. Harney asked if they are still part owner of that. Artley said they are, with Polk County. MH/DS’s whole management information system was combined with Polk County. Artley said that statewide, the community systems network is being developed, which, for most counties, is replacing that. She thinks that Johnson, Linn, and Polk Counties are the only holdouts.
Rettig asked what happened to Artley's request for a half-time clerk. She asked if Artley was requesting another position. Artley said she had requested a part-time IT person, but that the Board had already said no. Rettig said she thought Artley was requesting someone to help with all of the paperwork. Artley said that is the Contract Coordinator position. She said that she is wrestling with one of the positions that she already has on staff. Evidently there isn't a formalized job description. What was on one employee's computer never went through the final process with the Board. Sullivan said that they've gone through that before, but that was because there were four temporary positions that were approved and the money was used to pay somebody. That wasn't the way they were supposed to do it, but that's how it was done. Artley said there was a temporary CPA in the Contract Coordinator position, and she was unaware of that when she came on board. She said she didn't know that there was that correlation, so they would have to finalize the job description. She said she took a look at the job description and she thought it could be revamped and added to in order to incorporate some of the duties that a member of the staff already has. That would turn it into a full-time position, but it would have different added duties to it. She stated that she hasn’t had an opportunity to look at that, but the need is still there.
Sullivan wondered what it would do to case loads if they were to add two people. Artley reminded Sullivan that a second person wouldn't come on board until they had another 30 or so clients on board. She said she makes sure that there is at least half of a case load ready to go before she hires a new person. Sullivan said he was doing 625 instead of 615 as a number. Artley said she was projecting probably more like 640-645. Sullivan said he'd take 645. He asked if that would be divided by 19.5. Artley said yes. Rettig said it would be 20.5, if you add two, since it is currently 18.5. Sullivan took 645 divided by 20.5 which equals 31.5. Artley said they would still be over the recommendation. Sullivan said they are closer to the target number, though. Rettig said her concern is State and Federal money. She doesn’t understand how either entity would get through this. Artley said that at one time, when people would have bought off a portion they could have copied Linn County and hire the Abbey Center to serve all of the Chronic Mental Illness (CMI) clients. Artley said she doesn’t think they can sell this program under today's rules. Artley told Rettig that the challenging part with this is if Johnny Doe walks in and is Medicaid eligible and meets all of the criteria for diagnostic issues, he qualifies. MH/DS doesn’t have the right to put him on a waiting list. She said that some counties have tried to place clients on a waiting list for six months, but they come under tough scrutiny. She stated she thought she could get in trouble with the accreditation team from Des Moines, IA.
Sullivan said there are people at the Federal level discussing improvements to Medicaid, in terms of a job stimulus. He said that both the senators from Vermont are discussing reducing the state's Medicaid match and increasing the Federal Government's share, which would help. Artley agreed. She said if she gets to the bottom line and it's a tough call, then she has to look at the services that are 100% County funded, which are not mandated, and determine whether the County will continue to fund them in the future. Artley said they realized a very significant cost savings this past year, because of the Medfund formulary that they implemented. She said she is thankful they did, because with the residency requirement, their rent payments went up, because of Linn County. They pay to help people move, deposits, and pay better in general and a lot of people in Johnson County access that. She said they didn't foresee that.
Artley said they have three people in the money follows a person program that were pulled out of either Woodward or Glenwood, and they are in the community and a year from last fall, they will probably be on MH/DS’s books, who are heavy needs people, who will need community services. Sullivan said they were paying for them at Woodward or Glenwood. Artley said yes, but now they're in the State program and after one year they will come on their books. She said they will give them a waiver slot and hope that all of their services can be funded through Medicaid. That way they will only pay the non-Federal share.
County Assessor Bill Greazel stated that Johnson had sent him an email about the Rural Fund. Johnson said that Claiborne had the Rural Basic Fund on the agenda for today. He stated that he had talked to Stutsman about what would be discussed, since she wasn't present for today's meeting. Johnson reported that Stutsman had said the rural side took a hit this year and she was interested in Greazel's input on the discussion. Neuzil asked Greazel what he was hearing about the rural side of the budget, as far as assessments go. Greazel responded that his numbers have been solid for months, since the appeals are done. He said that on the rural side, taxable value without TIFs or the utilities, the taxable value of agricultural land and buildings are up 1.9%. Agricultural dwellings are up 6.39 %. Rettig asked if 6.39% is correct. Greazel said yes. He said that is partially because some people will buy 40 acres and build a nice house on it. He said they are probably not actually agricultural dwellings, but he has to label them as such. Sullivan asked what that percentage is. Greazel replied that it is 6.39%. The rural residential property is up 3.43%. Urban residential, including everything in Oxford and Solon, is up 6.87%. Sullivan asked if 6.87% is correct. Greazel said yes. Sullivan stated that included everyone but Iowa City. Greazel said yes. Sullivan asked if it includes Coralville and North Liberty. Greazel said yes. He said it included all of the urban residences within a town or township. Harney asked if Coralville is included. Greazel said that Coralville, North Liberty, Solon, and Tiffin are included. Sullivan said that it includes everyone but Iowa City. Greazel said that is correct. Neuzil said that it is bunched together as far as page 11 is concerned.
Greazel continued that commercial is up 6.37% and industrial is up 3.65%. Neuzil asked if the County saw the same jumps from FY09 to FY10 that they are seeing from FY10 to FY11. Greazel said that it was about the same. Neuzil stated that this is a typical, still growing Johnson County. Greazel said yes, that the agricultural land was raised up a lot, but the rollback ate it all up. He stated he initially thought they would lose agricultural value, but they ended up with a 1.93% increase in taxable value. He said they did well there since there were a significant amount of counties in Iowa where they didn't get as large of a raise in the agricultural value, so the rollback applied to them, leading to a large loss of money.
Neuzil said that in the general budget discussion the ultimate question for the Board, which Iowa City has somewhat solved in the projection of their budget, is will the Board choose to keep taxes as what they were last year, or do they choose to keep tax rates at what they were last year. He said if they choose to use tax rates, which is what Iowa City chose to use, it would mean that taxes would increase. If they choose to keep taxes lower than what they were last year, then the Board would have to cut taxes in order to adjust to the rollback and to these assessments. Neuzil said that once the Board receives these numbers, then the Board would have to figure it out. He said his opinion is that with a growing county, there is justification to keep the tax rates relatively the same as what they are, but the Board would potentially have to cut a significant amount of taxes if they want to get to where they were last year, since these projected growths have taken place. Harney asked Greazel if the percentages he gave the Board included the rollback in them. Greazel said that the rollback was included. He said that the rollback changed, so some of this came from growth, new money, new construction, and some of it came from the rollback. The residential rollback changed, so about 2.75% of the 6% is just the change of the rollback. There was no new value brought into the county, it is just a rollback changer, therefore there is more taxable value.
Harney asked if Greazel didn't add anything; if it is all rollback. Sullivan said there is some growth, because rural residential would only be 1% without the rollback, but it's still 1%. Greazel said yes, and that is a lot of money. Rettig asked if it is about a 2% change in the rollback. Greazel replied that it is close to 2%. He said that the difference is, if the Board wants everyone's taxes to remain the same, then the levy rate would have to come down. If everyone pays the same as they did last year, it can go up some, for the new growth, and everyone's would stay the same. However part of staying the same means if agricultural goes up 1.9%, something else may go up 6.5% which is a large increase for some over others. Neuzil said the Board is looking at a big cut, in order to keep the numbers the same as they were last year. He said that he assumes after January 22, 2010 Claiborne will have the preliminary draft packet prepared that includes page 11, which shows which line goes up or down on the taxes.
Neuzil asked which headline they would want in the newspaper. Greazel said that the biggest complaint they receive around this time of year is that they left the levy rates the same. But when the rollback changes that is a kind of an undercover tax increase. Neuzil said that is what Iowa City chose. When they readjust the franchise tax, along with a TIF that came off, they're going to keep tax rates where they are, but taxes will increase by about $20 to $25. Harney said that the bottom line is, that people will look at the tax bill, and say their taxes increased by X amount of dollars. Neuzil said they need to decide whether they would choose to cut taxes or keep tax rates the same. He said that when they started this process, they discussed not cutting taxes and keeping tax increases at a minimum, and they should keep that in the back of their minds now that they are beginning to come up with concrete numbers. Claiborne said that they should keep in perspective that someone's taxes may have increased by $20 and their total tax bill was $3,500, and their taxes went up $10. He said it's important to keep it in proportion and see if an extra $10 or $15 will dramatically impact an individual's personal finances. Greazel said that the problems they've always had before were that they raised taxes by $10 or $15 and the school boards also raised theirs by $10 or $15, and Iowa City raises theirs by $20 or $25, but the bill the County sends out would show a $100 increase, of which the County is only partially or minimally responsible for the increase. But the County still gets blamed for that $100 increase, because they send the notice out under the County Treasurer, and it's an aggregate of all the other taxing bodies. He said that the point to be made is that the Board could leave everything fine here, but when the public finally gets the bill and sees a $75 increase, the County would still get blamed for the $75. Neuzil said that was fairly typical. He said they were just determining how much they should tax Johnson County. That discussion is coming up soon, but this is a year where it is advantageous to be on the Government's side, as far as having additional revenues based on the fact that these rollbacks have adjusted. Greazel said they do have growth and new money coming, aside from the rollback. He said they need to be careful, because if the Board were to give the same break to commercial that they did to residential, when residential is 6% and commercial is 3%, they would wipe out all of the growth in the commercial. Rettig agreed. Greazel said that if all of the groups went up the same, and had the same growth it would be easier to do.
Sullivan said that the other thing in the Board’s budget goals is the level of service, and unfortunately in the last two years, they've fallen behind in level of service in Secondary Roads. Neuzil said that the rural side of the budget would be a much more difficult choice, because the Board isn't close to the actual levy cap and they hear the most outcry from the rural community whenever the Board discusses it. Sullivan said he didn't receive any flowers between FY08 and FY09 when the levy rate went down, and the taxes didn't necessarily go down. Greazel said that his office has more contact on a per person basis. He's been looking the last week in Sharon and Washington townships and he goes to people's homes and talks with them. He said those people don't complain as much about the taxes as they do the service. Rettig said that no one's contacted her to say they don't want their road plowed or any more gravel put on it because they don't want the County to spend any more money on it. She stated that she has received calls about the lack of service though. She said that the fact is that the tax has bounced around and they have a levy that's lower than it was five years ago. Sullivan said Rettig hasn't received those calls yet because the Board hasn't done it yet. Sullivan said that the problem is the Board receives both types of calls and the Board can't cut taxes and increase services. Neuzil said that's where the Board runs into the contradiction between keeping tax increases minimal versus maintenance of roads and prioritization of projects. He said they have fallen behind and because the rural fund is so limited the only way to catch up is to either divert money into the general fund, which they've discussed, or put more money into that fund even though it would mean tax increases. Harney agreed that the Board has fallen behind in a lot of ways, but on the other hand, they have a lot of stimulus dollars to help them get some things back on track. He said a lot of that has been due to the weather including the tornado, the flooding, and so forth. Neuzil said that what the Board has heard from Secondary Roads Maintenance Engineer Kevin Hackathorn is there is a shortfall of the amount of money they're able to have to be able to provide services. Sullivan said it's a structural deficit.
Harney said he blames that on Secondary Roads not adding that back in for the cost of their vehicles and the cost of gravel increasing each year. Sullivan said they should have presented that to them every year. Neuzil said that was due to a breakdown in communication between County Engineer Greg Parker getting the message of no new increases versus by the way this is what this means, which Neuzil didn't think he gave a good presentation until about a month prior to this meeting. Harney asked Greazel if he anticipates increases for next year to be similar to the ones he gave to the Board today. Greazel responded that he would anticipate seeing more new construction next year. He said that the surplus of housing and the foreclosures have stopped. If someone wants a house now, they have to build it. The new construction is picking up so it will look brighter next time, than it does in the current year. He said that that was one of the worst years for new construction that he's seen in ten years, but was still better than the amount of new construction seen in approximately 90% of the other counties. Sullivan said that the percentage of new construction was actually probably better than 99% of the counties. Greazel said that the new construction is picking up again so that the people that they've allocated to do revaluation are going to go back on picking up new construction because in the last couple months the new permits have really started to pick up, especially in towns. Harney said that the contractors have said that they're busier than ever right now. Greazel said it would currently be difficult to find an available plumber or electrician for hire. He said the days of getting good bids on things have kind of passed. He said people have missed that dip if they were planning on doing anything because now they are starting to get busy again and they're afraid to hire new people, so their schedules are really full.
Greazel said that on the rural side of things, he hasn’t heard many complaints about the Sheriff's Department, mainly because he doesn't think the people need them daily. However, the rural areas need Secondary Roads all of the time, so the County has received the most complaints about Secondary Roads. Greazel said that he gives the people voicing complaints the number to Secondary Roads and tells them to give them a call. He said the rural areas feel they need more service from Secondary Roads. He said that everybody would like to have a paved road in front of their house, but the County is unable to do that. He said he is just giving the Board some feedback from what people have told him. Rettig asked if Claiborne has heard what Iowa City's growth is. Greazel said that overall, the residents will see about a 2.69% increase. Rettig asked if they would take 2% off for the rollback. Greazel said that some of that is commercial and industrial. Rettig said ok. Sullivan said that would be everything combined. Greazel said that Iowa City's residential is up 3.37% and is almost all rollback with very little growth. Neuzil said that as far as Iowa City's projected budget goes, they've planned to keep tax rates the same and take advantage, for their budget's sake of three things: the rollback, the TIF district of downtown, and the franchise tax. Greazel said that he knows that combined levy is different and they were talking about the rural, but with the rural they look a lot healthier than just the urban areas.
Neuzil said it will be a difficult decision for the Board, because without cutting the rural side, since there is a fairly significant growth on the rural side, there is no way they can cut taxes and keep the same level of service. Greazel said he lived in town for a long time, but moved out to the County because he's now saving $1,000 on taxes living on the rural side of the budget instead of the other side. He said it was a personal choice, but that is an extra $1,000 he'd pay a year if he still lived in town. Harney said that Greazel upsized his house. Greazel said yes, he did increase his house size when he moved out of town. He said a lot of people have done that math too, and that's why they have this new growth. Harney said that what Greazel hadn't figured in there, was that that the benefits and the services the City provides versus the County are less. Greazel said no, that his benefits and services are even better because if you have your own private well, or a subdivision well, it's much cheaper than buying City water. Rettig said that the City doesn't pay her garbage disposal. Greazel said he pays less in the County by using the private service and they take everything he puts out. He said that in the County, the garbage is a much better deal than the City.
Neuzil said that the service part of that is mostly an area of enforcement including law enforcement and fire protection. He said in the County, there would be a lesser level of service than in the City, because there would be more volunteer services in the County versus hired in the City. Neuzil said that there are a lot of costs associated with not living in town, including having to drive into town. Greazel said that the transportation costs associated with living outside of town is a downside. Instead of arriving at work within nine minutes on his bicycle, it takes him 18 to 20 minutes because from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. there isn't a good way to get into Iowa City from the North Corridor. Neuzil said that Greazel's numbers do put the Board in a type of quandary because they are going to have growth, the only way they don't show a tax increase is that they have to cut that rate, or the Board will have to choose to keep the tax rates the same. He said that ultimately it comes down to justification of all of this. He said people will want to hear a story if the Board is going to raise their taxes by $10, $20 or $30 per whatever that is. Sullivan said that given this growth, he would like to see what this rate will do because the money is needed in the Secondary Roads' budget.
Greazel said that very few people are good enough at reading those tax statements to see where their actual raise went. You have to look at the bottom of the page to see which levies went up and down. Greazel said he can guarantee that people will get a tax increase. It may not be from the Board, but they would get it from somebody and whether they can dissect it and see where the increase came from, is doubtful. Greazel's advice would be that they will get an increase, the number will go up, and they may or may not be able to understand where it came from because it's too complicated. Sullivan said the Board will get blamed for it one way or another, so Greazel should do what he needs to. Greazel said that when he visits people out in the community, it is assumed by those people that their taxes will be raised.
Harney said he understands the rural residential and the 3.43% and figures maybe 2.5% general increase in costs, but he wants to know why they took such a jump. Greazel asked if Harney was referring to the 6%. Harney said yes. Greazel said that is mostly due to growth. Rettig said it was brand new houses. Greazel agreed and said people built new houses. Over and above the rollback, anything that the rollback doesn't account for is new growth, new construction. He said that even in the worst economic conditions he's seen in ten to 15 years, they still saw good growth and big houses. Not everybody was affected by the recession and most of the people were still employed and making money. There were some people who were severely impacted and faced foreclosure, but not near what was seen in Florida. Greazel said if they were living in Florida last year, they would probably lose anywhere from 25%-30% of the value of their property, and it will be decades before that lost value comes back.
Harney said that maybe he misunderstood Greazel, but he thought that was increasing taxable value, but that Greazel is saying it was new construction. Greazel stated that some of it was new construction and the number he gave the Board was the taxable value, how much they can levy against. Some of it was because of the rollback, but most of it in the 6%-6.5% range was new construction. Harney asked if Greazel had lumped that together. Greazel said yes, it is a combination of new construction and the rollback. The rollback is the same for all residential, whether urban or residential, which is why the rollback in Iowa City will cause them to see an increase in taxable value just because of the rollback, but not because of new construction. Sullivan asked Greazel where some of the hotspots are with commercial. He said the 6.37% is higher than he would have guessed. Greazel asked if Sullivan is talking about the rural part and not the urban part. Greazel said there is a lot of commercial in Coralville and North Liberty. Sullivan asked if this is just a continuing addition of new strip malls and the like. Greazel said that the big jump in residential, is that they revalued apartment houses and used an income approach on them. Apartment houses and mobile home courts are much more valuable than they were three years ago, because occupancy in them has increased. Sullivan stated that their rents are way up. Greazel said the apartments and mobile home courts are doing well. With the hotels and motels, it's a mixed bag because they lost a lot during the flood so that they had removed value. With the commercial in Coralville that was flooded in the spring and by the time Greazel came the 1st of the year to look at it, those commercial properties had remodeled and they were nicer than they were before the flood. So, those properties were worth more than they were the year before because they had a lot of insurance money that came in and the owners took the opportunity to make improvements that raised their value to higher than what it was before the flood. He said that they didn't lose commercial value like Cedar Rapids did. Coralville came in and bought out all of the residential properties affected by the flood, and those people either built new houses or bought existing homes. So, they may have more vacant homes, homes for sale, or homes to be foreclosed on in Coralville, but those people in Coralville came in on day one and bought them out, as opposed to Cedar Rapids, where they are still trying to get money to people. Coralville just did it and gave the homeowners 10% more than the assessed value of the property and said if they were going to condemn their property, they would have given them relocation cost, so they gave them 10% extra.
Greazel said that Coralville should be applauded for how they came in and addressed the issue by buying the property up and acting as a community. Greazel stated that's why they call it a community, because when people are hurting, others help them. Coralville had the resources to do it, so Coralville didn't have the any depressed values, like other places saw, because they kind of gave stimulus money to those people who were impacted by flood. Then, those people bought up whatever available houses there were, or built new ones. There could have been a decrease in Coralville of all residential property because of bad sales, but those few people who were impacted by the flood bought up those houses and stimulated the economy in the housing in Coralville, so that everybody's residential value didn't decrease like it did in a lot of places. What they did was increase their tax base by helping those people out. Sullivan said that is interesting. Greazel said that commercial was the same way. They did some things and some stuff along the creek that still isn't finished and won't be until they get the flood wall in, but overall they increased in their commercial value. Coralville came in and did what they could to help those commercial properties. They didn't help the commercial as much as they did the residential, but they did make the residential people whole really quickly and didn't make them wait.
Claiborne stated that, overall, County wide the assessed valuation went up 4.8%. He said that these are actual tax figures that he is working on. Rettig asked if the increase was 4.8%. Claiborne said that is correct. Rettig asked if that is if they did nothing with the levies. Claiborne said this is taxable valuation from Kistler. Rettig asked if that would translate the same way. If they did nothing with the levies they would see a 4.8% increase income. Claiborne said yes. He said that on the rural side it is 3.5%.
Claiborne told the Board that they needed to adjust the landfill to a more accurate number. They've been spending more than they've been budgeting in. He said he already put the JCCOG in the budget, and based on what the Board decides he can either keep it there or back it off. He stated that it has an effect of 3/10 of one penny. To adjust the landfill up to where it should be it would be just over one penny. Sullivan said they just spent a lot of time on the landfill, but the Board may want to at some point in the off-season talk about whether the program will continue at all. He said that it may be best that people pay when they go to the landfill. Neuzil said that it is the same kind of thing as the libraries, when they reevaluate how many tax dollars they would want for a service versus not taxing and having people pay a fee. Sullivan said it would be a user fee. Claiborne said that on number 3, if the Board were to leave Secondary Roads at the maximum transfer for rural basic to Secondary Roads and add number one, they would be at $3.75. If they back it down to the minimum transfer they would start out at $3. If they work from there, the minimum transfer to Secondary Roads and picking up the landfill increase they would be at $3.
Rettig said she is unable to follow Claiborne's math. She asked if the only increase in the budget, the minimum transfer to Secondary Roads, which is what they're already doing during the current fiscal year is correct. Claiborne said they've always done that. Rettig said that they increased $17,500 to the landfill and increased the $4,000 to JCCOG. She asked how that could levy, especially since the Board just heard they'd have a 3.5% increase in the rural. She asked how the levy amount changed from 2.57% to 2.98% if they didn't spend any new money. Claiborne said that they spent old money. Every time they adjusted the landfill or JCCOG or have to spend money on amendments, they dipped into the reserve money over a five to ten year period where they always under budgeted the rural side just to keep the levy low. Neuzil said they did. Claiborne said that now the fund balance is gone since they spent it. They are projected to have a beginning rural basic fund balance in FY11 in Rural Basic for just over $2,000. Claiborne said they like to keep $100,000 in there. He said that he agrees with Neuzil in that the only way to get it back is with taxes. Claiborne said when they have a below targeted fund balance of $100,000 they have to make up for that and that's a big part of a levy increase. Neuzil said that's where that catch is, because at a time when the Board could put less money in Secondary Roads to get this back in line, but to even do that it would mean an increase. The Board is in a quandary right now because of the assessments that are out in front of them that it puts the Board in an awkward situation where to get them back where they should be in the Rural Basic Fund means that they can't cut taxes of the Rural Basic.
Rettig said that the math still doesn't add up. She said that 2.57% plus 8.24 cents to replace the thousand dollars in the reserves plus two pennies for items number one and two would be $2.59 plus $.08 is $2.68. She asked how Claiborne got to $2.98 since there would be a $0.30 difference in that levy. Neuzil asked if it would be coming from the transfer. Claiborne said yes, that the math is 100%. He doesn’t have it in front of him at the moment, but he said when he works those numbers they're iron clad. He apologized for not having the actual math in front of him, but assured the Board that he makes sure the final numbers are correct. Rettig said that she understands that, but if Claiborne replaced the $100,000 in the reserves that should be there and add in items number one and two, then this tax levy, without ever getting this increase from the rural fund in a valuation, should be $2.67614. She said she just added up those three numbers and added it to last years tax levy. She told Claiborne that based on what he said the minimum levy would be 2.98, which would be a $0.31 difference. Claiborne said that they were making up for a $2,000 fund balance. Rettig said she already added that in, because Claiborne had said each $100,000 reduction of the transfer would reduce the levy by .0824. She said if that was true, then the reverse would be true and each additional $100,000 in it would add $.08. Johnson asked if they would need line two of the budget because the libraries have gone up.
Neuzil said that there is more to this number, and Claiborne was trying to simplify it. He said that a lot of it is too technical for him. Claiborne said he did not do a solid waste on this sheet, since he tried to make it simple on the other sheet, and the Coralville Library went up again, the Solon Library was going up a huge amount, Tiffin was going up $180, $75 for trails, so there would be a $22,000 increase. The 12.5 is something new, because in FY10 the Board hadn't budgeted for that, but it has been amended that. He said that was Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia's program. Sullivan said they had in FY09 but forgot it for FY10. Claiborne said that the decisions he needs today to proceed so that they could get the levies they need and get the budget filed, to make it easy, if the Board backs down to the minimum Secondary Roads transfer and add the landfill in, they would start at $3. For every $100,000 the Board decides to give to Secondary Roads it would be $.08 which would equal $3.08 or $3.16 or $3.24. Sullivan asked what $2.9 million does to the money that would be transferred into Secondary Roads, at the minimum. Claiborne directed the Board to look at their computers and if they look at the last meeting they had, on January 6, 2010 and open that document up, there is a Secondary Roads document which is what could be done. Sullivan acknowledged that that was what he was looking for.
Sullivan said what he wants to know what County Engineer Greg Parker's maintenance budget was last year. He said that the 2.9 isn't just maintenance, some of it is construction. Sullivan said he is trying to figure out what that would basically buy. Claiborne directed Sullivan to look at an Excel file from November 16, 2009 to look at Parker's actual budget. Sullivan said it is confusing because Parker's revenues were $4.7 million. Sullivan asked where he would find what was transferred in. He thinks it might be Road Use Tax and transfer. He asked if that is lumped together. Claiborne said that Parker doesn’t show that as revenue in his budget. It is a transfer and Claiborne said he can’t explain that for him. Sullivan said it is part of that $4.1 million. Johnson said it is not part of the $4.1 million in revenues. Sullivan asked where it shows up in Parker's budget. Claiborne said it is an amount that they would tell Parker and that they would transfer that into his revenues. It isn’t part of the departmental budget. Claiborne said it was what he called an "O.O." Other transfers are an accounting transfer, but Parker doesn't show it as revenue. Sullivan wanted to know what number Parker is using and where he got the number from if he comes in and says how much money he thinks he will spend and what he will spend it on. Claiborne told Sullivan that Parker does that differently. What Parker does is he brings in a budget, of maybe $10 million and between the taxes he gets and transfer he gets from the Board, if he only gets $8 million, then he will cut his budget down to $8 million. Although he showed it as $10 million, he marked it down to $8 million because he can only spend what he gets. Claiborne said Parker's always done that because they've always done the minimum transfer. He said Parker builds his budget based on what he gets.
Neuzil said that the Board always lowers the rural tax thing because they don't want to raise rural people's taxes. Claiborne says Parker's complaint has always been that the Board keeps lowering his budget even though he's asked to do more. Sullivan asked where Parker got that number when they go into the budget sheet for Secondary Roads and Parker has his total revenues for budget FY10 are $4.6 million and for FY11 Parker has $4.745 million. Claiborne responded that Parker received that number from the DOT. Sullivan asked if it does not include the transfer money they are discussing. Claiborne said it doesn't. He said that Parker takes the $4.7, the numbers from his DOT report, and adds the Board's transfer to that and that's what he budgets on. Sullivan said that Parker's expenses are only a little bit higher than that. Claiborne said Sullivan wasn't seeing personnel and when that is added in, and it is more like $9 million or $10 million. Sullivan said that it seems to him that they ought to do the Secondary Roads budget differently, since it doesn’t make sense to him to do it this way. Neuzil said that Parker basically gets what’s left after all of the other budgets. He said that what Parker submits to the Board is not what the Board goes off of. Claiborne agreed. Neuzil said that it is when they start, but then they start adjusting the numbers and that’s when the Board starts playing with the transfer. He said that they always lower the transfer every year, because the Board doesn’t want to raise taxes on rural residents. When it comes to tax rates versus taxes, Neuzil said the Board always lowers taxes. Neuzil said that Parker gets what is left. Neuzil said they have been doing that since he’s been on the Board. What has happened is, that a lot of Parker’s reserves that he’s had over the years has been able to cover a lot of this up until the flood. But, the problem is that the Board took the interest that Parker was generating off of that $2 million MacBride Trust, is now gone. Harney stated that they spent the reserves to match the stimulus dollars to get those projects done. He said they spent down the reserves and that is a big chunk of it. He said he agreed that the Board should have been going up, over the years, a certain amount. But, Harney said he didn’t think it was that big of a deal until Johnson County was hit by the storms and the stimulus dollars are what really wiped it out.
Neuzil said that the point now is getting back to the question of tax rates versus taxes and will the Board choose to go after it and just say tax rates. Sullivan said that his concern is not so much the tax rate as it is the minimal service they expect in Secondary Roads. He said that’s his bigger concern right now and he doesn’t know how much that will cost. Neuzil said that the Board does have Parker’s request. Sullivan said it isn’t clear to him what the Board would have to do in order to meet Parker’s request. Neuzil said he agrees, but that it seems to him like they need to have Parker meet with the Board on January 22, 2010 so he can lay his request out again for the Board to get back on track for services in Secondary Roads. Sullivan said that he currently doesn’t see a way if they were to do this, and then tell Parker that he has half a million less this year, for Parker to be able to do this. Neuzil said that that’s the track record that they have been doing. He said that’s why Parker has been coming in and telling the Board that he doesn’t have any other places to go get money. Neuzil said that’s why Parker has been doing that for the last year and half, since the flood basically.
Rettig said to Claiborne that she doesn’t understand how he got to a minimum transfer to Secondary Roads of $2.98 with all of these other things in, including the landfill, JCCOG, $100,000 in reserves, and the additional libraries. She said that when she does the math she gets to about $2.70. She said she needs to understand how Claiborne arrived at $2.9876. Claiborne said he can do that when he gets back to his desk. Neuzil and Rettig said ok. Neuzil asked the Board if it seems reasonable to have Parker meet with them again. He said he thinks Sullivan is right and that they need to rethink their plan. He said it is easy for them to look at page 11 and say uh-oh, and the Board has in the past, always conceded the fact that for everyone else, Iowa City taxpayers, anybody else, their taxes are going up, but for rural residents the Board is not going to do that for them. Neuzil said they’ve done that for the nine years he has been on the Board. Rettig said they’ve done not only that, but decreased the taxes, too. Sullivan said that between FY08 and FY09 he said he knows that some of that is the Board saw a hit with the JECC and the Board knew they wanted to try to minimize somewhere. He said he didn’t realize that it had gone down so much this last year. Harney said that they were trying to offset what the impact was on agricultural and commercial buildings. Neuzil said it was an agricultural land. Harney said it was buildings and things like that because the State had a large impact on that. Neuzil said if the Board wants to maintain at least a minimum amount of services in the Secondary Roads Fund, then the Board cannot cut taxes based on these assessments. He said it can’t be done. Sullivan said he needs clarification from Parker because he needs to know what the minimum transfer in will do. Neuzil said they need to know if that leaves enough for Parker. Sullivan said if it’s not, then the Board has a menu they could use. Neuzil asked Claiborne if he understands that the Board needs to know if Parker would be available to meet with the Board on January 22, 2010. He said that if Parker wouldn’t be available, then the Board might need to add it as an agenda item for January 21, 2010. Sullivan said that he thought this was an important issue and that they should let Parker know that he has to be available. Neuzil agreed and said that he wants to make sure that there was not some strained circumstance. He said that they need to do this before January 22, 2010.
Harney asked Claiborne to explain to him how to calculate the minimum transfer versus maximum transfer and what’s allowable. Claiborne directed Harney to look at the last meeting and said it is all spelled out in the code. Harney asked why there is such a discrepancy on allowable transfer. Sullivan said they could have always transferred more. Harney said they could transfer from $915,000 to $3,645,000. Rettig stated that the code spells out the minimum and maximum. Claiborne said that is right. Rettig asked if Claiborne merely took the math times the Board’s evaluation to get there. Harney asked what that is based on. Claiborne replied that it is based on the rural valuation. Harney said ok. Sullivan asked if it is a $1.3 million difference. Sullivan said that the total minimum transfer was $3.4 million. Rettig asked if she is reading 2.7 to 3.4 between the minimum. Sullivan that it is Rural Basic to Secondary Roads and then from General Basic and Rural Basic, so that Rettig needs to look further down for the maximum. Harney said he thought trails were the reason for it. Neuzil said that it may be something that the Board pulls trails out of rural and puts in the general fund, too. Sullivan said it is a $1.1 million swing.
Neuzil said they held a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee public information meeting, and County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek wanted to make sure that the Board is prepared for a couple of things. He said that that the Board probably saw his email in regards to the State Patrol situation. He said they had some discussion about how they thought that the State of Iowa was going to be able to make up, but that doesn’t sound like that’s necessarily the case there. Neuzil stated that he thought it was interesting at the end of Pulkrabek’s email because Pulkrabek wrote, as the Board continues to work on the budget, Pulkrabek strongly urges the Board to consider following his proposal to use the money left over the dispatchers moving to the JECC and add three to four patrol deputies. Neuzil said that was something for the Board to think about. He said he thought Pulkrabek’s original request was for four patrol deputies, but that in his email Pulkrabek mentions the number three. Harney asked when Pulkrabek sent the email, because he hadn’t received it. Neuzil said Pulkrabek had emailed them at 2:07 p.m. on January 11, 2010. Neuzil said that Pulkrabek gave the Board a heads up on that. As far as the meeting Neuzil had on January 11, 2010, Neuzil said that Pulkrabek wanted to remind the Board that letters had been sent to the two property owners who own the four houses across the street from the Jail. Neuzil said that one landowner owns three of the houses and one that owns one, and that the prospect of at least three of those homes being available before the end of FY11 is very likely. Neuzil said that Pulkrabek wanted to remind the Board as they went through their budget of if they will use debt service, will it be possible to put some of it towards that or not. Neuzil said he wanted to bring that up for general discussion.
Neuzil stated that the Board had talked a little bit about how the additional debt service that’s coming off would primarily be used for the Shueyville road project and possibly some would be used for the Ambulance building, but the Board didn’t necessarily identify additional buy-ups of homes across from the Jail. Sullivan said he doesn’t know what the timing will be, whether they would be in FY11, but he doesn’t know where Ambulance would go. He said that assuming they move from where they are located currently, he thinks they were sitting are some pretty valuable property. Sullivan also stated that they have a Public Health Building that is probably less valuable, but still worth something. He said that the Board would have some revenues that could come in to help with the Ambulance Building. He said they don’t have that with the houses, since there isn’t any revenue there. Neuzil asked Claiborne if they have to identify something for debt service, and if so, would they have to be specific in what they use it for. Neuzil said he thinks it has to be specific and used within a reasonable amount of time. Neuzil said they could identify it as a Justice Center acquisition. Claiborne said that last week the Board said to go ahead with it. He said that nothing is iron clad yet for the debt levy, for the Shueyville road, they could figure that in and keep the levy at $0.70, and the difference between where they are at up to the $0.70, to identify that for Ambulance. Neuzil said he agreed with Sullivan and that they have yet to have the proposal given to them, but he thinks there is a real opportunity to move the Ambulance facility elsewhere from where it currently is. He said it would preferably be moved to land owned by the County. Harney said he would like to keep it on the campus.
Neuzil agreed it would be nice to keep it on the campus. He said that there are a couple of potential choices that are out there. He said that there is the potential of placing it within the Justice Center or placing it where the parking lot is at the Armory. He said that then they could use a large portion of the money acquired by selling those properties, and the Public Health Building. Sullivan stated that is why he brought that up when the Board talked about the service levy last time, he thought the houses would be sooner than the Ambulance Building, and he hasn’t seen anything to convince him otherwise. Neuzil said his point is what if the houses don’t become available. He said they would have taxed for it, and he wants to know how to word it correctly so that the taxpayers know that the intent is for the Justice Center. He said if there is a snag and the houses don’t become available, he wondered if the Board could use that money to demolish those homes or start the process of if they choose to put the facility behind the Court House, could they use that money to move that dirt, and things like that. Sullivan said that if push comes to shove, and the Board decides they want them, they don’t have a choice. Harney said that the landowner of the three houses does want to sell them and that he’d heard from him last week. Sullivan said he doesn’t think it is an issue. Harney said the other one would be the problem.
Neuzil said it is harder for houses than it is for commercial buildings. He said he is more comfortable with saying that the debt service would go more towards purchasing the houses than towards the Ambulance Building at this point. He said he is unsure of how to word that correctly, but all he is saying is that Claiborne needs to know at least a projection of what that is, and that he thinks it is beyond just buying those four houses. He said he thinks if they had additional dollars it could be to either raise those other three or it could be to start moving dirt out of the backside of the Court House. Neuzil said that the Board has discussed trying to keep the tax rate fairly equal in the Debt Service Fund. Harney said if they were going to dig dirt out of the Court House then they should move it over by the Administration Building and raise it out of the flood plain. Neuzil stated that Harney read his mind. Sullivan said he would rather have it targeted toward the Justice Center than toward the Ambulance Building right now, given a choice.
Neuzil said that the point is that the Board has to show progress within that fiscal year. He said he thinks that is likely. He said that worst case scenario would be that they acquire those properties and then have to resell, which could happen if they don’t end up using them. Neuzil said they discussed that when they purchased the other three. He said he thinks the Board knows the advantageous part of keeping the tax rate where it is and taking advantage of not only a needed project, but do so with using those TIF districts in the process. Sullivan said he agrees with Neuzil 100%. Harney said he needs more information and those are things that he’s thought about for a long time. Neuzil said that the main thing that Claiborne needs to know is that the Board wants to at least try to keep the tax rate where it is. By January 22, 2010, the Board probably needs to give Claiborne better direction on what to put in the budget as far as what the designated purpose would be. Neuzil asked if that seems reasonable for everyone. Harney said that they would have the balance of what would normally go to the Communication Center and give them two deputies and that money could go towards it.
Neuzil asked Claiborne what else he might need before January 22, 2010. Claiborne said he is good to go. Neuzil asked if any Board members want to revisit the patrol situation or give that some thought. Sullivan asked what Claiborne built in. Claiborne stated that two are in what he’s seeing. Harney said it is two cars and two deputies. Neuzil said he is still ok with that. Rettig said she is ok with two, but she doesn’t think the Board can do everything that people want. Neuzil said the patrol one is unique, simply because the Board received that request two years ago and the last two years the Board has said no. He said that it’s not quite everything that they wanted, because in his formula they would have another two going this year and another two come in next year. Rettig said she understands, but that she thinks gradual changes are better. Neuzil said he agrees. Sullivan asked if they put in two part-time Ambulance employees. Neuzil said yes.
Rettig said they are adding another ambulance into that mix, to potentially go out to Secondary Roads. She said that the Medical Examiner’s Office is growing and they have, at times, not pleasant things in their truck in the parking ramp here, and so she thinks the Board needs to move forward on a lot of different things at once. But, Rettig said she thinks the ambulance situation is growing into a much bigger problem, whether it is a joint ambulance/medical examiner vehicle, but she would prefer that the Board put money into it over a period of two years, as opposed to doing it all in one year. She said if they don’t put it in the centralized campus, then the building will actually be bigger, because they had built out conference rooms because they could use this area. She said all of that is on the table and she thinks that they should additionally raise their reserves and set money aside for these projects.
Neuzil said he thinks it comes down to what Claiborne has to put as a designated purpose for the debt service for this coming year. He said his assumption is that there could be room to do both. He suggested looking at a hypothetical $1 million. Rettig asked if Neuzil meant $1 million for Ambulance and Medical this year and $1 million for next year. Neuzil said no, he was suggesting if there was $1 million of repurposing the Debt Service Fund, a portion could go to both acquisition of the Justice Center, and then some could go toward the Ambulance Building. He said there would be another revenue source coming in when they sell the old Public Health Building, but he thought they could piece meal the process of paying off the Ambulance beyond the FY11 budget. Rettig said sure. Sullivan said he thinks there is an opportunity with Iowa City talking about needing a new central fire station or a new police station. He said that they’re basically saying that one of them could stay where they’re at and expand into the other’s space, but not both. Rettig said it seems to her that they would probably build an Ambulance and Medical Examiner facility before they build a Justice Center. She said there are less moving parts there and if the fire department isn’t ready to move on an Ambulance facility in the next 18 or 20 months, that wouldn’t work. Sullivan said he knows that there have been little discussions, but he thinks the Board needs to have a fairly serious discussion at some point with the City of Iowa City to see if there is potential to work together on either of these things or not, because the County needs to know.
Rettig said it makes a lot of sense to her to have the Iowa City Police in a Joint Justice Center, as long as everything is worked out to a ‘T’. Neuzil said he’s heard a lot of people ask why they don’t put the Iowa City Police Department where the jail is now. He said there are conversations going on out in the public. Sullivan said it would be a mistake to not have a solid discussion about that stuff before the Board acts. Neuzil agreed and said that if they are able to relocate the Ambulance Department to a different facility and they combine the current Ambulance facility with the Fisher Building and are able to sell those pieces of property along with the old Public Health Building, then they’d have a pretty good down payment for a new Ambulance Building. Rettig asked where they would put the new Ambulance Building if they sold those properties. Neuzil elaborated and said they would have a good down payment for a new Ambulance Building if they were able to build it on a piece of property already owned by the County, which would be the Armory. Rettig said it would be in the flood zone, with perhaps no potential to build there. Neuzil said it would have to be designed so that it was above the flood plain. Sullivan said he thought they would put all of the living stuff on the second floor, and the garage on the first floor. Harney said he doesn’t foresee this piece of property jumping in value that much. Neuzil said it is not so much jumping in property value, but he is saying that it is probably a fairly significant amount of money and it would help pay for the new Ambulance Building.
Harney said he thinks there are a lot of downsides to building the new Ambulance Building where the Armory is, but that it is a discussion for another time. Neuzil said they would have to design the new building to be above the flood plain. Harney said that the problem would be that if it does flood again, then there would be difficulties getting in and out of the building because of the streets. Neuzil said they could always get into the Administration Building. Harney said they couldn’t always, depending on the level of the flood. Rettig said that a year and a half ago access into the Armory was not possible, because all of the roads around it were flooded. Neuzil agreed. Rettig said that in order to build an Ambulance Building there, they would need to raise the roads, too, not just raise the building. Neuzil said that isn’t necessarily true, according to the design he’d seen. Sullivan said they were unable to get in and out of the current Ambulance Building, too, during the last flood, so they just moved the ambulances. Harney said the Ambulance Building wasn’t flooded out, that they could go north. Sullivan said that the alley and the whole back part had been under water, so they had moved the ambulances. Neuzil said that the building would have to be designed so that the bottom floor would be a garage. Rettig said that when the time comes, she will have a lot of questions about building in the flood zone. She said it isn’t necessarily on the table for her at this point. Sullivan said he feels a little bit like there is a gun to his head over how fast the new Ambulance building needs to be built. He said it doesn’t have to be done that quickly.
Neuzil said that if he had to choose between showing the community progress towards the Justice Center towards building an Ambulance Building, he would choose the Justice Center. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil said he thinks that is the decision the Board needs to make. Harney said he’d have to weigh some things out on it first. Neuzil said Harney would have to decide by January 22, 2010. Harney asked why. Neuzil stated that Claiborne will want to know where those designated debt service dollars will go towards. Claiborne would need to know if the dollars would go towards a new Ambulance Building or something else and what line to put it in. Claiborne said he doesn’t have to title the bond project until he sends the State form in, so up until the morning of March 15, 2010 the Board could decide on a title for the bond project. Neuzil said that for the sake of taxpayers wanting to know what they are being taxed for, the Board should be able to provide that information. Sullivan said there is clearly enough questions and opinions about the Ambulance facility. He said that clearly the Board is not unanimous in their opinion on the topic. He said that is reason enough to not deal with in FY11, other than from a planning standpoint. Neuzil said that he agrees with Rettig, because the Board still has a lot of questions that need answered about where to put the new Ambulance facility and that would be a very big question. He said that a lot of people question why they have an Ambulance Building right behind a creek, which is what they have right now. He said that the Board may look at the potential of the Justice Center that would include, so in other words it wouldn’t be on this campus it would be in the other campus, so that they would still be able to have a lot of the resources that a Justice Center could provide an emergency center. Sullivan said that they could knock down the Car Quest building and put the Ambulance Building there. Neuzil stated that they have talked about that, but as far as the potential of that, the train track situation was one that was holding them back. Harney said that it kind of fell of the scope, but that they had the Camp Cardinal property for sale, too, which hasn’t proceeded yet. Sullivan asked if Harney meant in terms of revenue coming in. Sullivan asked if the Board remembered how much that was. Sullivan said it wasn’t a ton of money. Harney said it was a pretty good price. Sullivan asked if it was $40,000. Johnson said that amount sounds familiar.
Adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
By Erin Heninger, Recording Secretary