**Subject to approval by the Compensation Board at a future meeting.**
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY COMPENSATION BOARD:
JANUARY 26, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion/Action: Electing a Chair..................................................................................... 1
Discussion/Action: Previous Minutes (January 28, 2009)................................................... 1
Discussion: Salary Information Packets Received By Compensation Board.................... 2
Discussion/Action: Electing a Vice-Chair............................................................................ 2
Discussion: Salaries of Elected Officials............................................................................. 2
Discussion/Action: Salary Recommendations.................................................................... 5
Setting Date and Time of Next Meeting.............................................................................. 7
Chairperson Hughes called the Johnson County Compensation Board to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 6:05 p.m. Members present were: Chad Andrews, Carol Fethke, Patrick Hughes, Hyman Joseph, Joe Moreland, David Steen, and Rachel Zimmermann Smith.
Elected Officials, Department Heads, and Staff present were: County Attorney Janet Lyness, County Auditor Tom Slockett, County Recorder Kim Painter, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, County Supervisor Pat Harney, County Supervisor Terrence Neuzil, County Treasurer Tom Kriz, Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek, Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Wierman, Sheriff's Office Administrative Secretary Kay Langenberg, and Deputy Auditor Casie Parkins.
Hughes: Okay, I am going to call to order this year's meeting of the Johnson County Compensation Board. As the permanent chair for last year, it's my job to open up the meeting as a temporary chair tonight. I guess the first thing I would ask people is if you have cell phones, to please put them on silent or vibrate. And with that, our first discussion/action is that of electing a Chair for tonight's meeting. So with that I would take nominations from the Board for a Chair.
Joseph: Patrick Hughes.
Hughes: Patrick Hughes has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Patrick Hughes will serve as the Chair of tonight's meeting.
Hughes: Our next piece of business is the minutes as they have been distributed. I assume everyone has had a chance to read those over. I would entertain a motion to approve, unless there are corrections that any of you saw.
Steen: So move.
Hughes: Motion's been made and…
Moreland: Second.
Hughes: …seconded to approve the minutes as distributed. Does everybody understand the motion? Discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye.
Andrews: Aye.
Fethke: Aye.
Joseph: Aye.
Moreland: Aye.
Steen: Aye.
Zimmermann Smith: Aye.
Hughes: Opposed, nay. Motion carried.
Motion by Steen, second by Moreland, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2009 Compensation Board Meeting. The Chair declared the motion passed.
Hughes: Okay, we have gotten salary packets that have been received. Is there any discussion on the packets? I'll say, for starts, I think you did another great job, Casie. Thank you.
Deputy Auditor Casie Parkins: Thank you. A lot of people helped with it.
Hughes: But I want a longer term.
Parkins: I will fix that for next year. I apologize.
Hughes: Any discussion on the packets.
Zimmermann Smith: No.
Hughes: Okay, moving right along, takes us to salaries of elected officials. I believe, at this point… Let me back up here. I just realized we did this last year and we have not done this this year and it was so noted that we have not usually done it. We should have a Vice-Chair. If, for no other reason, in the event that if the Chair was not here tonight from last year's meeting, that the Vice-Chair could run the meeting until a permanent Chair does. So let me back up and take nominations for a Vice-Chair.
Fethke: Hy Joseph.
Hughes: Okay, Hy Joseph's been nominated as Vice-Chair. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Hy Joseph will be our Vice-Chair. Thank you.
Hughes: Okay, going back to number five. I believe it's at this point we ask elected officials if any of them wish to address the Compensation Board before we get into our discussion on salaries of elected officials. So, I will leave that to your discretion. If any of you would like to talk to us tonight, indicate by just nodding or letting me know. Quiet bunch. Okay. Salaries of elected officials, discussion? A quiet everyone.
Joseph: We got some new information from Casie about other counties. And so maybe we should look at that and see what others have done, what kind of environment they are in. They are on the sheets here. These are about as low as I have ever seen them.
Hughes: Yes. It appears to me, in light of all of the budget stuff that we have been hearing in the news and reading in the papers, that it has impacted compensation boards almost across the state and they are feeling to kind of hold the reigns for a year.
Joseph: I noticed that some of the ones that had positive increases, the Supervisors cut them back.
Hughes: Yes. I might ask, since nobody did speak, I would be curious, has there been any discussion on the County level, or has there maybe already been discussion that I am not aware of, of doing furloughs like they have at the State level? No? Okay. I just didn't know. Thank you.
Moreland: Did somebody want to give us some information about the County budget?
County Treasurer Tom Kriz: I suppose I could get that to you. Tom probably could, or I can speak just a little bit on it. We have continued to have some growth in the county, which is unique. We are probably in one of ten counties that have actually had some population growth and growth in our assessment values. So, as the County budgets, we are in really good shape. The Board took a hard stand a couple years ago asking everybody to keep their budgets fairly flat and not increase certain line items and things like that. And, consequently, because we were proactive to that, we are in a position this year where, as you asked Patrick, there is no need for layoffs. We have had to not cut any people along that line, and we should finish this budget year and go into our next budget year with a small surplus over what we have had before. So, we are very unique in this community to be in that position. Some of that, of course, is supported by the growth we see in assessment and housing and growth in the community. But, no drastic cutbacks. We have had some cases where funds have been de-appropriated, I guess you might call it, from the State, such as the case of Homestead Credits where we fund those to people on their property taxes because we are given an amount that the State is going to reimburse. Then the State later on says, well, we have changed our mind, we are not going to reimburse it. But we have already passed it along. And that's a $60,000 hit the County would take in cases like that. But we have done other things to cut back and hold things in line and it's been pretty good. So, from a budgetary standpoint, it appears, in working with the Budget Coordinator, that we are in good shape.
Fethke: That does raise an interesting question. And that is, given, and it is very difficult to predict, but given the kinds of things we are hearing out of Des Moines, do you anticipate other areas where the State has transferred funds to you, where you may be vulnerable?
Kriz: Our Finance Group met with, in the case of where some of the biggest dollars come in, Public Health, and the Department of Human Services. They felt pretty good about that not being a problem for them because there are some huge influxes of new money coming in other areas to balance some of that out. So, no, we have not seen and we have not been told that there are any huge cutbacks coming to them. There may be, in certain areas. But, then there's money coming in other areas to make up for that.
Fethke: And the money coming in is coming from?
Kriz: The State.
Fethke: The State.
Kriz: The Federal Government.
Fethke: What about the Federal?
Kriz: They brought no issues to us that they thought anything was going to be smaller.
Moreland: Last year, Tom, if I recall correctly, investment income was down a great deal?
Kriz: Investment income continues to be down a great deal. We had for a number of years, worked in the $1 million to $1.5 million bracket in our investment income. We readjusted that down last year to $400,000. We'll probably achieve that, or slightly above and we expect it to be there. But, you know, that can range in the million dollar deduction. But, once again, we have had growth and things to pick up some of that in assessment values and taxation, along those lines. So, it has not improved, Joe, no. Chad would probably be able to look at that and say how desperate that situation is right now in the investment side of it. But that was a big hit that was factored in before, because we could see some of that coming. And so, consequently, that has, along that line. So, once again, we are very fortunate to be in the community we are in with the growth factors and things like that. We have not had to face a lot of those things. It is pretty general.
Fethke: Do you do you keep a reserve?
Kriz: The County keeps a cash reserve. The Auditor's Office works with that more. Tom?
County Auditor Tom Slockett: Actually the Budget Coordinator for the Board now handles that.
Kriz: Rich does a lot of that. Generally speaking, it is in the $2 million to $2.5 million range. That's where it's been. Pretty small reserve for a community our size. But that's been the wishes to not carry much of a reserve over, to keep taxation at the lowest point possible. Consequently, keeping it down. One of the tasks we have is to try to build that reserve.
Slockett: That's quite a bit less than my recollection is, but I don’t have the specifics. I think it is considerably higher than that. When you are done, I do have a little bit of information to go over.
Kriz: Okay. And Tom can certainly speak to a lot of the budgetary things, also along that line. Slockett: It might be good idea to have the Budget Coordinator here in the future.
Steen: I guess I'd just like to point something out. I'm trying to find in here where it says that we dissect, or not dissect, but consider the budget. I think that sometimes we get off of what we are supposed to be doing, and that's comparing officers in other counties in like professions, in what we do. I think if we want to, go to a budget meeting and find that out.
Slockett: Yes, I think page five of your packet goes over that.
Steen: I don't know anything about the budget.
Slockett: I can address that a little bit, too. The second sentence gives the charge for the Compensation Board. The County Compensation Board shall annually review the compensation pay to comparable offices in other counties of this state, other states, private enterprise, and the federal government. So you have no charge to look at the budget. Your job, according to the Code strictly, you are entitled to make the decision based on whatever you want, but what the Code requires is that you set the salaries at what the compensation should be for the job. Again, it's the Board of Supervisors job to roll that back to what can be afforded in the budget. But you're certainly welcome to take that information into account, as well, in your deliberation.
Hughes: Have there been any bargaining unit contracts that were up this year?
Kriz: There were a number. Lora Shramek is here, our HR person that could give you a report.
Hughes: I thumb nailed. I assumed they're over, they're completed. I'd just kind of like to know what those numbers were.
Kriz: And Lora would have it.
Slockett: I'll get it out of the way. Before I sit down, if you'll look at the last page of this packet, it shows the budget expenditures since FY05. It shows the actual expenditures from '05-'09 and then the budgeted expenditures for each of the elected offices, and then for the County as a whole. I think what you can see is while there have been some increases in the elected offices, they're in line with the overall increases of the overall County budget, which is represented on the right. Also, I would say, it shows that the spending decisions of the County are not depended upon, or driven by what you set the salaries of elected officials.
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: All six of our collective bargaining agreements were open this year, and all six have voluntarily settled. Out of that six we had one one year agreement, which is at 2.75%. The other five are two year agreements. Year one ranges from 2.75 to 2.8% and year two is 3%. And the reason for the differential there is some differences on contributions on healthcare coverage.
Hughes: Thank you. Any other discussion on salaries of elected officials? Are we ready to move to recommendations?
Fethke: If we are really supposed to look at this in relationship to other officials in other areas, and that assumes that these offices do basically the same things. Is that a reasonable assumption across these 99 counties?
Hughes: I'd say in general, but there are some counties that share services. Some counties that have multiple offices. Some counties that have considerably fewer employees, even if they're of comparable size to Johnson County within a department. The one I can remember is I was going down through the Sheriffs, and I think Pottawattamie County, which is the 9th largest county in the state, has about the same number of people in the Sheriff's Department that this County does. So, normally the smaller counties have fewer employees, but it differs a little bit. But those are the things I look at, the number of employees, the size of the county.
Fethke: But if you added Iowa City's and the County's up and then made a comparison with the largest town in Pottawattamie and Dubuque County, it would probably not look that unbalanced.
Hughes: Possibly.
Fethke: Or it might be the other way around.
Slockett: I've got a little information on that. If you look on page six of this handout the top table, 100% valuations of the top 10 counties by population. A lot of the comparisons you have compare the counties by population. And the top ten counties in population are listed in order of population here. I think what I'd like to draw your attention to is Johnson County, number five, our valuation is $10.2 billion. That's considerably above the 4th ranked county in population, Black Hawk County. And it's very close to the 3rd ranked county in valuation, Scott County. And I think this also is anecdotal information about the cost of living in Johnson County, that in those counties, their employees have a lower cost of living than Johnson County. Our employees and our deputies have a higher cost of living here in Johnson County than other counties, even though they may have a higher population. What housing costs in Black Hawk County versus Johnson County, for example.
Hughes: That's a useful piece of information. Thank you.
Fethke: And I do have that cost of living data if somebody wanted to look at it. I did go look that up.
Moreland: Pat, I would recommend 2% across the board for the elected officials' compensation.
Hughes: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Andrews: Since I’m the new guy, I want to ask a question.
Hughes: Go ahead.
Andrews: If I can interrupt, what do we do for cost of living for elected officials, do we do anything? There's no cost of living adjustment?
Moreland: And, you should also understand, Chad, our recommendation sets a ceiling and the Board of Supervisors actually makes the decision.
Fethke: I guess my instinct is going to be to give me reasons why not to go with zero. The University's gone with zero. Many of the larger counties, a 5th of the counties last year went for zero and we did not. The cost of living has dropped last year over the area. In a half year it's gone down to less than 2%. I have difficulty seeing why this is not a good year to say we should also think carefully about why we should raise the budgets here when others are not. And it is good fiscal reasons to consider using this as the chance to do those things that we have had a list of things to do. Like maybe build the reserve or ask people to bring in some stuff that shows the productivity that would preserve it rather than just sort of saying some other counties have made decisions we do not know why and we're going to follow them off the cliff.
Steen: I personally think it's important to keep these salaries in line with a ranking with what the other counties have. When the time comes, they're not for the individuals that are in the office right now. It's for the office. It's for the elected official, for future elected officials, so we have quality people run for these. If the Board of Supervisors wants to go to zero, they can do that. I don't see anywhere where we take into consideration the budget in what we're supposed to do. I agree, I think 2% is fine.
Fethke: I also feel that most of the people in this county pay taxes and are going to say why should we not have gotten a raise? Many people around us have lost their jobs. And we're sitting here creating additional wages and salary increases for people who are just going to end up taxing us and they're, you know…
Steen: That's not our job.
Fethke: But it is.
Steen: No, but it's not. Find in here…
Fethke: If I look at the percentage raises here, we've got good company last year that did zero and a lot of companies starting now with zero, okay? I don't think we should be afraid to say this is a year in which it makes good economic sense to accept the fact that we're in a pool with everybody else.
Moreland: The other side of your argument, though, is that we've got neighbors losing jobs and obviously it's tough economic times. I don't quite think that it's hit Johnson County as it's hit other areas. But we also have the County employees who are union that are getting raises. And the other thing, the information that's been provided for us, as far as how much money we're talking about, a 1% raise is approximately $16,000 of the County budget, and a 2% raise is $32,000. I think that ultimately it's the decision of the Board of Supervisors to set the salaries for the elected officials. We just set a ceiling. And I think 2% is appropriate for this year.
Hughes: We've kind of moved backwards here from salary recommendations to back to a discussion on salaries of elected officials. What I would like to do is go back to Robert's Rules of Order, which means we don't have discussion on a motion unless we have a second. The 2% motion has died for lack of a second.
Steen: I'll second that motion.
Hughes: A motion has been made. Now we can have discussion on 2%. So, discussion can continue.
Fethke: I guess the argument that it's not a small amount of money is the argument we've been told that we're not supposed to make, which is we're not supposed to look at the budget of the County or how much is involved. I'm finding this material does not give very good information about what other people do, whether this is comparable, what the productivity increases are that would justify a budget, what the costs of living are that would say that if we don't keep up with it their real income is dropping. I'm not seeing any of the normal arguments I would see for a raise. I'm seeing the rest of the County, by and large, not having a raise, and if you say but the unions got a raise, then I would say that may have been a mistake and we shouldn't follow it.
Moreland: You say the rest of the county, are you talking about County employees?
Fethke: Well, you're just talking about the County employees who are unionized. We were just told 2.75%.
Moreland: What percentage of the County employees are unionized? Do you know? Anyone?
Shramek: About half or a little over.
Hughes: About half. I guess I'm not going to advocate for either side of the motion, but I would point out, Carol, since I've been on this for quite a few years, that in past years there've been very good presentations by some of the elected officials about efficiencies they have worked into their departments over the years. I would say that based on my years on the Compensation Board I think we have a leaner and meaner County government than when I first started. I mean, every year they've come to us with new efficiencies that they've created, and some of that's due to technology, but I do think that to the credit of all the elected officials they are doing a stellar job in their departments and they're doing it with a lot fewer man hours than they did in the past. But again, I'm not advocating one side or the other on the motion at hand, but none of them wished to talk tonight, but if they did that's what they would have been telling you, I'm sure.
Fethke: And that was in the minutes the last year. I read that. But our thing is to look across the counties, and I don't know how we would make those kinds of comparisons about either the job descriptions, or the efficiencies, or the productivity, or the success rate, and yet it seems to be the way the charge is set out.
Hughes: More discussion on the motion? Hearing no other discussion, all in favor indicate by saying aye.
Andrews: Aye.
Moreland: Aye.
Steen: Aye.
Zimmermann Smith: Aye.
Hughes: Opposed, nay.
Fethke: Nay.
Joseph: Nay.
Hughes: Motion carried.
Parkins: Who was the other nay vote?
Moreland: Let's take a roll vote.
Joseph: Me.
Parkins: Okay.
Hughes: Any other motions? Okay, any other business?
Motion by Moreland, second by Steen, that the Compensation Board recommend a 2% across the board increase for the Board of Supervisors, County Attorney, County Auditor, County Recorder, County Sheriff, and County Treasurer. Hughes declared the motion passed.
Steen: I think for next year, I think you can take the time to… I know I talked to Tom, I know I talked to Lonny, I know I've talked to Terrence, I know I've talked to Rod. They'll talk to you about this before we come here, I think. And I think that's important, too. And, yes, Kim. But they'll all talk, and I think that's important. I had Rod in my office the other day and talked to him about it and had a nice discussion, so I think that might be one way to get more knowledge on the subject.
Hughes: Do we have any business from the public tonight? Okay.
Hughes: That moves on to setting the date and time for the next meeting, and historically that's always worked out better if we waited until towards the end of this year when all of our schedules are flushed out a little bit better, because if I'm not mistaken tonight was about the only night that all of us could meet. And I don't know if any of us would have known that a year ago.
Slockett: And even then Rod wasn't able to come. It was the best date that Casie could come up with. You people have amazingly busy schedules.
Moreland: Well, Casie did a good job coming up with that too.
Hughes: So, if it's okay with everybody else I would defer with setting the date and time of the next meeting until the end of this year/first part of next year. Is that okay?
Fethke: Yes.
Moreland: Yes.
Hughes: Okay, with that I would accept the motion to adjourn.
Zimmermann Smith: Move to adjourn.
Hughes: A motion has been made to adjourn. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Motion by Zimmermann Smith that the meeting adjourn.
Andrews: Aye.
Fethke: Aye.
Joseph: Aye.
Moreland: Aye.
Steen: Aye.
Zimmermann Smith: Aye.
Hughes: Opposed nay. We are adjourned.
Adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
____________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2010
By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary