MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 25, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FY11 Budget Work Session.................................................................................................... 1
Block Grants/Joint Emergency Communications Center (Department 20)....................... 1
Other................................................................................................................................... 18
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:04 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Stutsman said that everyone should have gotten by email a copy of the budget request from the Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC). R. Sullivan said he has a lot to say on this subject and he is not even certain where to start. He said the JECC budget is a 16.5% increase. Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne said that he received some new information after the Budget Meeting on January 22, 2010. He said that originally, the JECC levy was around $.7084. Then he was told that the JECC Board wanted to increase the levy to $.75. So that was a $225,356 increase. Claiborne said that before then, the number was $2,329,045, and now it is $2,554,401. R. Sullivan said that is higher than 16%, that is a 28% increase.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said last year's levy was at about $.77. Claiborne said that was in 2009. Then in this year the three levies were averaged together to arrive at $.6838. The three levies are the Debt Service Levy for equipment, and the General Supplemental Levy includes the operating fund and building bond payback. Pulkrabek said that the JECC Policy Board (Policy Board) did not have accurate information when they met on January 22, 2010. His understanding was that the levy was at $.77 and throughout the last couple of years they had been talking about how to get to a point where there would not be much fluctuation in the levy. Pulkrabek said when the budget was presented this year, the levy was set at $.708 for operations and Debt Service. He said that that included everything JECC Executive Director Mike Sullivan submitted for his budget request. Then a conversation occurred about the reserves on hand, and the consensus was that the reserve is about $5 million. There was a conversation about raising that reserve to $10 million. Pulkrabek said he publically opposed raising the reserve to $10 million because at that time it was his understanding that the County didn’t even have a $10 million reserve. Stutsman said the County’s reserve is not even $2 million. County Treasurer Tom Kriz said the County's reserve is just over $2 million.
Stutsman asked Pulkrabek if the Policy Board said why they wanted such a large reserve. Pulkrabek replied they discussed major expenses ten years out, and at that time, he said he reminded everyone that bonding would be the preferred method when planning for such large expenditures. He said all the entities agreed they would dip into the Tax Increment Financing money. That is why he felt the reserve did not need to be so large. Pulkrabek said his position was to reduce the levy to an amount that slowed the growth of the reserves but yet still put some money toward reserves. He said the Policy Board arrived at a consensus, minus one, himself, to lower the levy from what they believed was $.77 to $.75. Pulkrabek said his opinion was that the levy did not need to be greater than $.74. He was trying to lower the tax asking, however the Policy Board voted to set the levy at $.75.
Harney said the Policy Board doesn't know exactly how much money is in the Auditor’s Office records for the JECC. Specifically, they are told there is about $9 million. If that is the case, the JECC will use that to pay off the equipment bill, and some other bills totaling approximately $4.5 - $5 million. This leaves about $4 - $4.5 million in reserves. Harney said the operations cost was unknown and they had anticipated the JECC would have opened earlier this year. An operational budget of $2 million was requested last year and that should still be somewhere in the budget. If it is, that can be credited back and utilized in this year’s budget. But, Harney said, they don’t know what is there, how much, whether it can be utilized, or if it would come back in reserves for the County. Harney said they don’t know the balance with the Auditor’s Office.
R. Sullivan asked why the money wouldn’t be there. Harney said they are not able to get a definitive answer. R. Sullivan said he wouldn’t expect the Auditor’s Office to know to the penny what the amount is, but they could certainly say something like about $2 million if it is $1.9 million. Harney said they do not know what has been spent to date. R. Sullivan asked why they do not know. Stutsman said she is floored that people don’t know how much money they have in their budget. Harney said he would like to finish his comments. Stutsman replied that Harney is throwing around figures in the millions of dollars like it is fifty cents. Harney said he is telling the Board the facts and where the problem lies. He said the Policy Board needs to know what the balance is; it can’t prepare a budget based on estimates. Stutsman asked why Harney does not know what the balance is. Harney said the Auditor’s Office says it is about $9 million. Claiborne said his understanding is that one year ago, they originally bonded $11 million and $4.1 million. Since then, two large grants were received which totaled about $4 million of bond money that is available.
Harney said that is the other problem, the extra $4 million was bonded for equipment and the building. Therefore, it is designated and has to be spent on equipment or building. He asked, now that the County has been awarded the grants, does that allow them to spend that money. The County could make an early payoff on the bond, which will lower the balance, but the interest would still have to be paid. Harney said Kriz was going to check to see if the County could legally utilize the money for operations after July 1, 2010.
Kriz said that the County did receive the bond funds check. He said he consulted with Dorsey & Whitney LLP Bond Counsel Bob Josten and that the law is clear. The $4.1 million bond for the facility itself and the $11 million for equipment is very restricted. It is determined to be the County's money. It is not money that belongs to the JECC. Kriz said if it is not used for that purpose it can't be used for operations. It can however, be used by the County for another project along those lines, but the County will have to hold public hearings to determine the new purpose. Kriz explained that it still has to be used for buildings or equipment needs, since it went for the Federal tax exemption. Harney added that it could be used for the JECC. Kriz confirmed this. Pulkrabek asked if the funds could be used for land acquisitions. Kriz explained that they could, but only if the land acquisitions were done in conjunction with the JECC. Stutsman clarified the statement by saying that the County could do other things with the money, but it has to relate to the JECC. Kriz said that the County would still have to conduct public hearings and show they are shifting the money to keep the Federal tax deductibility.
Stutsman asked whether they could use the money for other things such as making a down payment on the Courthouse, or must it be related to the JECC. Kriz said the Board would have to designate the type of project and conduct public hearings. The only way that the money can be saved is if it is put in reserve to lower future years' Debt Levy. He reiterated that in order to stay within the Federal deductibility, any use of money from this source is very restricted. Harney said if the County kept the money set aside, they could make payments towards the bonds and not tax for it. Kriz clarified that the County would not tax for it until the money is used.
Rettig said that in the FY11 levy, $.0826 is for the building bond and $.1959 is for the equipment bond. She said that there is approximately $.2770 for the Debt Service Levy. Rettig expressed that the County could use the $4 million to pay the debt. Claiborne said that would be $1.6 million per year between the two bonds. Kriz said that if there were $4 million, it should cover about three years of Debt Service. R. Sullivan explained that the County does not actually gain anything from paying ahead. Kriz said that is true, but the Board could reserve it so that each year the County would have the funds instead of taxing accordingly. Rettig said that she was under the impression that bond proceeds are not allowed to be reserved. Kriz replied that there is a two year period of time given to complete the project. The only way that the County can hold onto that money is to earmark it for debt reduction.
R. Sullivan said that he is frustrated to find this out now. Pulkrabek said that there is a distinction that needs to be made between the two sets of money. One amount of money was left over from the current year's operations and the other money is from the Debt Service. R. Sullivan said he is upset about both. Rettig asked if the 28E Agreement sets the maximum amount for the levy at $.77. Pulkrabek said that might be. Claiborne said he did not read the 28E Agreement but thinks it is not stated. Stutsman and Rettig said they did not see it in the 28E Agreement. Pulkrabek said that it may have been left out to preserve flexibility for the Policy Board. Claiborne said that in talking with M. Sullivan, the $.77 was a spoken agreement.
Rettig said the problem with using the $4 million to offset the bond levies is that the JECC Policy Board could raise their operating budget to hit the $.77 levy. The Board could divert the money and not tax for it, and the JECC could still increase their operations to tax higher because of room created in the $.77 cap. Her concerns about this are based on the 27.72% increase in the operating budget from $2 million in FY10 to $2.5 million in FY11. Another issue is that the JECC isn't operating yet even though $2 million was set aside for operating expenses in FY10.
Harney said money should have only been spent for the wages and benefits of staff currently working there. Rettig said money would also have been spent on electricity and similar expenses. Only about $300,000 of the $2 million has probably been spent so she assumes there is approximately $1.7 million moving into FY11. Harney said that is what the Policy Board doesn’t know. R. Sullivan asked Harney why they don't know, and said the Policy Board should have that information. Stutsman said Kriz should be on the Policy Board because it is obvious that the current members do not have a handle on money issues. She said it is inexcusable for the Policy Board to talk in generalities and not know what they can do with the money.
Deputy Auditor Dana Aschenbrenner said Kriz told him the Board has questions about how much money is attributable to the JECC. In mid October, he calculated that the County was holding about $11.5 million attributable to the JECC. Neuzil asked if it is difficult to determine the balance. Aschenbrenner said no, it is a fairly easy task. Neuzil said he thought so, and asked Aschenbrenner if he would provide the current balance to the Board because the JECC is making a request with apparent uncertainty of the amount available. Aschenbrenner said yes. Harney said the Board needs to know how much money is in the operational fund and how much is left in the bond payment monies. Aschenbrenner said he considers it as one pool of money, but he can break out the bond proceeds verses the levy taxes. Harney said the separate amounts are needed because there are restrictions on bonding versus operations. Aschenbrenner said the capital and operational expenditures will also have to be separated.
Rettig said she thinks the Board needs this information. They need to know exactly what amounts remain in each fund because the bond proceeds could potentially be used for something else. Aschenbrenner said he doesn’t know if monies borrowed specifically for capital expenditures can be converted for operational use. R. Sullivan said they understand that Aschenbrenner can’t answer that question, but the Board would like him to provide the fund balances. He said he would have assumed the information was requested before the JECC budget was prepared. Stutsman agreed. Aschenbrenner said M. Sullivan may have considered the total amount of money not realizing there were implications for its future use.
Kriz clarified that the money can be spent on other things, but only within restricted categories, which include buildings and equipment, anywhere within the County. Rettig asked if road expenditures would be acceptable. Kriz said he will consult legal counsel, but he thinks that as long as the road serves the JECC, it might fall within the building fund. Rettig asked if use of the money has to serve the JECC. Kriz said yes, unless the Board of Supervisors holds public hearings to designate it differently. Rettig asked how likely a possibility that would be. Kriz said he thinks it’s possible, but he is still trying to analyze the details since he first heard about this late Friday afternoon.
Rettig said she thinks it’s important because this will otherwise impact the County budget and raise the levy $.07 or $.08 at a time when the Board told all departments to hold the line, hoping to hold or reduce taxes. If $4 million could be diverted from this project to other projects the County was already going to bond for, she is interested in doing so. She said if they just don't levy this amount, it will create a swing and also create room in the cap, which would allow the JECC to continue operating irresponsibly.
Harney said M. Sullivan is also uncertain about potential uses of the money since it was bonded specifically for buildings and facilities. He said M. Sullivan had the impression that the Auditor’s Office was going to provide a check to the JECC for the amount of money that was not spent, and that didn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Aschenbrenner said it was his understanding that the JECC funds are segregated from the County's funds and that the County has no claim to them. The assumption was any remaining moneys would be remitted to the JECC when it becomes operational on July 1, 2010. Rettig stated only from the operating dollars, not from the bond dollars. Aschenbrenner said that was not his understanding. Kriz said this was new news late on January 22, 2010.
Neuzil said a question for Josten is if there is a segregation of dollars, particularly those the County has bonded for, for anything but operational, does the Board of Supervisors or the JECC have authority over that money. Kriz said it is clear that the Board of Supervisors has the authority. Neuzil said that must be communicated to members of the JECC Policy Board. Stutsman asked Neuzil to clarify his comments. Neuzil said there are three separate funds: one is for operational expenses, one for communication expenses, and one for the bonding of the building. The bonding of the building and the emergency equipment is under the authority of the Board of Supervisors rather than the JECC Policy Board; therefore, the Board of Supervisors has budgetary authority to determine how to spend the money.
Neuzil said given that the FY10 allocation was not $.77, but instead $.6838, does anyone think the JECC Policy Board should reconvene to consider resetting the request closer to $.6838. Pulkrabek said he supports reconvening because the Policy Board did not have that information. In addition, he does not recall any conversations about the amount of money left over in the operational fund or any plans for use of the money. Harney said he does not think it was discussed. He talked to M. Sullivan privately, and M. Sullivan had the impression it would stay with the County until it was transferred. Harney said M. Sullivan was basing the budget on the $2 million operational budget for FY10. He thinks M. Sullivan thought it would cost $2.5 million to actually operate in FY11.
Emergency Management Coordinator Dave Wilson said he thinks the request to reconvene is reasonable because they were inaccurately working under the assumption that the levy was $.77. He has never heard any other number. Had they known it is currently $.68, they would have chosen to hold it there. Neuzil said he thinks the request should be forwarded to the Policy Board. Stutsman asked if the Board should specifically give direction that the levy should be held at $.68. Neuzil said he thinks the Policy Board members should know that the Board of Supervisors asked other departments to live within last year's budget. He also thinks it is a reasonable request and it sounds like that is what the Policy Board was trying to do, it's just that they had some misinformation. Harney agreed that is what they were trying to do. However, they did not consider the additional operational money either because they didn’t have enough information.
Pulkrabek said the JECC will not be able to operate within their budget because they are increasing the number of positions. Neuzil said the Board of Supervisors funded nearly $2 million for operating expenses for FY10. Likely there is a $1.4 or $1.5 million surplus in operating expenses available right now. Adding $2 million to that would put the operating expenses budget at $3.5 million, so the buffer already exists because only two employees have been hired. Neuzil said Aschenbrenner will be able to provide that information showing how much is left in operating expenses and therefore taxing would not be necessary.
R. Sullivan said he thinks there are other important things to consider. He thinks the current reserve amount is ludicrous. R. Sullivan asked if the radio purchases for Hills Fire, Iowa City Police, and Johnson County Ambulance are a one-time expenditure. Harney said the Policy Board voted otherwise, though he disagreed with the decision. R. Sullivan asked if Harney voted against it. Harney said yes, he told the Policy Board he did not approve of it. R. Sullivan said all the votes seem to be six to one. Pulkrabek explained that the JECC is buying a couple of radios for fire and first responders that are based out of the County but have sections within the County. An example is the West Branch Fire Department, which has a large fire district within Johnson County so it benefits County taxpayers.
Rettig asked if the cost of a couple of radios totaled $900,000. Pulkrabek said no, not for two radios. Rettig said Johnson County taxpayers are paying $900,000 for all the departments outside the County. Stutsman claimed that Cedar County taxpayers are benefiting from those radios and asked if they helped contribute to their cost. Pulkrabek explained that the radios will not be used for calls within Cedar County. Stutsman asked why. Pulkrabek answered because they are not on the Cedar County system. Stutsman asked if they will be used solely for Johnson County residents. Pulkrabek and Wilson said yes.
Pulkrabek explained that this has to be an ongoing expense in order to maintain the compatibility and control of the radio system. As a result, the cost of replacement radios will come out of the JECC budget instead of individual department budgets. He said other entities may try to build a large surplus and request additional radios for new projects, but they will hopefully work to ensure that doesn’t happen. Harney said he supported a one-time purchase of radios for other entities, but the Policy Board wanted to ensure standardization and prevent the purchase of inferior products.
R. Sullivan asked if the Policy Board voted on this and if so, what the vote was. No one at the meeting could recall so R. Sullivan said he would like to see the minutes from that meeting. Stutsman said it was her understanding that the Policy Board is going to buy sirens for individual communities. Wilson said that is inaccurate. Stutsman asked who is buying the sirens. Wilson clarified that no one is buying sirens. Every siren has a radio in it, and the radio that is in the siren must be replaced. These are replacement radios and they cost $550 each. There are 48 sirens that will get a replacement radio. Wilson replied to R. Sullivan's question about how the vote went, which was four to three. R. Sullivan asked how each person voted. Wilson replied he voted against it, Harney voted against it, and he thinks Pulkrabek voted against it also.
R. Sullivan said $11 million was bonded for equipment and he wondered if that includes towers and the base equipment which also includes the radios. He asked what part of the $11 million is for radios. Harney said he would have to get a breakdown before he could answer R. Sullivan's question. Rettig asked where the radio's are reflected in the new budget she has in her hand.
R. Sullivan asked why the Policy Board would even want $10 million in reserve. Harney said that at least $5 million of that will be paid out on current bills. Harney replied that it won’t be $10 million in reserve. R. Sullivan said that the eventual goal that the Policy Board voted for was for a $10 million reserve, and he asked again, why they want that amount. Harney replied he does not know. R. Sullivan asked Harney why he voted for that large a reserve if he did not know why the Policy Board wanted the money. Pulkrabek said a $10 million reserve was voted on, but he did not know why the Policy Board wanted that amount and he did not vote for it. R. Sullivan said that if the whole project cost $11 million including towers, which most likely would not need to be replaced in a seven or eight year period, then how in heaven's name is it necessary to put that same amount of money into reserve again.
Pulkrabek noted that equipment, which would cost even less, would be more likely to be replaced than the towers. R. Sullivan said he understands that, and he thinks that a reserve of $1 million or even less could be sufficient. He said the goal of the JECC Policy Board to have a $10 million reserve is insane. Wilson said that that the Harris Radio System contract was $11.6 million. R. Sullivan asked what is included in that. Wilson replied that all the devices including the radio equipment, racking, microwave, the towers, and the entire radio infrastructure is included. He said that there has been no firm decision that there will be a $10 million surplus. Rather, he said the firm decision was that there was supposed to be a surplus, and that they did not want to adjust the levy up. He said the Policy Board thought they were lowering the levy from $.77 to $.75, when in actuality was $.68.
Claiborne said that for one year now, since the public hearing was held, the $.68 levy has been public knowledge and this information has been on the County’s website. Rettig emphasized that just because there is a cap on the amount they can levy does not mean that there is a cap on what the Policy Board should do. She said that the budget should reflect what is necessary, not what is wanted. She said that no one in Johnson County has the opportunity to get everything they want. She noted that certainly the Sheriff's Office wants much more than the County can promise right now. Rettig said the budget should have been created to represent what it actually costs to operate.
Rettig asked how many dispatchers there currently are between the City of Iowa City and the County combined, what is their management structure, and how many Information Technology employees are actually needed to run the center. She said the right way to create a budget is not based on what people are willing to give, but rather on what is actually necessary to operate. Rettig stated this 27% increase is outrageous, and therefore she is interested in reviewing everybody’s budget to find the extra money. She said she would be curious to start at Emergency Management, where she knows there is a $150,000 Block Grant and $60,000 for a vehicle. Rettig expressed that she will be looking for a place to cut $500,000 from the County's budget to replace this if the Board moves forward.
Stutsman explained to Wilson that the understanding the Board received from the JECC Policy Board was that the reserve was at $4 million with the goal of eventually increasing it to $10 million. She asked if JECC Executive Director Mike Sullivan was aware of this meeting, and asked why he was not in attendance. Pulkrabek said he will not come to any meeting of this sort because the Policy Board will say that he cannot be expected to go to each entity involved in this project. Stutsman asked if he is kidding, and Pulkrabek replied he is not kidding. Rettig stated that the Board of Supervisors is their taxing entity. Pulkrabek said that the Policy Board had concluded that they would then have to ask M. Sullivan to go to Iowa City, then to North Liberty, and then Coralville.
R. Sullivan declared he just wants to get out of this then. He said the $10 million penalty that the County will pay to get out of the Agreement is well worth it because the County is putting away that much money anyway. Stutsman said she does not think there is any penalty but it will just take time to get the four other entities on board. R. Sullivan said this is so absurd and he cannot believe how badly it has gone. He said that a great idea has been run into the ground with terrible management. R. Sullivan expressed that the idea that JECC needs 100% in reserve is just stupid. He asked what in heaven's name are five administrative positions going to do. Pulkrabek said that the User Advisory Committee recommended that those positions be added, and he said that many on the Policy Board took that to mean that they should endorse the idea. He views the User Advisory Committee is the group who presents the best case scenario, and in his opinion, the Policy Board is supposed to be the realist. Pulkrabek said he spoke out against those positions and was voted down six to one. He said that it is too early to know if a couple of those positions are needed. He explained to the Board that he feels he is taking the heat for this even though he was the one to vote against it.
Harney said that he voted to keep those positions in the budget but not to fill two of them. Stutsman said that does not mean anything. Harney explained he voted this way because he wants the operation to proceed and to actually work. He said that if those positions are ultimately not needed, the Policy Board will have to decide whether to actually fill those positions. R. Sullivan said that nonetheless, Harney voted to spend the money. Harney said no, but just to have it available if needed. R. Sullivan explained that Harney had at least voted to tax for it, and that is the problem. Harney said the problem boils down to the fact that the Policy Board did not know how they could use the bond dollars, and are currently just finding out. Stutsman agreed that it is a serious problem they didn't know before now. R. Sullivan declared that the Policy Board shouldn't just be finding out now. Neuzil noted that it is strange that the Policy Board would choose not to approve the positions, but yet still approve the funding within the budget. Neuzil said the normal process is that if something is funded in the budget, it is because it is needed. Harney said it is in the budget because it appears as though it will be needed. R. Sullivan said that the nameplates are already mounted on the doors. Neuzil said that the decision should be made during the budget process whether to fund something, and if people will be taxed for it, then it should be used accordingly. He suggested the Board of Supervisors create a list of requests because they have many concerns and questions. Stutsman said the issue is for the Policy Board to reconvene and trim the budget to a reasonable amount. R. Sullivan said the Board can ask them to reconvene and they will vote six to one to proceed with their plans anyway.
Stutsman said the issue is that the Policy Board somehow did not have accurate information at their last meeting. With that in mind, she said she thinks they need to reconvene with the accurate information and review the budget, keeping in mind that the Board of Supervisors is very unhappy with what has been presented. R. Sullivan explained that he sent the Policy Board members emails and has attended the JECC meetings since the very first one, but he has not gotten any feedback from anyone. He said the five administrative positions in this budget are outrageous, and the taxpayers should be up in arms about this.
Wilson said he thinks the Policy Board would be willing to reconvene to hold a discussion about the accurate levy amount and what should be done. He said that the Capital Reserves number of $10 million had been discussed, but was not decided on as a firm amount. Wilson explained the goal was to get through the first year of operations to learn what the real costs were, and then decrease the levy further. Unfortunately, the Policy Board found out that the bond cannot be paid off early, which is disappointing to everyone. R. Sullivan said Kriz told the Board that a long time ago, and the Policy Board should have know that, and he doesn't understand how the Policy Board does not know about the bond pay off. Harney responded that the Policy Board does know. R. Sullivan replied that Harney had just said the Policy Board does not know. Harney said he told them himself. R. Sullivan exclaimed that somehow it's not been communicated correctly, and that it's unacceptably poor management. Wilson said the Policy Board heard that the bond cannot be paid off early on January 22, 2010. Pulkrabek said he knew about it three or four months ago.
R. Sullivan said that Kriz attended the Board of Supervisors meeting to explain the situation when it arose. Claiborne added that a public hearing was also held at that time and the information is public knowledge. R. Sullivan said that this should have been communicated to the Policy Board. He emphasized that he doesn't know whose fault this is, that it certainly isn't his fault, and that the people who are supposed to be running the JECC are not running it properly. R. Sullivan said somebody should take responsibility and he thinks the responsibility might fall on the shoulders of at least a few employees and seven Board members.
Stutsman asked if the Board of Supervisors would like to move forward by telling the Policy Board to reconvene within the next two days. R. Sullivan said he doesn’t think they’re open to the Board’s opinions. Stutsman said she thinks then, that the Board of Supervisors may need take the next step and begin budget cuts. Pulkrabek said he thinks the Policy Board should try to meet this week. Stutsman said the Board of Supervisor’s last budget work session is scheduled for January 27, 2010, so the Policy Board needs to meet between now and then. Claiborne added that the FY10 Mental Health/Disability Services (MH/DS) budget will be used for FY11 if he does not receive the proposed budget by the afternoon of January 26, 2010. Stutsman agreed.
Rettig said she wants to scoop the $4 million. Stutsman suggested they let the Policy Board meet before they discuss it. Rettig replied that she wants to do it regardless. She does not want the money available for the JECC to spend on whatever they want. She thinks the County should spend it on other debts and projects. Stutsman said the Board of Supervisors will then need to discuss the public hearings process if they decide to do so.
Pulkrabek suggested that it may be best for the official meeting request to come from Executive Assistant Andy Johnson. Stutsman replied that the request comes from the Board of Supervisors. She said it will be done both ways; Pulkrabek, Wilson, and Harney will request a meeting and the Board of Supervisors will send a letter. Pulkrabek said they essentially need to hold an emergency Policy Board Meeting on January 26, 2010.
Claiborne said Josten said the $4 million can only be used for the JECC bonds if it is put in the Debt Service Fund. He said it cannot be used for other bonds. Harney asked if the other Supervisors want to use the $4 million to pay the bonds over the next three or four years and not significantly reduce the tax levy or if they want to take the money and use it for something else.
Rettig said she is not interested in using the money to pay the bonds because a difference of $.19 plus $.08 would be created in the $.77 cap. As a result, there would be more opportunity for money to be wasted within operations due to the creation of a hole in the $.77. Harney responded that he does not see that happening. Rettig said the Policy Board just did that. Neuzil said he would not necessarily call it wasting money. R. Sullivan said he would. Neuzil said he thinks it is reasonable to ask the Policy Board to make a request closer to $.6838 with the knowledge that the levy was previously reduced to that amount. He said that Claiborne will need to give them the resulting amount for each fund, and Aschenbrenner will need to provide the amount currently available in each section so they know their balance. Neuzil said that no one is really thinking of keeping the levy at $.77, but instead at $.6838. Stutsman agreed, saying $.70 would be the maximum. Pulkrabek said that this is what he was looking for, a comfort zone from the Board. R. Sullivan said that the fallacy of establishing an upper limit is that all the money up to that point will be spent regardless of whether it is needed. He asked why an administrative assistant is included in the budget and what that person is going to do.
Stutsman said that a big problem is that there is not a numbers person on either the Policy Board or in the administrative end of this. She said it is just not right for this crisis to hit two days before the Board must set their budget, and so there needs to be a numbers person somewhere within the JECC administration. Stutsman suggested either the director or a Policy Board member step up to the plate because obviously there is a void. Neuzil said M. Sullivan is the numbers person. The department head is responsible for knowing the balance of their budget. R. Sullivan said he hopes M. Sullivan’s performance evaluation shows that he failed miserably in this case, because he should easily have known before the budget came out what is left over in building, equipment, and operations, and should know what that can and cannot be spent. Stutsman insisted that she does not want to hear any excuses about why people do not have the correct numbers. She emphasized that if people do not have the numbers themselves, they figure out how to get them, adding that they either keep track of the numbers themselves or find another way. Neuzil noted that Aschenbrenner said it is not an unreasonable request to ask for that information.
Rettig read the following statement from page three, section 13 of the 28E Agreement: "Johnson County agrees to certify the Emergency Management Levy necessary to fund the operations of the association, as determined by the budget adopted by the association." She said that below that statement, it reads "The Johnson County Emergency Management Commission acknowledges that it retains no independent authority over their Emergency Management Levy funds delegated herein." Rettig said she thinks those two statements conflict, and she will need to get an interpretation of this from Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell. R. Sullivan said Chappell wrote it and he has faith in Chappell's ability. Rettig said if that means the Board of Supervisors maintains authority over the levy it is a whole different matter. Johnson said he thinks the statements refer to the Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Commission as opposed to the association. Stutsman said the association is to the JECC. Neuzil said his understanding was that the line item of the particular budget would be included in the EMA budget. That is why the current EMA budget is approximately $13 million. Wilson said the money comes through Emergency Management because it was written that way in their 29C. They have no control over it, and it is just a pass through.
Pulkrabek replied to R. Sullivan's previous question about what an administrative assistant would do on staff. He said he thought a clerk's position would suffice. Some Policy Board members believed that person should be located near the front doors of the JECC to greet visitors, provide directions, and answer telephone calls. R. Sullivan argued it is a secure facility and people cannot enter the building. He asked who would visit the JECC anyway. R. Sullivan said there is no receptionist in the HHS Building, where the public traffic is more than 600 people daily.
Neuzil said he would like to communicate to members of the Policy Board that the positions should not be funded even if they are written down. He said that decision should be made during the budgeting process rather than after obtaining funding for them. R. Sullivan agreed. Stutsman asked what JECC members will do with the money if they do not fill the positions since it will have already been taxed for. Pulkrabek said the positions are already funded; they were funded with the direction not to fill them. Stutsman said that is her point. R. Sullivan asked if the other two Policy Board members present at the meeting have any justification for the administrative assistant position. Wilson said no, and that is why there was direction not to fill it. Wilson said the budget to fund the positions was voted on, but direction was given not to fill any positions without the approval of the Policy Board. Stutsman told Wilson that it makes no sense and asked why he approved the budget. Neuzil said it makes sense in a way. Although he doesn’t agree with everything in the County budget, compromises are made. Harney said he voted to fund the positions without filling them because the JECC will begin operations on July 1, 2010. Harney said that if they find the positions are necessary for operation, he wants to be able to fill them immediately.
Pulkrabek said direction was only given not to fill two positions, the administrative assistant and the operations manager. Authority was granted to hire the Information Technology position. Rettig read, quoting from the budget dated January 22, 2010, "Administrative assistant: hire pending budget approval." Rettig said it doesn’t indicate there is a hold on that position. Pulkrabek agreed and said that on the organizational chart, the term clerk is used to refer to the same position.
R. Sullivan said that from the very beginning, his opinion was that the Sheriff would operate the JECC with existing personnel. He said that too many new positions are being created; three lead dispatch positions which don't exist now, an executive director, an associate director position, a systems analyst, an operations manager, and an administrative assistant. He said that there are now eight management positions for the JECC when he previously strongly argued that it could have been run with existing staff from either the Iowa City Police Department or the Sheriff’s Office. He thinks the two current management positions and the three lead dispatch positions are more than enough. He urged the Policy Board not to hire any more employees because they are extraneous and not fair to Johnson County taxpayers.
Harney said he thinks R. Sullivan is misinterpreting the function of the lead dispatch positions. He said the role of those individuals is to oversee training and serve as the shift supervisors. Stutsman said Ambulance has those positions and the Sheriff’s Office probably has them as well. R. Sullivan said they don’t. Pulkrabek said there is not a shift supervisor for each shift.
Pulkrabek said the staffing plan for the JECC came from people who were contracted for that purpose. He said five to six dispatchers and one supervisor will be working at a time. With such a large system, he strongly supports having a shift supervisor over each shift. R. Sullivan said he doesn’t argue with that as long as there are not additional employees working as well. Pulkrabek said however, those supervisors will occasionally take vacation and other things will come up where they will not be at work, so much like the Jail and the Patrol Division, a supervisor is not always available. He said at times like this, hopefully a dispatcher with seniority will oversee the shift.
R. Sullivan said he doesn’t disagree with anything Pulkrabek just said. However, the additional layers of management are not needed; they do not currently exist in either the Sheriff’s Office or the Iowa City Policy Department. Stutsman said consultants consider ideal situations when they make recommendations. R. Sullivan said consultants do not have to answer to anyone, but the Board does. He said that there are already two positions in addition to the lead positions, and the current dispatchers are accustomed to working without lead people. He asked why any additional positions are needed.
Stutsman said she assumes the systems analyst position was recommended by the consultant. Pulkrabek said the recommendation came from both the consultant and M. Sullivan, who feels there is a lot of new technology that will need to be monitored. R. Sullivan argued that because the JECC bought extended warranties and contracts, the positions are duplicative. Pulkrabek agreed and said he spoke out against the position. He thinks the staff at Raycom will be contacted for the majority of problems. R. Sullivan said they also could have contracted for services from IT, the City of Iowa City, or the private sector.
Harney said he asked Information Technology Director Jean Schultz, and she told him she did not have personnel available for this. He said Network Administrator Bill Horning also told him he couldn’t do it. R. Sullivan said they are doing it now though. Pulkrabek said Horning told him he can occasionally help with problems; however, he thinks the Policy Board is seeking 24/7 coverage. They want duplication in case Associate Director/Systems Administrator Tom Jones is on vacation or otherwise unavailable. Neuzil said currently there is an executive director and an associate director/systems administrator. He clarified that the request is for a systems administrator to back up the systems administrator.
Stutsman said she thinks they should wrap things up. R. Sullivan said he still has a long list of items to cover. Stutsman acknowledged that R. Sullivan has much to discuss but said she doesn’t think this should go on without JECC Executive Director Mike Sullivan present. R. Sullivan said the Policy Board won't let M. Sullivan talk to them. Stutsman said she thinks they should have a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Policy Board. R. Sullivan said he hopes some of this discussion is printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen newspaper because the Policy Board needs to understand that taxpayers care about these issues. If there is an emergency meeting, he wants the members of the Policy Board to have a specific list of things R. Sullivan would like them to reconsider and he wants to go over his list now. Pulkrabek said he is willing to take R. Sullivan’s list and asked if he would email it to him. R. Sullivan agreed but said he would like to review the list for the public record now.
R. Sullivan said he thinks County Treasurer Tom Kriz should be a member of the Policy Board. He also thinks the meetings should have audio recordings because the minutes do not provide enough information. He said the Board of Supervisors need to know how much money is left over in the building, equipment, and operations funds. He thinks there should be a fund balance that does not exceed 10% of the reserve. Rettig said that is a lot of money. Pulkrabek said that amount is approximately $2.1 million. R. Sullivan said he thinks that is the maximum amount that should be in reserve, and it certainly shouldn't be $4 million or $10 million; it needs to be a heck of a lot lower. He said he thinks five administrative positions are adequate and he does not think there should be a systems analyst, an operations manager, or an administrative assistant. Not only does he think these positions should not be hired, R. Sullivan said he thinks those salary and benefit allocations should be pulled from the FY11 budget. R. Sullivan said a 28% increase is totally unacceptable, and he thinks the Policy Board needs to determine the service coverage details that have already been purchased.
Stutsman asked if there are at least two other Board members in agreement with R. Sullivan’s list so they can say it came from the Board of Supervisors. Rettig and Stutsman agreed with the list. Neuzil said he is not in agreement. Rettig said there is so much fat in the JECC budget and cited the following as examples: $14,000 for cleaning service, $60,000 for legal services and collective bargaining, $9,000 for letterhead, $5,000 for copy paper, $8,600 for spare PCs and monitors for brand new equipment that has already been purchased, $5,000 for uniforms, $800 for a 911 puzzle, $10,000 for training, conferences, and travel, and $3,000 for food and lodging. She noted that no one else in the County has this large of a travel budget. She repeated that every single line of this budget has so much fat in it. R. Sullivan asked for the current cost to train dispatchers. Pulkrabek said he doesn’t know off the top of his head. Rettig asked if the dispatchers are sent to training school. Pulkrabek said yes, they have to go to at least two different 40 hour schools for certification but a lot of the ongoing training is done in-house or on-line.
Stutsman said she thinks the 28E Agreement was written to avoid micromanagement by any of the entities, but she thinks the budget has been called to question. It is unfortunate, and she doesn’t think anyone intended it to happen. She said that obviously there is not enough trust from the Board to not get this involved at this level. She said she thinks they need to tell the Policy Board their concerns.
Harney said he thinks the recommendations of the User Advisory Committee are given too much merit. Although he understands that the members want a strong operation, he doesn’t think some of their recommendations should even be considered. R. Sullivan said Harney voted for the recommendations. Harney said he did not vote for all of them. Pulkrabek said he thinks giving best case scenarios is the role of the User Advisory Committee. However, the Policy Board then needs to make decisions with the knowledge of what they can afford. Stutsman said she thinks the User Advisory Committee should represent the taxpayers, and she doesn’t think the average taxpayer wants a Taj Mahal.
Neuzil said if the budget is not corrected in the next few days, by the time it must be published, it should be made clear to Johnson County taxpayers that the Policy Board, not the Board of Supervisors, is requesting a 27.72% increase. R. Sullivan said he wants to look at getting out of the agreement if the budget is not corrected because the County cannot afford this on an annual basis. Neuzil said he does not want Johnson County’s government to suffer as a result of the Board's response to the JECC Policy Board’s spending. A previous argument has involved whether Johnson County government should suffer as the result of a gigantic request made by either Conservation or the Policy Board. Rettig said 61% of the taxpayers voted for the Conservation Board Bond, but not a single person outside of the participating governmental entities voted for the JECC. If there is a $500,000 increase in the budget, she will be looking for $500,000 to cut somewhere else. Neuzil said he disagrees with Rettig's motive.
Harney said he thinks the budget will change considerably now that questions are being answered. Neuzil said he hopes so. Stutsman said she thinks it’s good that they have had this discussion, and she thinks it would be beneficial for the tape to be distributed to the other Policy Board members. R. Sullivan agreed and asked if it is possible since now audio files are electronic. Stutsman said she thinks they should do that so the Policy Board has a clear understanding of the Board of Supervisor’s concerns. R. Sullivan said he has brought up almost all of these concerns in the past, and no one seemed to care.
Harney said he thinks M. Sullivan would have attended this meeting if he was asked. Though M. Sullivan was told he does not need to attend all the meetings, Harney doesn’t know that he was specifically directed not to come.
Stutsman said she wants to clarify that she knows County residents want to have good emergency services, but she thinks there is a difference between services that are good and those that are far beyond what is needed for emergencies. That is why she used the name Taj Mahal. Wilson said he bristles when he hears it called a Taj Mahal because the JECC Building actually came in under budget, and it was built with a 50-year plan in mind. It was intentionally overbuilt to allow for future growth. He thinks it is an asset to the community because it is always cheaper to build something on the front end. Wilson said the offices have assigned room numbers, but they do not have names listed on them. R. Sullivan asked if the office nameplates have position titles printed on them. Wilson said only the occupied offices do, other than that the rooms are only assigned numbers. He said he thinks a lot of people should be applauded for their foresight regarding the construction of both the HHS Building and the JECC Building. Pulkrabek said he is very proud of the JECC. It had broad based support from elected officials and entities who said they wanted to build something that will last far into the future. He said he has been involved in the project for over five years, and it was actually downsized from the original plans. Pulkrabek said he thinks other entities will use the JECC Building as a model.
Stutsman said she is disappointed that people are not being charged for the training seminars at the JECC Building. Pulkrabek asked who should be charged. Stutsman said people from outside Johnson County. Pulkrabek said the annual Multi-Agency Training Seminar was held there, and it benefits the County. It would not make sense to charge a fee. Stutsman said all County departments are asked to offset their budgets by bringing in revenue, but the people participating in the training get a free ride.
Wilson said he has tracked the training from day one and plans to continue. The JECC has hosted over 1,000 hours of training for over 800 people. This is non-profit training related to public safety, public health, and even some of the elected officials have attended training. He stressed that these are grant funded programs and training courses that the County would otherwise have to send people elsewhere to receive. Training costs would significantly increase to include lodging, meals, and time away from work.
Stutsman asked if the 800 people that Wilson referred to earlier are all Johnson County residents. Wilson clarified that they were employees. Stutsman said she wanted to know if all the people being trained in the Johnson County facility were from Johnson County. Wilson said that other people, including those from Johnson County, were being trained there. Stutsman said her point is that Johnson County is providing free training to people from other counties in Iowa. Neuzil said that they do that all the time, though. Wilson said they hold classes that are multidisciplinary that Johnson County employees would have to attend elsewhere if the training wasn't available here. Stutsman said she understands and doesn't have a problem with that. She asked why the Johnson County taxpayers should pay for training for every county surrounding Johnson County. Neuzil asked if Stutsman was talking about hosting the training. Stutsman said yes. Neuzil clarified that they're not paying for the actual training, only for hosting the training.
R. Sullivan asked Wilson if the trainings are State trainings where the State simply needs a location to train in. Wilson replied that there are a variety of trainings that Johnson County law enforcement employees would otherwise have to travel for. R. Sullivan asked if the only cost associated with the training is travel. Wilson said yes, they are tuition free courses that are generally grant funded.
Neuzil stated that he attended PIO training in Waterloo and that he wasn't charged extra for using their facility. He was the only person in attendance from outside of Black Hawk County. Stutsman said that was fine, and she supported this being a regional training facility, however she expected the training would generate revenue. Wilson said they couldn't possibly charge for the courses because they are underwritten by Federal grant dollars. He said that it's akin to using the public library's training area. R. Sullivan said he thought that was the part that wasn't made clear before.
Rettig asked how many people on the User Advisory Group are also on the JECC Policy Board. Neuzil said they can't be on both. Pulkrabek said the Sheriff's Office has a representative in the group, but that it couldn’t be him since he's on the Policy Board. He added that the only reason he can be on the Policy Board is because he's elected. Rettig asked if Emergency Management has someone in the user's advisory group. Harney said fire departments do. Rettig said Emergency Management has a seat on the JECC Board even though they're a tenant of the facility, and that seems like a conflict. Neuzil said he wouldn't look at it as a conflict, but rather an asset.
Wilson stated that the reason the Emergency Management Commission (EMC) is on there is because it's for the representative of the EMC, which is made up of all the disciplines. They are supposed to be the neutral party so that nobody has a lopsided vote. Also, it goes through 29C, which is the Emergency Management Code in the Iowa section. Wilson said that is an advantage because they get to see what goes on there on a daily basis and have inside knowledge about it. Wilson told Rettig that he didn't think they had an added benefit being on there, but it does add clarity and truth to what's going on.
R. Sullivan asked Aschenbrenner if he could email the balances for the building equipment and operations to the Board of Supervisors. Aschenbrenner agreed. Neuzil asked Claiborne if he could email the Policy Board the history of what the expenditure was in FY09 and FY10. Claiborne agreed. Harney said that about two or three weeks ago, County Auditor Tom Slockett told him he felt this should be handled through his office, because they can track all of the funding and payments. Harney said the Auditor's Office could track the money a lot closer and more efficiently than if the Board hired someone from the outside. Stutsman said she thought Slockett had said he couldn't do that. Harney said that may be what Slockett thought originally, but that now Slockett had said that he wanted to keep that within the County. Neuzil said that it's currently through the EMA, so it is, and has to be within County government.
Kriz said there was some talk about whether they want to be involved with this. He wanted to make perfectly clear to everyone that the $15,000,100 debt is Johnson County's debt, whether they're involved with it or not. Kriz also said that there were comments made about moving the balance of the funds to Emergency Management, and Aschenbrenner had thought it was possible. The assumption was there were outstanding bills to spend down the balance. He said he didn't think the Auditor's Office, or anybody, knew there would be any large sums that were unexpended at that time. Neuzil said it seems reasonable that once the Auditor's Office shows the executive director and the JECC Policy Board the separation of the three funds and how much is necessary to be spent out of two of those funds, which is a fixed amount, the only real decision making that needs to take place among the JECC Policy Board has to do with operational expenses. Neuzil said that as simple as it sounds, it got complicated within that whole process. He said there's no reason to tax for additional dollars outside of what they're spending for paying off the debt. It is a fixed amount. He said he is sure things will be fine if they live within the $.6838, because there will be a $1.4 million surplus that hasn't been spent due to a number of employees that haven't been hired yet, plus a new influx of money that would come in for FY11.
Pulkrabek asked how the rollback would affect that. R. Sullivan said it would only affect it positively. Neuzil said that if they kept the levy where it was in 2009, there would be more money coming in. Harney said the bonds are set up so that instead of payments going down, they go up every year until they're paid off. Neuzil said that's understood, but the fixed amount is known. He said it's known how much is owed in each of the two other funds and it's on a chart. Pulkrabek asked if that fixed amount would be included in Claiborne's email. R. Sullivan said they should feel free to go lower than the $.68.
Harney asked if Kriz would be available to speak to the Policy Board to provide a better understanding of how the money is handled. Kriz said sure, he would speak about the bonding. Neuzil said if the Policy Board can't meet before January 27, 2010, the Board of Supervisors may be in a situation where they will have to tax for it only to try to reduce it when the official vote takes place.
R. Sullivan said he would like to be informed of when the Policy Board is scheduled to meet so that he could attend if there would be less than three Supervisors attending. Stutsman said they will wait to hear back from the Policy Board after they have met. She asked Johnson if he would send a note to M. Sullivan saying that the Board requested his attendance as well as conveying the list. Johnson said yes. Harney asked Aschenbrenner to include M. Sullivan in his email about the numbers, and Pulkrabek asked to be included also.
Neuzil stated that MH/DS has not turned anything in yet. Stutsman asked if the Board was in agreement that if they don't turn it in by January 27, 2010, they would just go with last year's numbers. The Board agreed. R. Sullivan asked if in the current fiscal year the Board paid $250 to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Neuzil stated that it is budgeted for the coming year and that it is probably in the spring amendment.
Stutsman asked if there is anything else the Board needs to discuss before the 1:30 p.m. Budget Meeting on January 27, 2010. Neuzil said Board members will have a chance to further discuss the JECC budget issues at the Key Issues Meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 27, 2010. Rettig informed the Board that she will need to leave close to 4:00 p.m. that afternoon in order to be on time for the JCCOG Meeting in Coralville.
Adjourned at 10:34 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Erin Heninger, Recording Secretary