MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 22, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FY11 Budget Work Session.................................................................................................... 1
Mental Health/Disability Services (46)......................................................................... 1
Rural Basic Fund........................................................................................................ 1
Landfill...................................................................................................................... 6
Secondary Roads Transfer.......................................................................................... 8
FY 2011 County Budget........................................................................................................ 18
Block Grants............................................................................................................ 22
Other Scheduled Board of Supervisors Meetings..................................................................... 28
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 11:03 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Executive Assistant Andy Johnson said that Mental Health/Disability Services (MHDS) Director Kris Artley advised that there are enough variables going on with the budget at the State level that she would not be attending the meeting today to discuss it.
Johnson County Library Association Chair and North Liberty Community Library (NLCL) Director Dee Crowder said the Library Association is concerned because they do not know what is happening with the library contracts. She said they have heard rumors about what might be happening with the library contracts; that the funds may be going to one library to be distributed. Crowder said the Association is interested in starting some conversation with the Board about what direction they are headed.
Neuzil said that Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne did some research on what is mandated as opposed to what the County uses for libraries. He asked if Claiborne has that information available. Claiborne said that Johnson did the research. Johnson first said he has not discussed this with the County Attorney, however, since the Board indicated an interest in looking at the contracts. Johnson said the mandate is $79,000 to support Rural Services. He said the County has contracts with North Liberty, Iowa City, Coralville, and Solon that sets up the relationship, formula, and timeline for making those decisions. He said this information is based on usage by rural residents. That contract provides that if there is to be any change to it, either party would need to make a notification on April 1, 2010. Johnson said his assumption is that the notification would be for the year after this one because it sets up the timeline for determining the budgeted amounts for the fiscal year. He stated that if the County is going to terminate or make a change, it must be done in April, so if someone wanted to make a change in this case it would be for FY12. Johnson said that Claiborne has presented the requests for the contracts for the coming fiscal year.
Neuzil said he has not heard any Board member say that the requests for FY11 will be any different than what is in the budget right now. He stated that for the last two years, the Board has consistently asked County department heads and other elected officials to hold the line on any spending increases. He said the County has frozen all of its Block Grants, but the library grant is exempt. Neuzil said that on a strategic level, the Board has been identifying all of their expenditures to see if there is a chance to hold the line on certain things. He said that this is the only conversation he knows of that the Board has had, although maybe some of the newspapers have picked up on this topic and it has gotten the Library Association’s attention. He noted that the Board has gotten some emails. Neuzil stated that there has not been any conversation beyond the Board asking department heads and other elected officials to hold the line, and looked at the idea of looking at all the contractual agreements Johnson County has with other entities. He stated that the contract with the libraries is just one of those on that list.
Neuzil said that when there is a request beyond what the libraries have received in the past, it means that there have been more people using their service. He said that he hopes the Board does not lose sight of the fact that this is a good thing. Crowder said the rural usage at NLCL has gone down slightly because of the Iowa City and Coralville libraries running at full speed again. She stated that the City budget also increases, and running according to the contract is one reason the NLCL’s budget has gone up slightly. Crowder said that once Swisher has their library up and running, NLCL’s rural usage may go down even more because most of their rural patrons are from Swisher.
Harney said that it is part of the Board’s budget issue to determine how to balance funding between the libraries. He stated that the County has new libraries coming on board and the Board wants to be fair with them as well. Crowder noted that the funding from the County for the rural users is not nearly as much as what the City provides for the library, so the rural patrons are getting the exact same service as city patrons but for less money.
Neuzil said that he doesn’t think anyone is questioning the value of what the libraries provide. He said it is a matter of how the State of Iowa structures the County’s funding formulas for rural areas. Neuzil said that the Board has consistently tried to keep the level of taxation in the Rural Fund to be even or to be lowered. As the demand for libraries and road systems continue, Neuzil said it will be difficult to continue that trend. He asked Claiborne to explain how the limitation on the Rural Fund is set.
Claiborne said the Rural Fund has a cap of $3.95, and the highest he has seen it since working for the County is $3.26. He stated that the County has always hovered around the mid $2.00 range or maybe up to $3.00. Claiborne said that the County is seeing a greater demand for road improvements, which is one subject for the Board of Supervisors to consider as they look at the entire Rural Basic Fund. Traditionally, Claiborne said that other counties use the Rural Fund for only libraries and roads. He said that for a Trails and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Johnson County would be the only one out of 99 counties in Iowa to actually do it. Claiborne said that the Rural Fund is basically just for libraries and roads.
Stutsman said that the County’s mandated obligation is $79,000, but the Board does spend almost $612,000 on libraries, which is sizable. Crowder said that she believes Johnson County is second in the State for funding for rural libraries. Stutsman asked which County is number one. Crowder replied that she thinks it is Polk County. Neuzil asked what the request for libraries is for FY11. Sullivan said it is about $640,000. Claiborne confirmed this.
Iowa City Public Library (ICPL) Director Susan Craig said that the mandated amount for libraries is a decades old State law. She said that it is not a reasonable expectation that library services could be provided with that levy amount. Craig said that it is the County’s legal basement, but in the State of Iowa, it is considered almost laughable that anyone could actually provide quality library services at that levy amount. She agreed that $79,000 is the County’s legal obligation, but at that level, nobody in the library world would expect quality library service could be delivered.
Craig said that she very much appreciates the investment the Board makes in library service for the rural residents. She said that this investment reflects well on the Board and reflects that Johnson County is a county of highly educated people. Craig said that the number one corollary with library service is education level, not income or anything else. She stated that all of the public libraries in Johnson County are well used and well supported because Johnson County has a very educated populace that values library services. She said that the County spends a lot but they get a lot in return. She said that the County is not paying for more than the citizens get.
Harney said that he understands that the books portion of the libraries will never go away, but he asked what change has been seen in terms of technology and computer usage. Crowder said that there is actually a high usage of computers. She said that in the past two years with tough economic times, people spend time at library computers filling out job and Iowa Workforce applications, and some even take classes online. Crowder said that if the NLCL can get a grant, they are going to consider checking out laptops to library patrons age 18 and older so that some of the regular computers will be freed up for teenagers and youth. Crowder said that the computer usage has gone up significantly, and the NLCL recently added two 15 minute internet stations to rotate patrons in and out quickly. She said other areas that have increased are audio books, DVDs, and magazine subscriptions. She noted that nobody can afford to pay for magazine and newspaper subscriptions anymore, so they come to the library for that.
Craig said that it is getting to the point where to be a citizen in this country one must have access to the Internet. She stated that for cost cutting reasons, governments continue to push things to the Internet that they used to print copies of and even give away. Craig said, for example, that some job applications, documents, and tax forms can only be found on the Internet. She noted that the State of Iowa is not printing and distributing some of its tax forms; and the only way to get some of them is on the Internet. She said that many things are being driven to the Internet, including college and scholarship applications and test taking. Rettig said that registration for a fishing tournament is online. She stated that she has argued with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that not everyone has high speed Internet, but they put all registration materials and requirements online.
Craig said that the DNR does this to save money, but it makes the role of the public library even more important. Crowder said that not everybody has a computer at home, and some people have dropped their Internet service because of the poor economy. Neuzil said the point he is trying to make is that if the Rural Fund is used for two primary areas, roads and libraries, and the demand for these services continues to rise, then the only option for the Board is to increase the Rural Fund. He said that this is the quandary the Board continues to be in; no one wants their taxes raised, but libraries and roads need more money more than ever. He said that puts everyone in a difficult situation.
Harney said that what makes it difficult is that funding for roads is disappearing; the State stepped in and took half of the money and gave Counties and Cities each a fourth of it. He said the amount of money keeps going down, but the demand keeps growing as it does with libraries. The challenge is for the Board to find a good balance. Sullivan said the first time he went to a National Conference four years ago he realized that in most places, libraries are a County function. Craig said that the model in Iowa, a library in every town, is probably the minority model. She said that is not the way it is on the West and East coasts. She noted that having a public library in every town is a Midwestern feature.
Sullivan said that the County model makes a lot of sense because if Johnson County were to have a County library system, then the Board would not have to engage in these types of negotiations. Every citizen would have a library system to which he/she is assigned by virtue of residency. Sullivan said he knows the County cannot change a system that is so well entrenched, but a County system makes a lot of sense. Neuzil said that it is strange that the State of Iowa pits roads and libraries as the two basic entities. He pointed out that residents ask the Board which of these two is more important. Neuzil said that these are the decisions the Board has to make, and with the current contract system, the Board gives whatever the libraries ask for.
Craig reminded the Board that within the contract, there is a very specific formula and a cap on the amount the levy can increase to support library services. She said that there is not much of an increase from the ICPL this year, because Iowa City doesn’t have much money. Even though the ICPL’s usage increased, and they asked the City for more funding, the ICPL is not getting more money from the City either. Craig said that the request is based on usage and tax support from the municipalities. She pointed out that there are wonderful library facilities in Johnson County, and the rural residents have paid nothing to the General Obligation Bond Debt of $19.8 million to build the ICPL. This debt is being paid off by Iowa City residents. Craig said that the facilities are offered to Johnson County rural residents at no cost to them, so they are paying for the service but not the building.
Stutsman said that Craig makes some very good points, and that the contracts are well written. Craig said she understands the Board’s dilemma, and that they are just doing their job. Stutsman said that the Board is doing their job and fulfilling their responsibility. She said that from time to time the Board has discussed mandated services across the County to determine if they should just fund those. Stutsman said that it is only right that libraries be considered in that discussion as well. She stated that at this point, it sounds as though the Board is going to continue the contracts. Stutsman said that if the Board wants to review where it is at with the contracts in future discussion, a task force could be set up. She said that the last time the Board set up a task force it was well served. Stutsman said that that would be her suggestion again.
Sullivan said he has been serving on the Board for five years, and this task force convened at least a year or two before he was on the Board. Neuzil said he and previous Board Member Carol Thompson were there. Stutsman said she remembers previous Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne was there too. Sullivan said in due diligence from both the Board’s and the libraries’ perspectives, it is probably time to look at this topic again.
Rettig said she is not in favor of designating a single library. She likes the fact that there are libraries close to people, and she thinks the County has an ethical commitment to maintain that. Rettig read off a document saying, "Iowa City, Oxford, and North Liberty requested the same amount of funds as they had last fiscal year, and Coralville, Solon, and just barely Tiffin requested increases." Rettig said she was told by Solon that it had not been communicated to them that the County hoped to see flat budgets and a possible 2% reduction. She said that she thinks it is partly the Board’s fault. Rettig said that the Board had informed all department heads, but because the libraries operate outside of the County structure, nobody communicated to them that the County really needed to see a flat or decreased budget. Rettig said she understands the County has a contract with the libraries, but she said that if the Board is going to revisit the contracts, she does not want to revisit the possibility of going to the single library and funding the legally mandated minimum. She said she has no interest in this whatsoever, so she is glad the Johnson County Library Representatives are present at this meeting.
Crowder said he wants to let the Board know that the NLCL is still working on its budget.
Coralville Public Library Director Alison Ames Galstad said that she also did not have any of the information about the County’s goal to keep the budget flat or lower it. She said their request is based completely on the formula that is in the contract. She said their budget is going up this year, although probably not as much as their original projections, which is what the request is based on. Galstad said that when the Coralville Public Library’s budget is finalized, she will communicate the information to Claiborne to let him know how it changed. She noted that the budget will increase based on the fact that library usage is up so much. Galstad reported that the Coralville Public Library’s usage across the board is up 33% in FY09, and use is up another 21% over that in the first six months of 2010. She said she sent a memo to the Board about County usage being up 17%, and while this is very significant, it is not as much as the library is seeing across the board. Galstad said that the percentage of the Coralville Public Library’s usage that is County use is going down. She noted that because of the formula in the contract, if this increase continues over the next years, then the County’s percentage actually decreases. Galstad said that the formulas work very well in terms of equitable disposition of the funds, compared to what the City contributes and how the library gets its money. She noted that she just wanted to explain how the Coralville Public Library arrived at its' request.
Stutsman said she wants to clarify that the County has contracts, so in her mind, the Board has to honor the contract regardless of the fact that the County wants to keep flat budgets. She said the County does not have contracts with the libraries that aren’t accredited, so those libraries submit a budget to the Board. Stutsman said she is completely supportive of honoring contracts, and she does not think she would ever arbitrarily say no to the request. Neuzil said that is a reason why the libraries were not communicated the fact that the County wants to keep the budget flat, because the Board was not in any position to make any changes. He said that the Board is communicating this fact with them now, as they are not talking about FY11, but FY12 and beyond.
Sullivan asked if everyone is certified except the Oxford Public Library. Stutsman said that the Tiffin Public Library is not. Craig said Swisher is not. Crowder said before a library can be certified it has to function as a library for a certain number of years. Rettig asked if there are contracts with the libraries in Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and Solon. Sullivan confirmed that only those four have contracts. Rettig noted that Swisher is not on the list. Stutsman noted that Lone Tree is also not on the list, and they have not asked for money. She suggested the Board should discuss outreach to Lone Tree. She asked why they are not on the list when everyone else is getting money for their library, so she said the Board should acknowledge this.
Neuzil said that if the County is going to fund two primary areas out of the Rural Fund, and both are requesting increases, what is the County’s alternative. He noted that this is not a very popular thing to talk about. Claiborne said that the libraries will remain as they are on the Department 23 spreadsheet.
Claiborne said that the Landfill budget on the other sheet is still listed at $12.5 million. Claiborne said that was a decision he had to hear from the Board. He said that reality shows the number as closer to $30 million than $12.5 million, so he asked if the Board wanted him to move that number up. Stutsman suggested the Board talk about the Landfill. Neuzil said if the Landfill is $30,000 and the County is going to spend $30,000 next year, then they ought to tax $30,000.
Stutsman said that people like to be able to take their stuff to the Landfill, and she knows it is a very popular program. She recalled that the County had a system a few years back where it had two cleanup days a year: one in the Spring and one in the Fall. This new Landfill opens it up so that people can take their stuff in at any time they want. She asked if the Board is concerned about this cost. Sullivan said that for the upcoming year, the Board does not have much choice because they do not have the time to discuss alternatives. He said he would like to budget $30,000 this year, and in the off-budget cycle, the Board needs two to four plans on other ways to possibly handle this. Sullivan noted that maybe the Board wouldn’t change anything, but they could ask people to pay at the Landfill.
Harney said that at a time before Sullivan was a Board member, they ran into the issue of trash getting dumped into ditches in the county. Harney said that the County was paying to clean it up, but that has basically subsided by allowing people to take trash to the Landfill. He said he thinks that if they cut off the Landfill services, people will go right back to dumping trash on every side road they can. Stutsman said she’d like to ask County Engineer Greg Parker if that problem has in fact subsided. She agrees with Sullivan that the funding should be put in for this year, but the Board needs to look at the issue again. She said that she thinks the trash dumped in county ditches is not from county residents. Harney agreed that a lot of it is not. Sullivan noted that a lot of it comes from town residents.
Rettig said she thinks the Board should revisit the topic because there is no incentive here to recycle or compost. She said that if people take trash to the Landfill, the County will pay for it up to a certain number of pounds, and she thinks that is the wrong system of disposing of unneeded waste. Rettig said that system does not encourage people to recycle or compost because they can just take it to the Landfill and the County will take care of it. Neuzil said that the Landfill only accepts certain things, however. Harney said that refrigerators, appliances, and things like that are charged for by the City and the County. He said that the County does run into trouble with this because people throw these items into roadside ditches to avoid the fees. Rettig said that the Landfill will accept all plastics, tin cans, and bottles.
Stutsman said that most rural residents recycle. Sullivan said they have access to recycling. Stutsman confirmed, saying they have access to City Carton Recycling. Neuzil asked if the Board wants to keep the weight limit the same this year or not. He asked if this wouldn’t have a lot to do with the total cost. Neuzil asked if the Board wants to make the limit half of what it is now. Sullivan said they ought to keep the weight limit the same, budget $30,000 for it, and then during the budget process they need to make a note of having the Board look at this. He said they need to invite Landfill Superintendent Dave Elias to come in and discuss these issues with the Board.
Stutsman said that maybe it is time to look at other alternatives. She said she thinks most of the use comes from people cleaning out sheds and things like that. Johnson said he does not know if the County will see savings this year. He said the process has changed somewhat because in the past, Iowa City was determining whether someone was eligible to use the Landfill, but now the Landfill is getting a database from Johnson County. Johnson said he has dealt with complaints from at least one person who had been dumping at the Landfill but now wasn’t allowed. Johnson said it turns out the man actually wasn’t eligible. He said that is just one case, and he doesn’t know if there are more.
Neuzil said it comes back to how much people want to pay in rural taxes. He said if they want this service, it is going to cost money, and the money has to come from somewhere. Stutsman asked if there is a total weight limit that people can take to the Landfill. Neuzil said it is 2,000 pounds. Stutsman said that above that limit, people have to pay. She agreed with Sullivan that if the Board puts this on the to-do list, and if enough Board members want to look at it, then they can come up with some alternatives. Johnson said they could probably get data on what the average is for how many people actually use the Landfill up to the 2,000 pound limit. Stutsman said she knows it is a popular program, and if people want it then they are willing to pay for it. Stutsman asked if $30,000 is too much to put in the budget for Landfill. Sullivan said that it is a little over $30,000 this year. Claiborne said that the number is based on the past several amendments that have been done to match reality. He said that he spoke with Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner and they both think $30,000 is a good target amount.
Claiborne said he wants the Board to consider the Secondary Roads transfer. He referred to Page 11 of the budget worksheet. Claiborne said what he currently has in the budget is the maximum transfer to Secondary Roads, which puts the Rural Basic Levy at $3.74. Claiborne asked the Board to reference the document Parker had sent them regarding the Rural Basic increase. Claiborne said that Parker will talk to the Board about the different things the Board can do if they are not comfortable with the $3.74 Rural Basic Levy. He said the idea in this case is that the Board can start from the minimum and work upwards, hearing what Parker can provide for each additional $100,000 of funding.
Sullivan asked if the Board has any more information about savings in this fund, because part of his thinking in terms of what he wants to do depends on whether they can save. Claiborne said he just spoke with Dorsey and Whitney Bond Counsel Bob Josten before the budget meeting, and learned the County is able to transfer from the Rural Basic Fund to the Capital Projects Fund as long as they title the line item in Capital Projects a specific line project. He said, for example, they could designate something for the Dubuque Street Trail, but they could not just have a general label of Trails or CIP.
Sullivan he is specifically thinking that the County does not do the equipment replacement here the way they do in most departments, where they would pay for a $100,000 piece of equipment over a period of seven years. Sullivan said he would like to do something similar in Secondary Roads, where if there is $50,000 of equipment that needs to be replaced annually, the Board should set aside money to pay for that. Claiborne said Parker would have to do that within his fund. Sullivan asked if they could do this. Claiborne said that within the Rural Fund, as long as there is a title for a specific project, Josten said they could do this. Sullivan asked if they could title something as Secondary Roads Maintenance Equipment. Stutsman said no it would have to be labeled more specifically, for example, one road grater.
Claiborne said that the County can transfer, which no other County has done, but they have to be very specific in what the funding is for. Stutsman said she wants this in writing. She said it makes her nervous, because the Board went down this path in the past, and it is part of the reason why they are now dealing with the Rural Basic Fund. Stutsman said the Board did one thing, but then the State said that the Board could not do it and subsequently lowered the Rural Basic Fund Levy. She stated that the Board didn’t even really know the State was doing this, and they thought they were saving. Neuzil noted that taxpayers paid less last year because of that.
Neuzil said that right now, the County invests $75,000 from the Rural Fund for Trails. He asked if the Board wants to continue to have the Rural Fund make that investment or if it should be a General Fund expenditure. Neuzil said that right now, the County spends $100,000 out of the General Fund for Trails. He said that he is interested in pulling that funding out of the Rural Fund and investing it out of the General Fund, which would free up $75,000. Stutsman agreed. Claiborne noted that this would free up $.06 on the Levy. Stutsman asked if there are three Board members interested in doing this. Harney said he is in support of this, because it appears the County is going to do some bonding for the Shueyville Road. He said that there will be other things coming back into the Rural Fund that will be pushing it right back up.
Sullivan said he wants to confirm that the Board members are talking about maintaining the total amount in the Rural Fund but just moving the $75,000 to the General Fund. Neuzil said that is what he is talking about. Sullivan replied that he is OK with that. He said he thinks the argument can be made either way in terms of who is using the trails, but he notes that trails are public and are available to anybody. Sullivan noted that the trail the County has is heavily used by people who live in North Liberty and Iowa City. Stutsman said it sounds like there are three Board members who are interested in doing that.
Neuzil said the Board now needs to look at the minimum transfer and page 11, which determines how much taxes are going up or down. Neuzil said that the minimum transfer will show an increase before the Board even starts to negotiate, primarily because of what happened at the State level. He said this involves the adjustments of both the equalization order and what happened with the assessments and rollbacks. Claiborne said all of these numbers on the current page 11 are based on the Trails funding being included. He said after he knocks off 0.6% residential with the minimum transfer changes from 6.6% to 6%. Claiborne explained the 0.6% comes off because the Board decided to move Trails out of the Rural Basic Fund.
Neuzil said that if the Board kept the transfer at the bare minimum, residential taxes in the rural area would go up 6%. Rettig said the amount of 0.6% can’t be correct, because she said Claiborne said moving Trails made a $.06 difference. Claiborne said he did the math, and it makes a difference of $.0618 on the levy and amounts to a difference of 0.6%. Claiborne stated that he could show the Board the math later. Stutsman said that the current page 11 shows the minimum transfer with Trails being taken out, and the Board can go down the sheet and choose to add $100,000, $200,000, and so on. Neuzil stated that for every $100,000 that goes toward road initiatives, there is that much of an increase in rural taxes.
Stutsman asked whether gravel or a new dump truck is going to make the biggest difference for Secondary Roads. She said that she doesn’t think the Board will be able to fund everything. Sullivan agreed and he said he is curious to see how Secondary Roads would break down $500,000, for example, if the Board funded that amount. Stutsman said that maybe the Board just decides what amount of money they are willing to put on the list, and then Parker figures out what he is going to do with it.
Parker said that he and the Board can look at all the things they are discussing. He said he wanted to put something together for the Board's consideration, so the current list is prioritized according to what Parker feels priorities are as far as making the largest impact on the rural side. Parker said that the number one priority is probably to put rock on the gravel roads because all the residents who drive those gravel roads will be impacted by that.
Parker said that one of the things Secondary Roads has been dealing with is the budget not growing while the costs for products are still going up. He said that they just received an increase on the existing gravel that they may be paying for this spring. Parker said he talked to Maintenance Superintendent Kevin Hackathorn about whether they should be anticipating any additional increases. He stated that typically they get two per year, so there probably will be another rock price increase before they begin the spring rock hauling contract. Parker said there was an earlier memo he sent to the Board that said that for a $100,000 expenditure, it would amount to about 20 tons of rock per mile. He said the earlier memo said it would amount to 25 tons per mile at the same cost. Parker said that unfortunately, the increased cost and what it takes to get the rock out there has reduced the buying power that the County has from what it had six or even two months ago.
Parker said that the biggest thing the Board will see from the Rural Basic standpoint is putting rock on the roads. He said they have been scaling that back over the years because they haven’t had the money, and weather related events have not been favorable to the roads. Parker said that all of the things on the list are important, and it is difficult to choose which is the most important. He noted that the biggest thing the Board will see from the residents is a request for rock on the gravel roads.
Parker said that several years ago the Board approved a scheduled replacement plan for Secondary Roads. Parker said that that equipment replacement schedule planned for a mower every seven years, a truck every so many years, a motor grater every so many years, and so on. He said their staff looks at the equipment scheduled for replacement to determine if it is doing better than expected and possibly not in need of replacement at this time. Parker said those are the choices that Secondary Roads makes when looking at the equipment replacement schedule, and the schedule is modified annually. Parker said that they had some issues with mowers last summer, and they are three years behind replacement according to the seven year replacement schedule. He said the staff is using mowers that are pushing the ten-plus year replacement schedule.
Harney asked Parker how many mowers he is asking for and noted that each mower is priced at $7,000. Hackathorn replied that the oldest mower was unusable for six weeks while waiting for repair. He noted this mower was for the area Stutsman and Harney had received complaints about. Hackathorn said that is just for the mower attachments and not the tractor or anything else. Harney asked if Hackathorn is asking for just one mower and no more. Hackathorn confirmed that right now they probably only need one. He said that a mower can get damaged in an instant, for example hitting a box culvert or something like that, and then Secondary Roads weighs the cost of the repairs as opposed to buying a new one.
Neuzil said he is not interested in micromanaging a lot of these topics. He said that if the Board increases the transfer, which means rural taxes go up, they need to at least share with the residents why the taxes went up and what some of the results are. He said that in his opinion, it is Parker's job to determine where to allocate the funding. He said that over the last several years, the County has not been able to keep up with the costs associated with Secondary Roads because the Board has kept rural taxes low. Neuzil said it has come to the question of how much longer the County can continue to provide bare minimum maintenance on the secondary roads system.
Stutsman asked how much the Board is willing to increase the transfer from the minimum amount. Stutsman asked if $383.81 is the total taxes for a $100,000 home or if it represents the increase. Neuzil said it is the increase. Neuzil said the total taxes on that house would be $684.37. Neuzil said on the minimum transfer, the County would be adding $34.81 to the tax bill, which is already at a 5.4% increase. He said that is based in part because of the equalization order and the Assessor revaluation. Neuzil said that is just where it starts, and the number just keeps going up. Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said that on the other hand, Rural Ag Buildings significantly dropped, dropping almost a third in taxes this year. Stutsman said that is what County Assessor Bill Greazel said was going to happen. She noted that the Ag Land is picking that up, because as Greazel says, that somebody is going to pay the tax. Stutsman said this is happening across the state, not just in Johnson County. She said people who have the large confinement units are getting a windfall from the Iowa taxes.
Neuzil said that Sullivan had suggested looking at what would happen if the Board added an additional $500,000 to the Secondary Roads budget. Claiborne said that rural residential would be $10.20 because the Board decided to move the trails out. Neuzil said that rural residential would be $10.20 and rural agriculture land would be roughly $62.11. Sullivan said that when buying something at a store, it costs $9.95 and not $10.00. He said that there is a very real psychological reason for that. If the Board targeted something like $450,000, given the fact that they have already moved the $75,000 for Trails, they could keep Ag Rural, Ag Dwelling, and Rural Residential under 10%. Sullivan said that he thinks this would be a positive thing psychologically.
Neuzil said in reference to the Ag Buildings, if there was an increase of about $62 for Ag Land for Rural, it also shows there is about a $224 decrease for Ag Buildings. He said that as Stutsman has pointed out, the money is coming from somewhere. He said that Ag Dwelling would go up $48, but that does not even come close to equaling what the Ag Buildings are. He noted that there are less Ag Buildings, however. Stutsman said that Neuzil is making the assumption that every Ag Land has buildings, but there are many farms that don’t have any buildings. Neuzil agreed. Harney said that this is giving a break to the big businesses that have the confinements. Stutsman said this is across the state, and it is not as big of a deal in Johnson County because there are not many large confinements. She said that in Kossuth County or some other counties, it would be a bigger deal.
Harney said he understands Sullivan’s idea, but he does not think this is a big issue because the majority of people are interested in the bottom line on their tax bill. Sullivan said that he thinks many people will talk about the percentage, and if people hear something goes up 10%, it is psychologically a bigger thing than something going up 9.5%. Rettig said she would look at it differently. She said that in the last five years, the Rural Basic tax has gone from $2.94, to $2.84, to $3.26, to $2.79, to in 2010 $2.57. She said in the last two years, the Rural Basic taxes went down, and that caused a level of service that the Board finds unpalatable, along with many of the people driving the roads. Rettig said that rate, $2.57, actually ranks Johnson County 77th in the State for Rural Basic Levy. Rettig said she is curious to see if the Board will go to $3.26207 for a starting point, which was the rate in FY08.
Rettig said it is unfortunate that the levy has been bouncing around as opposed to the County finding a level of service and staying there. Harney said that in 2009, the levy changed because the State dropped the levy without letting the County know. Stutsman said it also has to do with the rollback. Sullivan said the levy rate has gone down, but the total taxes that a rural homeowner has paid have not gone down. .
Claiborne said that if the Board looks at the $400,000, and remember that about $.06 has been removed from Trails, he said the number is right at about $325,000 which is real close to the FY08 levy. He said if the Board looks at the $400,000 level, it is going to be very close to the FY08 levy. Sullivan said that it also give the Board the psychological barrier. Stutsman said this is a real dilemma. She said she understands what the County needs to fund for Roads, but people are going to come unglued when they get this tax bill. Stutsman said she heard from people this year regarding this year's tax bill, that taxes increased three times on the Rural side of the budget. She asked what their reaction will be with their next tax bill. Stutsman said this is coupled with the fact that farm income is down, and sure, there were record yields, but inputs were out of sight. She said she thinks this tax will have a huge impact on the farm community.
Stutsman said to Rettig that the Board can look at the levy and say they have done pretty well, but she said that the average taxpayer does not look at this at all. They look at the bottom line of their tax bill and how much they get back. Neuzil said that the frustrating part about this is that the State of Iowa limits what the County can do with the Rural Fund, particularly for the rural road system. He said that rural people pay for rural roads and the rural library system, and that is about all. Neuzil said that the County just pulled Trails out. Neuzil asked if there is an increased demand for roads and libraries, where do the people think the Board is coming up with the money.
Rettig asked if the Board thinks the level of service the County has been providing the last two to three years is acceptable. She said if three members of the Board think it is acceptable, then the Board approves the minimum transfer. If three members say it is not acceptable, then the Board has to find some way to raise taxes that is palatable to those who are driving the roads and want a higher level of service.
Sullivan said he thinks the reason the Board is having this discussion is because they know the level of service is not acceptable. He said he doesn’t think it was clear to them until several months ago when Parker and Hackathorn addressed the Board. He said that is partially the Board’s fault, because they hear anecdotally from people that there is not as much rock on their roads as there used to be, but Sullivan said he didn't realize the extent of deterioration until Hackathorn presented the Board with the numbers.
Harney agreed that it has been unacceptable over the last year or two, but the Board needs to look at the underlying factors that caused this. He reminded the Board of the tornado, the floods two years in a row, and the ice storms. Harney also noted that because of the stimulus, Secondary Roads has had to use reserves to match those, which has taken away from the budget which could have gone to normal operations and repairs. Harney said he does not know if this will be relieved this year or not. He said that the County needs to do more, but he doesn’t know how.
Hackathorn said in the past the County could get through a mild winter, and then spend the money leftover from the winter budget on rock. He said they have not been able to do this in four years. Harney said the County used to use the interest from the Reservoir Roads Tax Fund, but there is no interest right now, so the County does not have that money either.
Stutsman said that maybe the Board should pull out the money they had put toward Mehaffey Bridge, start keeping it in an account, and use the interest for rock. Sullivan said that when the Board approved the money for Mehaffey Bridge, it was at the advice of County Auditor Tom Slockett and County Treasurer Tom Kriz, because the County was not making any money on it and that is what it is designated for. Harney said that if the County gets stimulus funds for Mehaffey Bridge, then they could look into doing something different with the money they had designated for it. He said that unless the County gets that grant, the County will need to keep the money there.
Stutsman asked the Board how much they are willing to consider for the transfer. She asked if they want to plug in the $500,000 plus the minimum. Sullivan said he prefers $400,000, because it keeps the tax increase under 10%. Harney said he is willing to approve that tentatively until the Board sees where they are at. Rettig said she thinks it is too high of a jump in one year. Neuzil said then he will vote for less too. Sullivan asked Rettig what she suggests. Stutsman said it would be $300,000, $200,000, or $100,000.
Sullivan said the Board should not make assumptions, and he asked if people think the level of service is acceptable. He said that he thinks it is not. Neuzil said it is not just the level of service, but the fact that the cost associated with the service is continually raising. Rettig said that is why the County cannot do as much, because the cost of gravel has gone up in the last five years. Stutsman asked if there is support for a minimum plus $300,000.
Sullivan suggested the Board start at the other end, and he asked if anyone wants to do just the minimum transfer. Rettig replied no. Sullivan asked if anyone wants to do minimum plus $100,000. No one replied. Sullivan asked if anyone wants to do the minimum plus $200,000. Claiborne said that the Board needs to take $.06 off all the numbers they are looking at because they removed Trails. He said, for example, the $3.15 is $3.09. Stutsman said she agrees to the minimum plus $200,000. Neuzil agreed to start it at that level. Rettig also agreed. Rettig said this is the minimum plus $275,000 because they are including the $75,000 from Trails. Neuzil said they when they reduced the $75,000 from the Rural Fund, it was not necessarily to reduce $75,000 but to put that dollar amount toward it. Claiborne asked if rather than the additional $200,000 transfer the Board wants $275,000. Stutsman and Sullivan agreed. Johnson asked for confirmation of the $3.15 levy. Neuzil said that the Board wants to agree to whatever is on line 7 of the document, which is $275,000.
Sullivan asked Parker and Hackathorn what an extra $275,000 does for them. Stutsman said she thinks it is hard to put them on the spot right now to answer that question. Sullivan said he thinks the public needs to understand why the Board voted for that amount. He said he wants to know what he is voting on.
Claiborne added that as things were with the General Basic Fund, he had the go-ahead to do the maximum transfer from General Basic. He said that allows $230,000 more transferred to Secondary Roads, of which $100,000 is taken with personnel. He said that adds about $130,000 extra from General Basic. Rettig asked if that would be right around $400,000 of new money if the Board does both of these. Claiborne confirmed this. Stutsman suggested that the Board give Parker an amount and have him report to the Board how he plans to spend it. She said she thinks it is important for the Board to tell taxpayers what they are getting for their money, whether that be a mower to keep up with mowing in the unincorporated area or something else. She asked if that is OK with the Board. Sullivan said that is the problem. Stutsman said she does not think Parker can answer the question today and asked Parker if she is correct.
Parker said he has not had the opportunity to talk to the Secondary Roads staff about possible expenditures, and he thinks it is always good to bounce around those kinds of ideas. Parker said it would be beneficial for him to know if the Board prefers those moneys to be spent on operations like maintenance, on construction, or on both. Harney said that is the type of recommendation he wants from Parker. He said Parker should set his priorities and bring them to the Board. Harney said all Board members will have different perspectives about certain issues, but Parker is the department head and Harney prefers Parker to make these recommendations to the Board. Stutsman said she votes for the mower. Parker said he does not have any problems submitting his recommendations but he said if the Board has a preference, he'd like to know.
Neuzil said that until the Budget Public Hearing is held, for now they can tell the public that additional gravel will be provided, and equipment replacement is likely. Sullivan said he thinks there is a huge difference between maintenance and construction. He said the County has roads in the rural areas where maintenance has suffered in over the last couple of years, and he acknowledged weather being a contributing factor.
Sullivan said he thinks it is important that the Board has a philosophy of what they want to do, and to him, the philosophy would be to take care of what they have. He said there are miles of road that need to be taken care of and he would rather see additional money fund maintenance. Sullivan noted that this is only his opinion, and he does not know how it fits with Parker’s or Hackathorn’s philosophy. Parker said both maintenance and construction are important, but it helps him to concentrate more on one of those aspects if he can get a thought of what the Board members preferences are.
Stutsman said she is not interested in construction and that there are other ways the County can fund construction projects. She is interested in maintenance and equipment. Rettig said she agreed because a lot of money has been coming into the County in the last couple of years, and they have done some major construction projects. Rettig said in her opinion, it is a good idea to focus on maintenance for a year or two. She said the County has paid a lot of attention to construction, and now it is time to get caught up and rebalance. Rettig said she agrees with Harney that it is Parker’s job to recommend to the Board the best use of the money.
Stutsman said she thinks it is good that the Board is giving Parker some general direction. She said she would like to hear from Harney and Neuzil. Harney said he wants to be sure that Parker knows that if the County gets stimulus dollars that support building a project, and the County has to give a percentage of money into that project, he wants to be able to do that project. Rettig agreed. Harney said he thinks the extra dollars should go for equipment and maintenance, but he does not want to cut the County short if they get the opportunity to get however many million dollars to do Mehaffey Bridge or another project. Stutsman said the Board has always given department heads flexibility within line items, so she does not think that will be an issue.
Neuzil said he has not heard anything he disagrees with. Stutsman asked if Parker has enough direction from the Board. Parker said he does, and said he has always emphasized to the Board that while a static budget for Secondary Roads can be approved, the functions over a twelve month period are dynamic. He noted that many variables can occur over twelve months, and although the Board can make a plan, there may be another flood, more straight line winds, tornadoes, ice storms, or another worst winter Johnson County has ever experienced. Parker said that in preparing the budget, they only anticipate average functions, not extremes in either direction. He said he wants to make sure that the Board has a good understanding that these numbers can change.
Harney said that when Parker submits the budget request, he needs to always add in whatever the inflation costs for oil for oil roads, gravel, and so on. Harney said the Board has not been doing that, and the Board needs to make sure they get that request so that they know there is an inflation cost. Sullivan said if the Board has a basic idea of what the minimum level of service is that they expect, then they just have to assume that next year those services will cost a little bit more. He said he thinks it is up to Parker and Hackathorn to tell them how much more.
Parker said he thinks that the budgets he has submitted in the past have included those inflation increases. Stutsman said that Parker needs to look for any place that he could save money, no matter what it is. Parker said absolutely. Sullivan asked if the Board decided on the minimum transfer plus $200,000 plus the $75,000 that was for Rural Trails. Stutsman confirmed this, and asked if the Board is in understanding and agreement with that. Claiborne said in reality the amount is more like $405,000 because of the General Basic maximum transfer. Claiborne said Secondary Roads will have $405,000 more in transfers.
Sullivan said he did not understand what Claiborne just said about maximum transfers, because the Board is not doing the maximum transfer. Rettig said it is the maximum transfer from General Basic to the Rural Fund. Claiborne said there is about a $230,000 difference, $100,000 of which is for personnel. Rettig asked if Claiborne had previous direction to do this although the Board has not finally decided that. Claiborne confirmed this, and he said he is sure they will need to hold one more meeting before the State form is due.
Stutsman asked if there is anything else the Board needs to discuss for the Rural Basic Fund. Hackathorn explained to the Board that maintenance and construction go hand in hand. He said if the Board puts more money in maintenance and lets construction go, then he is spending all the maintenance money to repair the holes in roads that are in really bad shape. Hackathorn restated that they go hand in hand. Neuzil said that hopefully there will be some extra maintenance money from not having to do 120th Street in Shueyville. Stutsman said she thinks that Parker can look for other ways to fund construction, such as applying for stimulus funds. Parker said that Secondary Roads is fairly proactive on that, but they will actively try to gain any additional fund sources for any construction and maintenance activities.
Stutsman agreed with Hackathorn and said that he is exactly right even though the Board does not like to be reminded of this reality. Rettig said she is not a road engineer, so she does not know when it no longer makes mathematical sense to repair a road instead of rebuild it. She said she relies on Hackathorn and Parker to tell her when maintenance is no longer a financially feasible option. Parker said he agrees with Rettig, but when the State transferred jurisdiction of all of the 20 some miles to the County, it was not a part of Secondary Roads’ plan five years ago. He said they did not get a pittance of the amount of money from the State to cover the construction they are spending on these roads. Parker said they still have the Herbert Hoover Highway to consider as one of the Transfer of Jurisdiction roads (TJ), and that will be a phenomenally expensive project.
Parker said before they had the TJs, Secondary Roads was in the mode where they were looking at maintaining and covering the construction activities. Once they received the TJs, it changed everything. Now they are spending all their money on the State TJs, which were in atrocious shape when they received them. Parker said this has completely thrown a wrench into Secondary Roads’ standard planning for construction, and it has been difficult.
Stutsman said she is scared the State will give the County even more TJs, such as Highway 1 and Highway 6, and she bets the State can justify it. Parker said there is always the possibility that the County could receive more State transfer jurisdiction roads, and they may be back to square one again. He said the County is looking at somewhat of a dim sunny day for future projects that will be phenomenally expensive. Parker said construction is going up 20% to 30% annually, and Secondary Roads cannot keep up with it.
Neuzil said that maintenance, construction, and employee salaries cannot increase each year without taxes doing the same in some regard. He said that is the problem with this, because for four or five years, the Board has always done the minimum transfer. Neuzil said that doing only the minimum transfer eventually catches up, and with the State of Iowa doing what it did, it has caught up. Stutsman said she thinks there is a real movement of people who are tired of their taxes going up, and she said it is going to be tough. She said that people do not understand all of the details that the Board knows, but instead just see the bottom line on their tax bill. Sullivan said that there are so many complaints about particularly gravel roads, and there are so many complaints about taxes, but taxpayers cannot have it both ways. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said that Neuzil pointed out that this budget really only has two things in it, and that is just the way it is. Stutsman said a lot of good points have been made about this topic and how difficult it is. Parker thanked the Board for their time and consideration, and said that the department greatly appreciates their positive comments and help.
Facilities Manager David Kempf said he prepared the payroll worksheet, but he forgot to include it in his decision package. He said he and the Board have talked about it several times. It includes whether the Board will fund a part-time secretary/administrative position. Kempf said that the Board has currently approved this position on a temporary basis, and his request is to make that a position within the department FY10-11 budget.
Stutsman stated that Kempf did not include a dollar amount for the position. Kempf said he had that in his other document, and the preliminary amount he had from Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek was a rate of around $14 an hour. Kempf said he put this request together quickly this morning because it came to his attention that he neglected to take care of it. Rettig asked if he already has a person working. Kempf replied there is a temporary employee that he hired from an agency to help him with a few projects like the key card project and some bills. He said the person is needed to try to alleviate some of the paperwork that has gotten him bogged down, and he thinks he is the only department in the County that does not have any type of support staff of that type. Rettig asked if the request was for a half-time position.
Harney said they initially supported the position to get Kempf caught up on the building of the HHS building and the parking, and he asked if there will be enough work to keep a part-time employee busy. Kempf replied that he is not caught up, and there would be more than enough work to keep a part-time person busy. He said there are many things he would like to have the employee work on, but the window of time that he had requested for the position is ending. Kempf said he is funding the position out of his existing budget, and he does not have an unlimited budget to keep the position filled, so he would like to bring somebody back on as an employee in July, 2010.
Neuzil said he is hesitant on agreeing to the new position, as the Board has said no to other positions. He said he knows there is a need, and he does not know if the temporary position can continue to work until the Board gets things sorted out. Neuzil said that Human Resources (HR) has a half-time employee and the Auditor’s Office was talking about adding some clerical help. Kempf said he would have absolutely no problem working with one of those employees as a shared position. Kempf said when he originally came to the Board with the request and they approved the temporary position, HR had just hired a part-time person. He said the Board was reluctant to have that person fill those hours in Facilities Planning because they did not want that person to think that they were in a permanent full-time type of position. That is why the Board elected to go with the temporary employment agency. Stutsman asked if these duties are strictly clerical duties. Kempf said they are clerical duties for the most part, such as paying bills and doing filing. He said the person does need to have a certain level of computer skills, but most people who perform those functions today have the skills to learn computer programs.
Sullivan said he can think of at least one existing position where a full-time employee does not have enough work to keep them busy on a full time basis. He said he thinks there is an alternative where an existing County employee could do the job. Sullivan said he does not know if this is a perfect solution, but he would rather look at this option before adding a new position. Stutsman agreed. Kempf said he knows he is guaranteed not to get an employee if he does not ask. He said he knows that his workload over the course of time that he has been with the County has grown exponentially compared to the position he was originally hired for. Kempf reiterated that Facilities Planning is the only department within the County that has no support staff of any kind as far as that goes. Kempf said it does not matter the size of the department, but his is the only department within the County that has no type of support like that. He said he is pleading his case.
Harney suggested sharing one full-time employee between two departments so that Kemp's budget would pay for half of that position and whoever else pays the other half from their budget. Kempf said he is absolutely willing to work with any other department that is looking for a part-time person. He said he is ideally looking for someone to work 16 to 22 hours a week, and this could be adjusted accordingly depending on what another department may need.
Sullivan said he feels like there is at least one place where existing County employees could spare ten hours of work for Kempf. Sullivan said he knows that is not a perfect plan, but it would help Kempf, and it might bridge a gap. Kempf agreed. Stutsman said it sounds like the Board is interested in getting Kempf some help, but they are not sure how to go about it. Kempf said he is OK with that. Sullivan suggested that this position go on the list of decisions the Board needs to make but are not quite there yet. Stutsman said that Kempf could continue with the temporary employee, and if his budget gets tight, the Board can find some funds.
Kempf said he is somewhat in the same position as Parker, because some of his budget is weather driven and static. He said that fortunately, everything is in pretty decent repair right now. Kempf said he knows using a temporary employee is not a permanent solution, but he said it is cost effective right now. He said that going through a temporary agency is probably cheaper than adding a County employee at this time. Stutsman agreed, and said this is not a permanent solution either. Kempf said he is realizing more and more that this is a need that the department could benefit from, and he said he probably should have asked before now.
Recess at 12:27 p.m.; reconvened at 12:52 p.m.
Claiborne said he wants the Board to see where they are at with Capital Expenditures. He said that they also need to cover Block Grants 20 because that was put on hold from the last meeting. Claiborne said that the MH/DS budget was not ready yet. Claiborne said he has the current personnel numbers in the budget, but if he does not have their final budget by January 27, 2010, then he has to use the non-personnel numbers from the previous year. Claiborne said he and the Board have to keep moving forward. Claiborne said he will also review bonding.
Claiborne asked the Board to open up the Department 85 spreadsheet. He said these numbers show where the County is at with the General Basic Fund. Claiborne said he included the Shueyville Road project and the $86,000 revenue coming back to General Basic and Department 18 because of their payback schedule. Claiborne said he will discuss the bonding later, but he said the Board wanted to keep last year’s amount of bonding the same as this year. He said the County is able to bond $1.464 million for Ambulance and other projects the Board is looking at. He said there is $1.826 million as operational in the General Basic Fund. With that in mind, Claiborne said that if the Board decides to approve any more initiatives the funding will come out of the $1.826 million.
Sullivan said he knows the Board has to be specific about bonding, and he asked about the $1.464 million. Claiborne said that amount needs to be broken down, and he said the Board can only go $1.2 million per project. Sullivan said he does not know how long the project for Ambulance will take, but he thinks the County will have an opportunity with the houses on Capitol Street. Stutsman asked if Sullivan means there will be an opportunity to sell the houses. Sullivan replied that he means there will be an opportunity to purchase the other houses that the County does not own yet. He said he thinks this is a project that makes sense, and its cost is probably in the $800,000 range. He said he thinks the Board ought to identify this as a possibility.
Claiborne said the Board technically has until mid-March to identify the projects before he files with the State. He stated this is a one year bond and whether it is two projects, including Ambulance and purchasing the houses, the Board has time to distinguish this. Claiborne noted that he can only do $1.2 million at a time, and then he has to get all the bonding information to Dorsey and Whitney Bond Counsel Bob Josten immediately. Sullivan said he thinks those houses are ripe for the picking, and if the Board approved that, it would leave enough funding to start the Ambulance project and finish it in a future fiscal year. He said the County is not that far along on planning anything for Ambulance anyway.
Claiborne said when he talked to Josten about the Rural Basic transfer, he found that the Board has to get any bonding information to him as soon as possible so there is enough time to prepare documents and schedule the Public Hearing. Claiborne said as soon as the Board identifies the projects, hopefully by January 27, 2010, he can move toward getting Josten the information he needs. Neuzil asked which projects Claiborne needs directions on right now. He said what he has heard so far are the Shueyville Road project, the purchase of the homes on Capitol Street across from the Jail, and the remaining amount to go toward Ambulance. Sullivan agreed that is what he would like to do. Sullivan agreed. Harney asked if the Board can list them, and asked if they have to be done if they are listed as possible bonding. Stutsman said that it does not have to be listed. Harney said he is thinking that the County will probably have some cash when they get rid of the Camp Cardinal Road site as well as the Old Public Health building, and that could help go toward the purchase of the houses.
Claiborne asked if $800,000 is the amount that will go towards the purchase of the houses. Sullivan said it is roughly $800,000. Stutsman asked if this amount is for all three of the houses. Sullivan said there are four houses. Stutsman asked if it would cost $200,000 per house. Neuzil said the County is purchasing all four. Claiborne asked if the Board wants him to identify $800,000 for the houses and the remaining $664,000 towards Ambulance. Sullivan said he thinks that makes sense, though he does not know how accurate that estimate is; he said he is just guessing.
Rettig asked what happens if the County bonds for the amount and the projects do not happen. Claiborne said when the County identifies a project for bonding, by law it has to happen. Stutsman asked how the Board can identify the $800,000 for houses because they have not even started negotiation for them. Neuzil said that the bonding authority wants to know what the purpose of the money is, and the purpose is to purchase the houses. Claiborne said that State law says the projects must be carried out in a reasonable period of time, which in this case means within two fiscal years.
Neuzil said the Board needs to make sure they craft the language so that it would allow them, if they were able to negotiate prices less than $800,000, to continue to use those dollars towards razing the houses, or something like that. He compared it to when the County bought the other two or three houses from the City and said they worded it in a certain way. Claiborne said if the Board bonds the $800,000, they have to buy the houses within two years. Rettig asked if the same would be true for bonding $664,732 for Ambulance, that within two years, the building would have to be complete. Claiborne said the County has to at least be making progress towards the project. Sullivan said, for example, progress would be spending money on an architect, and they would not even have to have a site chosen. Claiborne confirmed that the money just needs to be spent within the project.
Rettig asked about the $1.8 million of operational costs that is being bonded. Claiborne said that $1.8 million is just the available money in the General Basic Fund. Sullivan said that is the County’s reserve, and anything taken out of that means the County has less reserve. Rettig asked if that will go in Building Construction Reserve. Sullivan said it is General Operating Reserve for the County. Rettig noted that if she adds up the three numbers, she gets a total of $5.591 million. Claiborne said right. Neuzil asked if $75,000 will come out of this. Claiborne said this is true, so the available money in the General Basic Fund is $1.826 minus the $75,000 toward Trails. Neuzil asked if with what happened at the Joint Emergency Communication Center (JECC) meeting of January 22, 2010 will come out of this fund. Neuzil said it will come out of the General Supplemental Fund. Claiborne agreed, saying it is part of the transfer. Sullivan asked if the Board is okay with what they just discussed. Stutsman agreed.
Claiborne presented Block Grants Department 20. He said that to date, the Board has decided on $2,329,045 for the JECC budget, and the County gets reimbursed through the General Supplemental Fund for that. He said people for the local food initiative wanted to have that discussion when the Board was able to attend. Neuzil asked if the JECC asked for anything more than that request. Claiborne said right. Neuzil asked if this went up from last year. Johnson said it did. Stutsman asked if it went down. Harney stated that it was $.78 and it is $.75 now. Claiborne said JECC’s overall levy is comprised of three levies: the operating levy which is out of the General Supplemental Fund, the equipment bond which is out of Debt Services, and the building bond which is out of the General Supplemental Fund. Last year the total was $.6838, and this year the total is $.7084.
Claiborne reminded the Board that the agreement for JECC has a $.77 cap on the levy, so on both years it is under the cap. Sullivan asked what the current levy is. Claiborne responded that it is $.7084. Rettig said that changed since the Board saw the levy on January 19, 2010. Claiborne said the levy went down. He said originally the operating budget was going to be about $2,510,000, but JECC Executive Director Mike Sullivan was able to pare back their budget. Claiborne said the overall original levy was $.7418, but since M. Sullivan pared back the JECC budget, the levy is about $.04 less at $.7084.
Rettig asked if the JECC levy has a cap on it. Claiborne said per the agreement with the Board the cap is $.77. Rettig asked why the JECC is raising the level $.025. Claiborne replied that operational costs went up. He stated that the operating budget for FY10 was $2 million, and at that time they did not have a director and needed some funding to get the center operating. Now with a director and a little more knowledge of the operating costs, the JECC budget is now $2,329,000. Claiborne said the budget went up $329,045. Stutsman asked Claiborne to confirm how much the budget went up. Claiborne said $329,045. Harney said it is just under $400,000. Claiborne said they budgeted $2 million last year, and this year the budget is $2,329,045. Rettig said according to her math, JECC increased their budget 3.6%. She asked if this sounds correct. Claiborne agreed.
Harney said hopefully next year the levy can come down more, because JECC has a reserve of about $9 million. He said by the time they finish paying off the building and equipment, they should be left with between $4 and $5 million. Harney said that with their reserve and where they are at now, the JECC levy should come down more next year once they have the actual operating costs. Stutsman agreed. Rettig asked how many millions of dollars they will have in reserves. Harney said his estimate is there will be about $4 million. Sullivan said that the JECC levy this year is a 14% increase by his math. Rettig said she does not know how she got to her number of 3.6% which is why she asked. Sullivan said the budget was $2 million.
Stutsman asked why the Board is taxing for money if JECC is sitting on a $4 million reserve. Neuzil said right now they are sitting on a $9 million reserve. Harney said that is not all a reserve because they have to pay the building off. Harney said right now they have about $9 million, and they have to pay off the equipment and building. He said that there are still a few other things they need to do, but they should still end up with between $4 and $5 million after that is paid. Harney said this is the best estimate at this point.
Neuzil asked why the JECC thought they needed around a $4 million reserve after next year, when all of Johnson County does not even have that much reserve. Harney said that it was brought up that the County does not even have that much in reserve. Neuzil said the County has an $80 million budget and a $2 million reserve. Stutsman said she thinks that is just wrong. Rettig agreed. Stutsman said Governor Chet Culver passed a law telling the schools that they had to spend their reserves. Rettig said that the JECC has a 16.45% increase in their operating budget. Stutsman said this just does not make sense. Sullivan said it is a 16.5% increase without even talking about reserves.
Neuzil said as the County taxes on behalf of the JECC, there may potentially be a significant reduction in their tax asking beyond this year. He said it is unfortunate that the JECC does not consider that this year rather than having to do it later. Stutsman agreed. She said she gets nervous when somebody sits on $4 million in reserve, because when they have a lot of money they think they can spend it on whatever they want. Sullivan asked how many positions got approved for the JECC. Harney said one got approved. He added that the technology position got approved, and the other two got approved but with no authorization to hire. He said this is because they want to see if they really need the positions. Harney said if the positions are not needed, they will be eliminated.
Stutsman asked if there is a plan to spend that reserve. She asked if this bothers any other Board members besides herself. Sullivan said it bothers him, too. Harney said it does not bother him at this point. Rettig said she has been talking about this for a couple of months and getting yelled at for doing so, and she said she thinks it is outrageous. She said there is an increase of 16.5% in the operating budget and the JECC has more than double the reserves than the County has. Stutsman added that there is no plan for the reserves. She said to sit on a $4 million reserve with no plans is wrong. Sullivan said he is frustrated about that budget in the first place with the positions JECC is asking for. He said he would rather see how JECC could run without the additional positions, because he noted it has not operated yet.
Harney said one reason they budgeted for the positions is because the technology position is necessary to get things up and running. Neuzil said he thought the first hire beyond the executive director was a technology position, and now it sounds like an assistant to the executive director. Stutsman said she thought the position was for an assistant to the executive director/technology person. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil that is what it was. Rettig said the position is called a Systems Administrator. Sullivan said to him, that sounds like a technology position, so he does not understand why the JECC is hiring another. He added that for similar technology in Johnson County, Network Administrator Bill Horning has lots of other responsibilities besides that and spends a couple of hours a week on technology. Sullivan said he does not understand the necessity for JECC hiring another technology position.
Neuzil said these are all conversations the Board needs to have on another agenda, with another letter sent to the JECC Policy Board about the Board's concerns. He said all the Board is doing now is approving a budget. Stutsman agreed, and she said rather than letters, the Board just needs to have a meeting with the Policy Board. She said that obviously the message is not getting sent, and nobody else taxes for these things so they do not pay attention to it. Harney said he told the Policy Board that the Board of Supervisors is the one who takes the hit on that. Harney noted that the City of Iowa City has a huge reserve, and Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey could not believe that Johnson County did not even have $4 million in reserves.
Sullivan stressed he thinks the Board needs to have that meeting with the Policy Board, and they are going to have to talk about their continued involvement. He said it is frustrating because the Board cannot seem to get across what they want to happen with the JECC. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said his hands are thrown so high up in the air and he cannot understand how the Board can’t get its message through to the JECC Policy Board. Neuzil said it is strange that JECC wants an additional $329,000 increase when they are already sitting on what will likely be a $4 million reserve. That seems a little strange to him. Stutsman claimed it is more than strange, it is outrageous and just simply wrong.
Stutsman said today the Board is just approving this budget, so she would suggest that they put this topic on a Key Issues Meeting agenda and talk about how the Board of Supervisors wants to approach the Policy Board. Sullivan asked if the Board has any options. He said that the Policy Board passed something today, and he asked if the Board is stuck with it. Harney said they passed something but it has to go to Emergency Management for approval before being passed to the Board. Sullivan said that the Board has no right to say no to it, however. Stutsman said the Board basically has to provide a rubber stamp. Rettig noted that the Board has the right to move Emergency Management money out and not going to fund $60,000 of the truck. Sullivan said or they could not fund even more than $60,000. Harney replied that the Board cannot penalize Emergency Management. Sullivan said the Board is going to have to because he does not know what else the Board can do to deliver the message that this is not acceptable. Harney said Emergency Management does not have anything to do with the JECC.
Stutsman stated that the fiscal management of the JECC budget tells her that the JECC management staff knows that the Board cannot do anything but approve their budget and fuss about it. Sullivan said this is just unacceptable. Neuzil said one of the things the Board needs to do again in their budget cycle is to show taxpayers what the County taxes are with and without the JECC. He said this would make people aware of what is within the Supervisor's control and what is not. Neuzil said this needs to happen. Sullivan said he wants to have a meeting as soon as possible to talk about the Board’s continued involvement. He said he is just sick of this. Stutsman asked Johnson if this is on a Key Issues Meeting agenda, or if they wanted to put this on an Informal Meeting agenda. Johnson said the two JECC items currently on the Key Issues Meeting agenda are update and budget. He said the Board can talk about process and he can reword this. Stutsman said on an Informal Meeting it is televised. Sullivan said he would just as soon have it televised, because he wants people to understand that this is maddening. He restated that he does not know what else to do. Stutsman asked how many Board members would like to discuss this at an Informal Meeting. Rettig said sure.
Claiborne suggested the Board talk about the Iowa Valley Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Regional Food Initiative. Stutsman said she cannot stress enough how important she thinks this position is and how important it is for the County to be involved in it. She said this is due to many reasons. The Board has talked about economic development, and local food seems like the appropriate role for County government in economic development. Stutsman said that the County is not going to do what Iowa City Area Development (ICAD) is doing. She said ICAD provides economic development, and the County funds them. She noted that the County can do some things with local foods.
Stutsman said that the man, whose position this would fund, is marvelous in his job. His job is a grant-funded job, and the grant runs out in March or April. Stutsman said it will be a real loss to Johnson County and this whole area if RC&D Project Associate Jason Grimm moves on. She said Grimm has done wonders in getting the local foods initiative organized, coordinated, and moving forward. Stutsman said she went to the tri-county local foods meeting in Fairfield, and she said she was embarrassed. She said that Johnson County is the hotbed of liberal thoughts and progressive ideas, and she was embarrassed about how little the County is doing with local foods in this area. Stutsman said that Cass and Pottawattamie Counties are doing all kinds of things with local foods, and Johnson County is not doing anything. She said the reason for this is that there is not a person to coordinate it; there are many groups in Johnson County, but they are all doing their own thing and not collaborating with each other. Stutsman noted that Grimm is the person who is pulling everybody together, and he is doing it on a regional basis including Johnson County and Linn County. She said she thinks the Board needs to approach the topic of local foods on a regional basis.
Stutsman stated that she and Sullivan went to a meeting which addressed agriculture and one of the suggestions at the meeting was that local policy makers need to put things in place to keep people on the farm. Stutsman said that a local foods initiative is one way to fulfill this suggestion. She said there are many people wanting to produce local foods and farm, but they cannot do it. Grimm is the one who can bring people together to help them achieve these goals. Sullivan said Grimm could also guide people in how to start, because people at the meeting talked about startup costs being unmanageable.
Rettig asked if this topic is located on line 63 with the title reading Food Alliance. Claiborne said yes. Rettig asked what the request was. Stutsman said it was $15,000. Neuzil said he was hopeful that the Board was not increasing any of the Block Grants this year. He asked if they could find dollars in other line items that could go toward local foods. He said, for instance, the Rural Enterprise Fund has $5,000, and he asked if the Board could put this money toward local foods. He said there is a request for the Entrepreneurial Development Center, that he would rather see go toward local foods. Neuzil said Stutsman made a really good argument in favor. Sullivan asked if the Entrepreneurial Development Center was on line 66. Neuzil said yes. Neuzil suggested the Board zero out those line items and put them toward local foods. He asked if the Entrepreneurial Grant all got paid off at one time. Johnson said no, it is $5,000 a year. Neuzil said that it is still alive then.
Rettig asked if Claiborne put a holding pattern of $10,000 on the Entrepreneurial projects but did not actually commit to them. Rettig asked what line the Rural Enterprise Fund is on. Claiborne replied it is on line 52. Rettig said the money was not spent in 2009, and asked if there has been no money out of it so far in 2010. Johnson said there will be $1,500 for a brochure that the Johnson County Historical Society is creating. Neuzil said the Board initially set that fund up in response to a request for advertising for local foods, and he asked where the money for that came from. Sullivan said that is why the Board created this, in part. Neuzil asked if there was anything taken out of the Rural budget. Claiborne said the only thing in the Rural budget besides the libraries and is Social Service's neighborhood centers program. Stutsman said this included such places as Regency.
Rettig said she thinks the Board should do the local foods. She said she sees this as a huge economic development issue for the Johnson County area and a growing opportunity. She said she toured one farm this summer, and there were many people employed there who all said they wanted to be farmers. Rettig noted that their definition of farming is different than the farm Stutsman lives on, but she said she thinks this is a huge opportunity for the County that they should be contributing to.
Neuzil said $15,000 would then be added to line 63 to start, and he asked if the Board has an interest in zeroing out line items 52 and 66. He said he is interested in making those zero. Sullivan said he would like to keep something in 52. He said that almost every year that he has been on the Board, there has been a $500 or $700 expenditure that they want to make but do not have funds available. Sullivan said he thinks the Board could shrink line item 52 a little bit, but it seems that there is somewhat of an opportunity cost to not having some money that the Board can put toward these various things.
Johnson said there has not been a process, and the Economic Development Committee is working on a process. Rettig suggested, for example, the Board could make line 52 $3,000 and zero out line 66. She said that would be $15,063, and $2,000 of it is new money. She asked if that is where Sullivan is headed. Sullivan said something like that sounds right. Neuzil said it would actually be a $12,000 increase. Sullivan agreed, saying technically the $10,000 is new money anyway. Harney asked what the Board’s intent is for line 66. Neuzil said the intent of line 66 was to give the Economic Development Committee and opportunity to listen to entrepreneurial centers or other entrepreneurial projects and make a donation to them. Johnson said that he recalls the Board was presented with a request for $20,000 or $25,000 per year from the group who presented to the Board, and the Board was thinking to give them $5,000, and have another $5,000 for other entities.
Neuzil said in the FY12 budget, the $20,000 on line 50 will be coming off. He said that might give the Economic Development Committee additional dollars that the Board could allocate toward local foods. Neuzil noted that FY11 is the last year of funding that $100,000 capital campaign. He said that would give the Economic Development Committee some additional room to put towards more local food initiatives, Entrepreneurial projects, or other economic development initiatives in FY12. Stutsman said she thinks there are tremendous opportunities.
Claiborne asked if the Board wants him to reduce line 52 to $3,000. Stutsman said she is okay with that. Rettig agreed. Sullivan said he thinks that amount would still be adequate for anything the Board has been asked to do. Claiborne asked if the Board wants him to do anything with line 66. Neuzil said he would like that to be zero. Stutsman, Harney, and Rettig agreed. Neuzil said he would rather put it toward the RC&D project than the Entrepreneurial project. Claiborne asked the Board if they want $15,000 applied to line 63. Harney asked if the intent for this funding is to go only to RC&D or to various food initiatives. Stutsman replied that the $15,000 would just go to funding Grimm’s position at RC&D. She said that last year Linn County has put in at least $15,000, if not more. She said Johnson County would just be helping to fund his position.
Harney asked if Grimm is doing both Johnson and Linn County or just Linn County. Stutsman said that he is primarily working with Johnson and Linn Counties but also the six counties with RC&D, including Poweshiek, Iowa, and Tama Counties. Sullivan told the Board that since Claiborne had a $10,000 placeholder there, they basically spent $3,000 of new money. Stutsman said it is $2,000 of new money. Sullivan asked if that is correct. He said the $1.775 million is now $1.771 million.
Claiborne said the Board basically covered bonding in Department 85. Neuzil asked if Claiborne has the new number for the cost of the Shueyville Road Project from Parker. Claiborne confirmed this. He said they did a three year bond for the Shueyville Road Project, a one year bond for the ambulance building and the houses. He said it is the same levy as last year. Neuzil said that some of those dollars would come off and give room for Conservation the following year. Claiborne said right. Rettig asked if the Debt Service Levy would be exactly the same as last year. Claiborne said yes.
Claiborne said he and the Board need to meet again on January 27, 2010, when he will have a final packet of the budget for their review. Neuzil asked if at the January 27, 2010 meeting, the Board will know what page 11 is going to look like. Claiborne said absolutely. Claiborne said the final budget meeting will be on January 27, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Claiborne said after this meeting, he will have to get the State Form done and in for publishing. Johnson said that the Key Issues Meeting scheduled for January 27, 2010 has a full agenda. The Board agreed to a 1:30 p.m. start time for the Budget Meeting.
Claiborne asked if the Board is comfortable with not having the laptops at the final budget meeting since he will have a hard copy of the budget packet. He asked if they feel like they have looked at enough history at this point. Sullivan and Stutsman agreed. Rettig asked if there is any way for Claiborne to email out the packet for her to look at before the meeting if he has it completed. Claiborne said he could. Harney asked if the Board will have a hard copy instead of the computers. Claiborne confirmed this and said he can email the packet to them and they can print it in advance.
Adjourned at 1:29 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary