Stutsman asked Pillard about Block Grants. Pillard said she has everything turned in. She said the number for JCCOG could still change as far as the contribution to ECICOG, because they are requesting a 44% increase. She said JCCOG Executive Director Jeff Davidson didn’t know what JCCOG’s board would recommend because they were meeting this week and then the ECICOG board meets the day after. She said she did put the highest increase in the budget. Jordahl asked if the 44% is the cost of living this year. Stutsman said she thinks it’s for a few more personnel items and staff increases. Thompson asked if this includes the United Way things. Pillard said it does. Stutsman asked Pillard to go through the Block Grants. Pillard said there are recommendations and United Way fundings. Stutsman said she and Thompson attended the United Way hearings and came up with recommendations for allocations to the individual agencies. She said it is overall a 2% increase and they felt comfortable in these recommendations. Stutsman said Lutheran doesn’t get any money at all.

Jordahl said in reading the law on general supplemental levy, he noticed that substance abuse for inpatient and outpatient treatment, community based and private, could be funded through the general supplemental levy. He said he also noted that as a member of the MECCA Board for a few months and a member of their Finance Committee, that they operate with no margin and go to the banks and borrow. Pillard said Deputy Auditor Dan Stolze checked on that and it was understood that in reading the Code it had to be things that are required and they weren’t sure the MECCA payments were required. Thompson said she thinks they are required to have a point of access, like a CPC, for substance abuse services and MECCA is that. She said she isn’t sure they draw their budget out in terms of providing the point of access as a separate item. Thompson said the County used to have to designate every year who that would be and then they went to designating MECCA permanently. Pillard said it will have to be looked into more but their first thoughts were that it would not be counted. Jordahl said it says that this is to the extent that the County is obligated by statute to pay the charges for the costs of inpatient or outpatient substance abuse admission, commitment, transportation, care and treatment at any of the following. Thompson said if they went to the central place and got their treatment, then the Board has to pay for the treatment. Jordahl said it doesn’t say a central place, it says a state mental health institute or a community based public or private facility or service. Thompson said they had to say they picked MECCA for it. Stutsman asked if they are talking about switching this over to general supplemental. Jordahl said that they are talking about the link between that possibility and the concept that they have quite readily granted in the case of the MH/DD Department, that there should be this 3 month carry over. He said that Chatham Oaks, in particular, says that they need to have a 3 month carry over and cushion to maintain function. He said MECCA does not have that. Jordahl said there is the possibility of paying for this through a specified levy and there is a department that runs with less than a month’s carry over balance at the end of their budget year. Stutsman asked if he wants the Board of Supervisors to make sure that they have a 3 month carry over at the beginning of their budget. Jordahl asked if they accept that principal or not. Stutsman said she thinks this is opening the Board up to assure all other agencies in town that they will have an operating balance of 3 months. She doesn’t know if the Board wants to do this.

Jordahl said that he put this issue on the agenda previously, to discuss it under some sort of revolving County loan fund, where they could lend money to them out of the county’s balances without charging them interest, as an alternative to simply funding them all at the level where they could have a 3 month carry over. He said it doesn’t make sense to him that MECCA has to go to the bank and borrow. He said to either put money in there so that they don’t or provide the revolving loan fund. Duffy said he doesn’t see how everyone who receives county dollars can do their own thing. He said he likes it the way it is. Stutsman said she understands what is being said but is concerned that they are opening themselves up. Lehman said there is more accountability if you’re given the green light. Jordahl said the County is paying that interest ultimately. Stutsman said they are not the only source of funding for these agencies. Jordahl said that for as much as they fund them and create stress on their staff having to balance books with a month’s carry over or less, they are not only stressing the staff but also creating a larger bill or providing fewer services with the dollars provided. He said that this is because the County is paying the interest. Stutsman said Jordahl is assuming that the reason these agencies are having problems is because of the County and she doesn’t assume that responsibility at all since there are other things besides County dollars that go into running an agency. Jordahl said that these are County dollars and these dollars could be lower if they weren’t paying interest to the bank. Stutsman said she doesn’t know if the Board really wants to get into that level of micro-managing or assume the role of these agencies’ bank and emergency funds. She said she doesn’t think it’s an appropriate role for the County to get into. Jordahl said there may be some that can’t get the money from the bank. Stutsman said there are reasons why that is the case. Jordahl said it is because they are under funded. Stutsman said they are under managed or not managed properly and so that gets into the whole issue of how involved the Board wants to get in these agencies.

Thompson said the question is, should they try to find out if they can pay for it by transferring money from the supplemental fund. She said she doesn’t think they can. Jordahl said he thinks they can. Stutsman said she thinks this is a question for Stolze and Pillard to work out. Thompson asked if the person goes to Mt. Pleasant and receives treatment then does that come out of the supplemental fund, MH/DD, or another fund. Stolze said he thinks that’s one that could be paid for. He said the Institutional Department pays for everything through Toledo, but isn’t sure about Oakdale. Thompson reiterated that it’s not Oakdale but Mt. Pleasant that they are required to pay for. Jordahl said it says treatment at any of the following, the Alcoholic Treatment Center at Oakdale, state mental health institute, community based public or private facility or service. Stutsman asked for that to be researched and reported back to the Board if that’s a possibility to pay for MECCA services out of the General Supplemental Fund. Thompson said if they didn’t that would allow more taxing ability but it doesn’t resolve the question of whether MECCA should get more money than they asked for. Stutsman said she is hesitant to give people more money than they ask for.

Pillard said she never got a response back from First Capital Development, but read in the paper that they were discontinuing. She said she assumes that can actually minus $20,000 but needs to double check. Stutsman asked if this is ICAD and they want to leave ICAD in there. Pillard said she thought they were discontinued because she never heard from them. Stutsman said to call Marty Kelly at ICAD and check on that. Pillard said she thinks Block Grant 20 is pretty well set. She said the Senior Center is also in Block Grant 20. Thompson asked what the increase is. Pillard said it’s $2,339 on a budget of $126,917.

Pillard said Block Grant 23 is the rural block grants. Thompson said this is the libraries. Pillard said this includes all the libraries and rural assessment, which will possibly change, but it’s in there at the maximum for the one that’s a $1,652. Thompson said it’s a 6.5% increase. Stutsman said it’s contracts with the libraries. Pillard said not all of them. Stutsman said they should be and since she has been on the Board it’s been promised to acknowledge their request just like they do with the Iowa City Library, they just haven’t formalized it. Jordahl said the Senior Center says Johnson County Contract and asked if it’s a 28E Agreement instead of a contract. Jordahl said he thinks the 28E Agreement is flexible because it doesn’t specify how many square feet and what services are placed. Thompson said there is a lease also. Jordahl said he thinks the 20% stems from the 28E Agreement and not from the lease. Stutsman said they still have to honor the 28E Agreement. Jordahl said part of the 28E Agreement is reviewing their budget and he thinks this is part of what it is and the Board can say yes or no. Thompson said the way it’s supposed to work is they’re supposed to get their budget to the Board by a certain date, which allows the Board enough reviewing time and notify the City Council if the Board wants to talk about it. Thompson said the Board has never talked about it and has just capitulated to whatever they ask for. She said if the Board wants to talk about it they can, and the City Council would probably talk to the Board. Stutsman said there is language saying there is a process if there are questions.

Jordahl said he thinks the case is that the City hasn’t followed that process and asked the Board for approval of their budget. Thompson said that by approving the $129,000, that is approving it. She said she doesn’t think they are proposing any dramatic changes in how the center is operated between now and last year, so there really isn’t a lot to discuss. Jordahl said he is talking about the ramp when that becomes an issue, which seems soon. Duffy asked why it should be an issue. Jordahl said because they are talking about a lot of money, and if they make that part of the operating expenses of the Senior Center, then the County is stuck at the 20%, so the County needs to know whether they have to be to pay it or not. Duffy said the skywalk is not part of the Senior Center. Thompson said if it’s $350,000, and they want to raise 1/3 of it from charity and get 1/3 from CDBG, then that would leave 1/3 of $358,000 for the City to pay and the County would be taxed with 20% of $112,000. Jordahl said that’s another $25,000 or $30,000. Thompson said it’s for one time. She said they might advertise it out over a period of time like they did the remodeling. Stutsman asked if the Board is OK with both of these Block Grants. Duffy asked where this puts the County if they do this with Senior Center when the Library problem that Iowa City has a receptacle agreement with the smaller libraries. He asked if they have to pay for the new library plus usage. Stutsman said she thinks it’s just usage. Thompson said she thinks library usage just continues to increase. Stutsman said that the overall increase for Block Grant 23 is $26,000 and asked the Board if they are OK with that. Stutsman said there are no changes in either of those Block Grants.

Stutsman asked Stolze to walk them through the budget spreadsheet. Stolze said he will point out the highlights they are probably interested in. He said based on what they discussed prior, the transfer from general supplemental to general basic is about $38,000 below max currently and is almost extinguished. He said the transfer right now is at $3,082,000 and according to original estimates it can only go up another $38,000, so they are almost maxed out. Thompson asked if this is with everything in it that they have already talked about. Stolze said the spreadsheet that they have had for the last week and a half has had the total taxes go up $1,567,076. Jordahl said he thinks they need to be careful when talking about taxes going up. He said they need to separate out what is due to new growth and the cost of living increase and then talk about the difference between that and whatever they end up taxing for as the actual increase in taxation of individuals. He said you can speak of tax increases in a variety of ways, like a change in the levy, a change in the amount of receipts, a change in the amount each individual will have to pay and those are 3 different things. Jordahl said that he hopes what Stolze is talking about is the increase in the amount of tax receipts. Stolze said it’s the total amount of taxation. Jordahl said it’s not the same thing as saying they are going to raise that much more money from the people they taxed last year. He said that there are new people, new houses, improvements that have been made and increases in valuation. He said that these things are not a product of the Board saying we want more revenues, but rather at last year’s level of taxation they would produce this much more revenue without the Board doing anything to change it.

Stolze said that on page 8, under general supplemental, the figure where it says net tax askings from Chapter 444 worksheet, the $3,660,000 is the figure that would produce the taxation based only on the inflation factor in the allowable growth. He said the current total tax asking from that fund are $4,092,000. He said they are $431,549 above that. He said going up to $3.66 million is due to growth and inflation. He said the 4.092 is where it’s at now based on everything in there. Jordahl said the idea of a million or 2 in increased taxes is too general for him to be comfortable with. He said the Board will actually be asking people to pay at a higher rate than last year.

Stolze said the $1.5 million is the increased tax askings from the spreadsheet that they had to the other spreadsheet. Jordahl said the number they are really dealing with that will be the impact for what they have discussed in the budget so far on people who pay taxes is the $431,459. Thompson said they need to look at what this means to the individual tax payers. Stolze said page 12 shows the percentage change for all the different classifications from the current year to the proposed budget. Thompson asked if the equalization chart on page 11 that shows 15% for rural ag land is comparable to page 12. She asked if he got it down from 15% to 12.06%. Stolze said they are 2 different things. He said on page 12 the percentage change column is simply changing everything into accounts including rollbacks and the equalization percentage. Jordahl said that if everything else were kept equal with last year, the equalization order would have resulted in a 15% change in the tax bill and they are actually seeing a 12% change in the tax bill. Duffy said that isn’t right because of valuations. Pillard said it has to do with the valuations and the rollback.

Jordahl asked what the rollback on ag land is. Pillard said that the rollback is 96.33. Thompson asked if that means they tax at 96%. Pillard said it’s for every thousand. Jordahl asked if Duffy is correct in saying the valuation of the land enters into the productivity formula and doesn’t directly transfer as 15% or is the 15% an inflation of the land through the productivity formula. Stolze said the Fiscal Year 2001 actual valuation figure and the Fiscal 2000 valuation equivalent difference takes into consideration the equalization factor they have been given for this year, as well as any of the accessory valuations. He said there is also consideration for the rollback for 2001. Jordahl said the Board’s efforts and distribution of who pays for what and what transfer is made from the general fund to the rural fund, has resulted in a tax increase for rural ag land of only 12%. He said that if they had not made those shifts it would have only gone up to 15%. Thompson said those 2 numbers don’t relate to each other. Jordahl said he thinks they do.

Thompson said they have done all they can to ease the situation on the farmers and still, because of the valuation and equalization there is a 12% increase on rural ag. Stutsman said the only way to ease it more is to start taking things out of this budget. Stolze said everything you take out affects the levy amount, which affects the rural more because they are paying the entire Countywide levy. He said it’s not strictly what you do to the rural basic levy, it’s also what you do to the rest of it, too, that impacts it. Jordahl said the levy in the rural areas includes all the rural things and a cut of $100,000 on the rural side would be a quicker diminishment of that percentage than a cut in the general fund because the general fund is much larger. He said that if you want to have a quick impact on a rural tax bill you cut rural taxes. Stutsman asked if they really want to do that. Thompson said if they take out $250,000, which would be a lot to take out, it only reduces the taxes on $100,000 by $7. Pillard said they also need to remember that this only includes 2%. She said you would almost have to cut out approximately $200,000 just to cover any increase in cost of living. Thompson asked how many acres $100,000 worth of ag land is. Stutsman said 2,500. Thompson said it’s $7 on a 40 acre farm then. Duffy said they can’t leave everything in. Stutsman said the number isn’t going to come down much even if they take everything out.

Jordahl said if they have the same budget as last year the rural ag land should go up 15%. Thompson said that 15% is the percent of change. Jordahl said the FY 2000 valuation equivalent is $86,000 and that’s what accounts between the difference between that and a simple $85,000 down from $100,000. He said if it were just the equalization, it would be $85,000 and $100,000 actual valuation for 2001. Jordahl said if you multiply times a rollback, that’s the taxable valuation of $96,000 at 100 times the levy equals the tax bill. He asked the 15% is not reflected in there because it’s right there. Stolze said the change is based on the 2001 levy that’s projected based on this budget, not what the current levy is. Jordahl said if they had the current levy and the equalization order, the difference should be 15%, or 15% as calculated through the minor factor of the Assessor’s evaluation and the rollback. He said they are not responsible for this 12% because if anything they have brought it down. Stolze said the 15% equalization doesn’t necessarily mean that taxes go up 15%. He said they’re changing the assessed valuation 15% on the property. Jordahl said that if you change the valuation 15% and keep the levy constant, the taxes ought to go up the same 15%.

Duffy said the way the taxes are now scare him. Lehman said there are things they haven’t considered yet, like GIS. Stutsman said a list of the things that were put in would help in reconsiderations. Pillard said the easiest thing to do is decrease the $600,000 in capital projects. Jordahl said the easiest thing would be to tell Secondary Roads not to do Sand Road. Stutsman said the bids have been let and that can’t be done now. Lehman said there would be penalties. Jordahl said he’s not saying cancel, he’s saying put it off a year. Thompson said they always do that and then they end up needing to do a lot of things at once because they don’t do them as they go along. Stutsman said it would be more prudent to continue with Sand Road and back off the capital projects since there isn’t anything in the works in that.

Jordahl asked Stolze what the cuts in the rural side of the budget are on the ag tax bill per $100,000. Stolze said the last page of the spreadsheet looks strictly at rural changes and for a $100,000 cut in the rural basic, the increase for ag land rural would be 10.49%, but now it’s gone up 12.46%, so it reduces it. Jordahl said that if they look at changes in Countywide tax askings the rural ag levy would diminish more slowly, even with the $250,000 drop in the general fund. He said going after capital projects would only reduce it to 11%, whereas a $300,000 drop in the rural would get it down to 7.35%, which is more acceptable. He said he wants to emphasize that in order to keep the tax increase on ag land down the place to look is on the rural side. Stolze said to remember there isn’t a lot of flexibility to do that because the main thing that rural basic tax goes for is the transfer to Secondary Roads, and there are minimal amounts that have to be transferred in order to get the road use tax money. He said that in the spreadsheet now is the minimum amount from both general basic and rural basic, but there are maximums that they cannot go over. He said the transfer can only be changed by about $100,000. He said they could shift it to come out of general basic instead of rural basic, so you could probably drop the transfer out to rural basic by maybe $100,000.

Stutsman said the roads are the one thing taxpayers want kept up. Lehman said one project in the rural tax area makes a quicker, faster, bigger impact. He said otherwise you have to pick a lot of projects overall. Stolze said cutting expenditures doesn’t really help because the transfer that has to be made into Secondary Roads is based on valuation. He said less would be spent on Secondary Roads so they would have a bigger fund balance, but it doesn’t change what they would have to tax and transfer to Secondary Roads. Jordahl asked if the increase to transfer from the general fund to Secondary Roads has been done to the maximum. Stolze said it is set at the minimum and can go up to $566,000. Jordahl said if they transfer the maximum legal amount from the general fund to Secondary Roads they can sustain the level of taxation for road use tax fund going into Secondary Roads in order to get the state money in the road use tax fund from gas taxes. He said the only way to get that is by taxing at a certain level for Secondary Roads and the minimum level has already been reached. He said the only room to make that big impact on the rural side, that is shown on page 14 is about $100,000. He said that can be cut out of the rural tax askings by transferring that much more from the general fund.

Jordahl said right now they are transferring about $460,000 and they could transfer $560,000 instead from the general fund which they tax everyone for into the rural side to help pay for roads. Stolze said the only other thing in there is the 23 Block Grants, which comes out of rural basic. He said right now that is budgeted for $469,000. Thompson asked if they should change the way money is transferred. Jordahl said just the amount that they transfer. He said it’s just making everybody in the County pay overall, like everybody pay an extra buck. He said 100,000 people would mean $100,000 into Secondary Roads and this is instead of just taxing the rural people. He said that’s how to lower their levy on the rural side. Thompson asked Stolze if they already figured this in the way that is most advantageous to farmers. Stolze said the transfer has not yet been changed but it can be. Jordahl said that should be done. He said the ag land would be 10.49%. Stolze said that the rural basic tax askings would go down by that $100,000, but it would increase general basic, which would increase the transfer to supplemental needed to cover that, and right now leaving it the way it is can’t be done because they are almost at the max now. Jordahl said that in order to get this percentage drop in rural ag land only $100,000 would have to be cut from the general fund expenses they are planning to make now. He said instead of cutting $600,000 from the capital projects, $100,000 could be cut from capital projects and still be adjusted and have the transfer work. He said this shows the extent of the difference between cuts on the rural side and cuts in the general fund budget. He said that instead of cutting on the rural side they are going to increase the transfer from the general budget. He said that’s the best place to start. He said that more may want to be done in terms of cutting the general fund projects they are approving but this should be done first. Duffy said the personal taxes of those in town is about 17% and in the rural areas it’s about 37%, 18% of the population.

Duffy said they don’t need all of these things in the budget right now. Thompson said to look at the budget and see what needs to be taken out. Duffy said he wants to take out the new person for Planning and Zoning and the new Attorney. He said everything can’t be done in one year. He said GIS needs to be looked at and from what he hears it can’t be afforded. He said a lot of people don’t know what GIS is. Jordahl said they shouldn’t look at any cuts there until they decide to increase the transfer from the general fund to the rural side. Thompson said it would be good to decide what can be spent and then tell them to figure it the way that is most advantageous to the rural. Jordahl said this is the way that’s most advantageous to the rural. Jordahl said if the Board agrees to do this then they are looking for $100,000 in cuts from the general fund side and the easiest place is in Space Needs.

Stutsman said she wants to go through and refresh some of the other things that were put in. Stutsman asked about the Auditor. Pillard said an Account Clerk II was put in the budget, and technology. Jordahl said the Board has discussed all of these requests in detail with the departments and that only in the area of capital projects has this not been done. He said they have not questioned the ballpark $600,000 figure in detail. He said that could quite handily make that $500,000 and have answered the entire question of the problem of having to transfer too much from supplemental that is created by this release on the rural side. He said they should look at capital projects first as a place to cut things.

Stutsman asked if there are any changes in Auditor Accounting and Public Health. Pillard said Public Health has a Clerk II that the Board wanted the revenues increased and that includes the $8,221, 1%, non-personnel increase, which Public Health Department Director Graham Dameron said was going for an increase in his contract for cleaning. She said part of that includes phones for their upgrade to their phone system, which is in capital expenditures. Duffy asked how much that is. Pillard said $3,750. She said there is also capital expenditures of $12,000 for replacement in the Health Department. Stutsman asked the Board about Human Resources and said there is no problem.

Stutsman asked about Information Services. Pillard said those were all technology items for Schultz in her operating budget for technology and a software purchase of $6,000 and a $12,000 item was either to replace a computer or the printers, depending on which needed it first. She said $45,000 is for the payroll for whatever software is decided upon. Pillard said the Sheriff’s Department is largely in the operating budget, which is for ongoing costs of continuing the jail, $8,000 for technology was to continue saving for the AS400 upgrade. Jordahl asked what the percentage increase is in the Sheriff’s budget. Pillard said a vast message is for vehicles. Thompson said the vehicles are for the people hired last year. Pillard said that’s part of it. She said the vehicles are $150,470, $20,000 to continue saving for the digital finger printing device and $30,000 for video arraignment. Stutsman said she doesn’t know what really can be taken out of the Sheriff’s budget. She said so many of these are halfway in a project and the Board has committed to the replacement of these cars. Thompson asked what the percent increase is over last year. Stutsman said when you hire new staff they get new desks and computers and what’s the difference if you hire patrol people with giving them new cars. Thompson said they share their cars. Stutsman said there gets to be a point where if you don’t have enough cars for everyone to share then what is that person doing. Pillard said the $56,900 is a 1.2% increase over the Sheriff’s operating budget.

Thompson asked what was the $263,370 over his last year’s operating budget. Stolze said it’s about 33%. Thompson said this is a huge increase. Pillard said the only thing that is actually different on his capital expenditures from last year’s budget is the $40,000 increase in parts and the $40,000 for vehicles and the $30,000 for the video arraignment. Stolze said his current budget is $4,779,318. Stutsman asked the Board if there is a consensus on what they want to take out of that budget. Thompson said for the Board to just take out an amount and let him figure it out. Stutsman asked what amount. Jordahl asked what percentages is standard and if it’s 1%. Stutsman said this is where problems arise because 1% on this is different than 1% on a smaller budget. Jordahl said that 1% is still less than he’s asking for. Stutsman asked if the Board wants to take out 1%. Jordahl said no and the increase they approve for others is 1% and then other than that it’s Decision Packages. He said the Sheriff’s 1% increase automatically will be $47,000 instead of $270,000. He asked why the Sheriff should get a 25% increase when other departments are getting 1%. Thompson said that maybe he needs it. Jordahl said that maybe he does but it shouldn’t be assumed that just because it’s the Sheriff that everything is copecetic. Stutsman asked what to cut out. Jordahl said the answer is just to take money out. Thompson said she gets a 5.5% increase when taking the $263,000 into $4.7 million. She asked if the Board gets .055. Lehman said yes. Jordahl said that divided by 100, $47,800 is 1%, so $250,000 is about 5%. Thompson said $191,000 is 4%.

Jordahl asked what the percentage increases are that other departments have received. Thompson said they don’t have that right now. Stolze said that when the departments submitted their line item budgets, the non-personnel requests were either at 1% or some departments didn’t put anything in there and they put everything in a Decision Package that will increase just in their regular operating budget. He said that the $56,900 for the Sheriff is actual operating budget and is a little over 1%. He said the rest is capital expenditures, which is budgeted in another department. He said it really can’t be compared to the $4.7 million because it’s in another area. He said these numbers here are about $70,000 more in capital items over last year. Jordahl said they have to differentiate between capital expenditures and capital projects. He said capital expenditures are in the department. He said they’re budgeted in the capital expenditures department but are definitely attributable to the department as a cost of its operation and should be considered when talking about when the percentages increase. Stolze said it’s not part of the $4.79 million.

Stutsman said she thinks a mistake is made by going with percentage increases. She said if that is what they are going to do then just say every department gets a 2% increase. She said part of the Board’s role is to look at the budgets and decide what is important and what are the needs of the County and then increase or decrease budgets accordingly. She said if you look at the Sheriff’s requests and think that these are things he should be doing and this is what he needs to run his department then those things need to be funded. Thompson said he has all of those extra people in the Jail, which causes him to have extra expenses for supervision, food and clothing and that’s in the $56,000. Jordahl said that is non-personnel and there is nothing in there about overtime or extra people to manage the jail. Stutsman said that what Thompson is saying is that by having additional inmates in the Jail, he runs at capacity all of the time. Jordahl said that none of this is for staff. Thompson said he has food, supplies, uniforms, laundry and it all goes up when there are more people and disproportionately when there are too many more people. She said $10,000 could probably be taken out and not hurt him much. Stutsman said she thinks he was in last year saying he was taking some money for personnel and putting it in here because he was running out of the basics to keep his general operating budget. Stutsman said the Board is talking about going ahead with the processor upgrade. Thompson said that’s important if they want to be in the 20th century. She said he is running right on his budget for this year and maybe a percent low. Stutsman asked if they are going to let him hang on the $20,000 for the digital finger printing and put that off. She asked if they want to take out the video monitoring that’s $30,000. She said that could save some money. Jordahl asked where the money is going to be saved. He said to ask for the request for a reduction in funding to reflect the savings like when they asked Dameron to come up with revenue to match his proposed expenditure that was to save money. Duffy said the revenue side hasn’t been talked about yet. Thompson said the savings that is gained is that instead of having a deputy sitting at the courthouse supervising a prisoner he can have them out on the road doing better law enforcement. Stutsman said to make a decision about the Sheriff’s package. Jordahl said he wants to leave all the specific approvals in and just cut an amount of money down a percentage. Stutsman said that if they want to cut this budget then cut the $30,000 out. Lehman said no more than $30,000.

Pillard said the Board gave SEATS everything that was requested. She said the $49,000 is primarily for the reorganization. Lehman asked if both positions were funded. Thompson asked if the half position for the maintenance person can be removed. Duffy said that’s a good idea. Lehman asked if there was already a resolution to establish that position. Stutsman said she doesn’t think so. Thompson said she has been hoping that after the new people were hired Dewey wouldn’t have to hire those. She said it’s been vacant and Dewey’s been getting along fine. Pillard said it goes back to the training factor. Jordahl said they have been wanting to support training and last year it was asked for and not given. Thompson said maybe one of the new people can do the training part. Stutsman said maybe they can just give a set amount in the budget and say work it out. Thompson asked what the half-time person costs. Jordahl said in the case of both SEATS and MH/DD that the hiring of strong managers should lead to some form of reorganization that will help increase efficiency and be able to serve the clients with increasing demand and not as much increase in budget. He said SEATS is restricted by what Iowa City is willing to pay on the contract and MH/DD is a frozen budget. He said both of those managers want reorganization in order to implement the strategies that they were hired to implement. He said that just as the Sheriff has been good at spending his budget and they trust his judgment, they hired people because the Board trusts their judgment. Thompson said this does allow her to do the reorganization but it just doesn’t fill the half-time position. She said it can be asked for in a year again. Jordahl asked what percent of her operating budget is $102,000. Pillard said if you just look at the $49,000 it’s a 4.4% increase in her operating budget. Duffy said it’s a pretty good increase. Thompson said it’s a 9% increase for the $102,000. Jordahl said 40 of that is capital expenditures. Pillard said that goes to figure for office equipment for the new people, for office relocation, and for saving for a new vehicle purchase, which is $20,000. Jordahl said they are going through this with a fine toothed comb when capital projects is sitting at $1.5 million. Pillard said if the Board wants to cut, then cut the things that aren’t needed right away like office relocation expenses of $10,000. Jordahl said he doesn’t mean just looking at the SEATS Department but overall for capital projects.

Pillard said they can go through all the capital projects items. Stutsman said they could just say do GIS over 2 years instead of one year and cut it in half. Jordahl asked how much they need to cut out of the budget. Pillard said to maintain it at the level, if they’re OK with the taxing as it is, whatever the cost of living goes up, but the 2% is already in there and for each additional percent above 2% is how much needs to be cut out. Jordahl asked if taxes the way they are now means what is hypothetically approved or, what is in there now. Pillard said what is in the spreadsheet now. Thompson said she doesn’t feel it will be too lean in SEATS if they take out the half-time person. Stutsman said to take it out then. Stutsman said that wasn’t really a budgeting request. Thompson said they would take out enough to cover that from the $102,000. She said it’s probably about $20,000. Stutsman said Thompson is proposing taking $20,000 out of the SEATS budget and letting Dewey decide. Jordahl said something they might be able to take up as a budget amendment is the money for their vehicle, which is needed at the time of approval from the DOT. He said the $20,000 is reasonable. Stutsman said they would do that then.

Stutsman asked about the Physical Plant. Pillard said there is $4,000 for the vehicle and the $40,000 for continuation of the decking project that’s already been taxable. Jordahl asked how it’s an increase if it’s a continuation of something that’s already been taxed for. Pillard said it’s fixed on the revenue side. Stolze said the $40,000 doesn’t have any impact on the spreadsheet whatsoever.

Stutsman said to move to Central Services. Stolze said the $6,900 is for the Board chairs and the various items in that Decision Package, and the $17,000 in operating is the amount requested to be put back into the line item. He said it’s at $57,000 now and that is a reduction because Shramek said she wants it at $40,000 and then the Board requested the $17,000 be put back. Stutsman said this may need to be revisited depending on what Shramek comes up with for where White is at for this year. Thompson said the amount should equal the actual amount for the attorneys that he has if they all get a raise or a factor like that. Pillard said she doesn’t know that White will actually increase in the same way because there is a difference between the changing of a person from County Attorney I to II versus a II to III. She said the problem is he doesn’t know how he’s going to do it though and that’s what they are trying to plan for.

Stutsman asked about Planning and Zoning. Jordahl said he wants to support this because of all of the departments this is the one they work with most closely and have the most intense relationship with in terms of them implementing the Board’s priorities and that staff is needed to do it. Duffy said he thinks they have enough staff and they don’t have to put it in this year. He said there is more expense for the new Land Use Planner. Jordahl said the Board did not put it in last year. Lehman said he wants it left in. Stutsman said they are going to leave it in then. Duffy said he is opposed to this because it’s over $56,000 that is not needed. Stutsman said it’s $44,000. Duffy said the new person will need space and computers and everything else. Stutsman said it’s not a total of the $56,000 and she wants that to be clear.

Stutsman said they are OK with leaving the General Block Grant the way it is. She asked about technology. Pillard said her understanding for central technology is that the Board is OK with what Schultz came in and decided to do. Stutsman said they have to go with the maintenance agreement. She asked if for Document Management they want to leave the $75,000 in for those 3 departments or reduce it and see if they can get a better deal. Jordahl asked what Slockett is asking for. Pillard said approximately $12,000. Jordahl said they could cut that and go down to the $60,000 that Dvorak and Kriz are requesting and give Slockett the processing equipment necessary. He said maybe cut $10,000 out of there so it’s $65,000. Stutsman said she doesn’t want to cut it so nothing can be accomplished. Pillard said it depends on what the Board wants to accomplish. She said she doesn’t know that the whole process has been set yet. Jordahl said part of the extra in there is to get a scanner for Dvorak’s office. He said by combining their requests they should be able to get a lower figure. Stutsman said to go with $65,000 for Document Management.

Stutsman asked if they want to go with $200,000. Jordahl said the Computer Committee is meeting at noon to go over it again and they should get a better number. He said so far the better number was a bit over $200,000, but they are trying to get it at $200,000, which includes the GIS Coordinator and providing the salary and benefits. He said it’s about $110,000 or $120,000 for the GIS project, using a combination of the consultant and the existing staff. Thompson asked if the consultant is a one time thing and not to be paid in the 2nd year. Jordahl said the 2nd year will be primarily done by the GIS Coordinator and in-house staff. Pillard said the $110,000 also includes additional work that has to be done in the Auditor’s Office, which includes an additional staff person. Thompson said the Board did not give them the Map Delineator. Pillard said it’s included in the contract and you can figure up the additional hours.

Thompson asked if they have to start in July, with a GIS Coordinator on board. Jordahl said he is on the agenda tomorrow to make a presentation about this but is not prepared now to do so. Thompson said by saving a couple months of salary and moving the project up, the end of the project can be paid for in the next Fiscal Year. Stutsman asked how much they want to put in. Duffy said to take it all out since there is no vote to even do it. Thompson asked about taking out $50,000. Lehman said it’s almost an all or nothing. Jordahl said a vote on this budget is a vote on the GIS project. Stutsman agreed and said she is with Duffy on taking it out. Jordahl said no decision is made until the presentation is made tomorrow. Stutsman said they will hold off on this and leave it as is with the $200,000 for the time being and then revisit it.

Stutsman asked about Human Services. Pillard said the 25 for the Resource Center is included. Stutsman asked the Board if they want it lowered to 30. Thompson said it can’t be lowered if it’s 25. Pillard said the additional 20 is for Whitney and her operating budget, which is for child care. Thompson and Stutsman said they would hate to cut that. Pillard said it is for child care to cover child care centers not willing to serve children funded by child care assistance because the payment rates are too low. She said she believes they want to cover the difference. Jordahl said the 1% non-personnel is down $128,000. Pillard said this is because it has to do with grants and she’s not sure if they will get that grant funded. She said that if they do it, then it would be covered so it would be a budget amendment. Stutsman asked if there are 3 votes to keep it at the $45,000 that Whitney is asking for an increase in her budget, which includes additional child care funding and for the community centers. Jordahl said he wants to increase it. Duffy said he wants to take it out. Thompson, Stutsman and Lehman said they want to leave it in.

Stutsman asked the Board if they want to leave the Veteran’s Affairs rent increase. Thompson said yes. Stutsman asked about Juvenile Justice. Thompson said that Juvenile Justice is the detention building. Stutsman said those are pretty well set and there is not much room for flexibility. Jordahl said that Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention has a Decision Package of $50,000 and there is nothing in the operating budget. Thompson said it’s in the revenues. She said $100,000 is in the revenues and they took out $100,000. Pillard said the $50,000 is not funded on the expenditure side. Thompson said it isn’t a no to the $200,000, but it’s a yes to $100,000 out of the $200,000 and no increase.

Pillard asked if the Board wants to adjust capital projects. Stutsman said she wants to lower it to $300,000 and see how this works out. Pillard said all she has for cutting is the $30,000 out of the Sheriff, $20,000 out of SEATS, $10,000 out of Document Management and the Capital Projects transfer is going to be reduced by $360,000. Duffy asked what the ending fund balance is for this Fiscal Year. Stolze said page 6 of the spreadsheet shows what the fund balances were at the start of this Fiscal Year as well as all of their estimates for revenues, expenditures and everything else for the current year. He said it shows the projected fund balance for the end of this current Fiscal Year that carries over into the next budget year. Duffy asked what percentage the disbursements are. Stolze said if you combine the general basic and general supplemental, the beginning fund balance is about 15% of what total expenditures are believed to be for this current Fiscal Year. Thompson asked if these are numbers that Stolze and Pillard feel confident with. Stolze said as confident as can be based on information they have from the departments in reestimating, and various transfers and the taxes that are levied. Thompson asked if this is assuming they get to the 2.2 at the end of this year and don’t tax for it. Stolze said the top line on page 6 for general basic shows a Fiscal 2001 beginning balance of $2.2 million. Thompson said they aren’t going to tax for this money because it should already be taxed. Stolze said that will be accomplished by increasing the transfer in this current Fiscal Year from supplemental to basic. He said that otherwise that cap would have been reached long before. He said they are still $38,000 below and they would have been about $160,000 over it in this current spreadsheet. He said that by transferring the excess balance it allows more spending authority in the current spreadsheet. He said they would have gone over that maximum transfer if they have left the fund balance as is and not increased it to $2.2 million at the start of Fiscal Year 2001.

Thompson asked what else they need to do for the budget. Pillard said they need to decide if they want to take anything else out. Stutsman said they need to see what the impact of this morning is and get to what the impact on the tax payers will be and if the Board is comfortable with that. Jordahl asked what figure is meaningful in looking at the percentage increase granted to a department. Thompson said you would have to look at the technology, capital expenditures and the capital improvements that are set aside and add those to the basic budget and take the increase as a percentage of that. Jordahl said he disagrees about the capital improvements because there are departments that aren’t assessed the capital improvement costs. Stutsman said to have this discussion in the afternoon.

Jordahl asked if anyone else is interested in knowing what the percentage increase is for the Sheriff’s Department and if a meaningful number can be come up with. Thompson said Duffy wants that for the final report to the public to figure those amounts into the departments and then come up with a percentage change. She asked if that can be ready by the time they have their public hearing. Jordahl said they want a combined number that shows the operating expenses of the department and any outside capital funds that are part of the operating expenses of that budget. He said that the Board puts in separate capital projects so as to be able to budget for things in multiple years. Stolze asked the Board if they want a figure for the current budget year, not just their regular budget but also their technology. Jordahl said he wants next year, also, so they can look at what percentage increases each department is granted and compare. Thompson said one problem is the employee raises that are now in Department 18. She said it will be a big deal to figure all of those back into the departments. Stutsman said she understands the need to have this but also thinks it’s one of those misleading statistics. Stolze said it is not a big deal to get it for 2001 but is will be harder to get the information for the current year. Stutsman said she does not think it will be an accurate assessment of the departments and what is going on with them.

Stutsman said she thinks that their approvals make policy decisions for the County. She said she doesn’t think they are based on percentages because they are the policy. Jordahl said they are giving a cost of living increase because everyone experiences the same cost of living. He said he is looking for the intervention of something like personality and relationships into a fair assessment of what are the priorities of the County, like you know someone better and therefore they’re going to get to things. He said a statistic will blow that open somewhat and shows that this person is getting a 4% and someone else is only getting 1% and why. He said it doesn’t make the decision but it tells you where to look. Thompson said that if everybody gets a 2% cost of living increase, the departments with more staff will show that as a higher percent even though everyone still gets the same COLA. She said it is misleading. Duffy said he hopes that someday the Supervisors will do it like it should be. He said that supposing there is a 3% increase then figure up that cost for all of the employees and then divide it by the number of employees and give them $1.00. He said he thinks the public will agree with that, but you can’t do it every year but maybe every 3 years. Stutsman said she agrees with him. Thompson said that this is done in the union contract not in the budget because they have to be negotiated. Stutsman said this is interesting because you get into some huge salaries and 3% is a big increase.

Jordahl said he is certain that the Finance Committee meetings with Slockett and Kriz have clarified repeatedly that they want to see these numbers together, so that all of the expenses for a department are clearly associated with that department. He said he wants to see that and they need it for the budget presentation. Thompson asked if by the time they have their budget public hearing they can have the COLA numbers back into the departments so that there are departmental increases. Stolze said 2% is already in and if anything is agreed to then that will have to be broken out. He said it will be their intention to have that done. Jordahl said they must have a number for the cost of each department for the budget presentation and that has to show capital expenditures, personnel, operating expenses and technology all in one number. Stolze asked if they need this for 2000 and 2001. Jordahl said for at least 2001, but it would be nice to compare the 2 and look at the percentage increase.

Thompson asked if page 13 includes the cost of living. Stolze said it roughly includes 1%. Thompson how much there is for ag land in the cities. Duffy asked about the tax in the city. Pillard said she has always heard that agricultural land within the city limits is cheaper. Lehman said it is still taxes if you haven’t zoned or planted it. Stutsman said to look at how much taxes go up and this is the County part of a person’s tax bill and doesn’t include the City or the school. She said somebody, on just the County’s portion for rural ag land, is going up about $67. Jordahl said theses people are going to pay about $50 less than they would have if their tax bill wasn’t lowered because the state did it. He said the State raised it to 15% and the Board cut it down to 9%. Stutsman sees it as an increase because they don’t understand the rollback and equalization things. Jordahl said to simplify it and say the State did it. Duffy said the State didn’t do it. He said that state senators will say that the buck stops here and they control the taxes. Jordahl said that is because it is convenient for them. Stutsman said rural residential only goes up $5. Thompson said that when you look where the wealth is in the County, they are putting the lowest burden on the wealthiest people. Stutsman said they did that last year, too. She said the down side of trying to be good to the farm community is that you are also very good to those in million dollar homes in rural areas. Thompson said this causes them to want to move to the rural area against the Land Use Plan, which calls for them to live in the city. Lehman said that can’t be changed because the levies are set. Jordahl said you can charge impact fees and create tax districts.

Stutsman asked if everyone is OK with what they are doing. She said they need to hear the GIS report. Thompson asked if there is still $200,000 on the table for GIS. Pillard said yes. She said she doesn’t know how they want to handle all the software requests from the various departments in the technology part 2. She asked if the Board wants to take those and lump that in with GIS and then have GIS decide who gets the software. Stutsman said it makes sense to approve an amount and then the committee divides it up. Jordahl said this is tied up with how software has been budgeted under this centralized philosophy of how to deal with these things. He said you get consistency in what software people use by having a central process. He said the requests for new software are made by the departments for review of things as they come up. He said they do not have a GIS Coordinator. He said if there is someone who can handle that, it does make sense to talk about reviewing those requests in terms of priority and viewed by the coordinator. He said he is supportive of centralizing all of the funds into GIS.

Duffy said the non ag rural residents are really getting taxed. Jordahl said they are only getting a 1.13% increase. Duffy said that in 1999 they were taxed $3,166,629. He said the tax for Coralville was $2,184,905 and other cities only $1,180,117. He said they are taxed and taxed a lot. Jordahl said they are taxed less than everyone else. Duffy said they aren’t. Thompson said this refers to people like her who live in the rural part of the County on a residential place. She said it is almost next to rural ag houses. Duffy said the rural ag land is about 7.35% and rural ag dwelling is 2.72% and rural ag building is 1.43%. He said that is a total of 11.5% and non ag rural residents are taxed 17.02%. Jordahl said they do pay taxes but the way their taxes are calculated is based on what their property is worth. Stutsman said they get a bargain. Jordahl said their property is worth a bunch so they pay a bunch of taxes.

Pillard said the Auditor’s Office would like to know what the Board wants in the budget for a cost of living, by Friday, because it does take some work to get it all spread out. Stutsman asked where they are as far as labor negotiations. Thompson said she doesn’t think the labor negotiations will be done in time for the Board to know what they are. Pillard said it is hoped that by next Wednesday the Board is OK with everything that is in there. Thompson said they want it all in there so they can put it out to the departments and avoid the amendment where they had to move it around. Pillard asked if this could be settled before even going into budget. Jordahl said this is simple math because this is what spreadsheets do. He said you make the 1% calculation. Pillard said this is just a lump sum number and it still has to be itemized out into each individual line item for every person’s department. She said this is just a number that is in place in the budget and it still has to be itemized out into the printout every month and for each personnel line item that has to be figured. Stutsman said she thinks this is one of those times when it is inappropriate for a budget amendment. She said the Board can put in a number based on their best estimate and if it changes then they can go from there. She said she thinks they lose more by putting in a figure as far as negotiations with the unions. Lehman asked if this amount will be taxed. Thompson said yes. Stutsman said she wants feedback from White and Shramek about how they feel about it.

Jordahl said it is one thing to do a budget amendment and another thing to try to raise taxes. He said Lehman raises a good point because you put in 2%, certify that and those are the taxes. He said in order to raise that to 1% with a budget amendment you have to cut something else in the budget. Lehman said they have to be raised next year to help build the carry over back up that was amended into. Stutsman asked what the percentage count is for every 1% increase. Pillard said $510,000. She asked the Board if they are going to wait to determine the elected officials. Thompson said that last year they did it in April after all of the contracts were finished. Jordahl asked if they can adjust that down when they have to change the percentage later on so they have taxed for the amount. Thompson said they could take $100,000 out of capital projects, but they already took out $300,000. Stutsman said that last year the increase was taken from Health. Thompson said to put it back into capital projects and if it needs to be taken out it can be. Jordahl said he doesn’t want to establish a tradition of capital projects being a slush fund. He said this is identified by project.

Pillard asked what the Board wants done for Friday. Stutsman said to leave the budget as is. Lehman said if anyone has suggestions of where to cut or add then discuss it on Friday. Thompson said she feels comfortable with what they have. Lehman agreed. Duffy said he is not comfortable. Lehman suggested making a list and the Board can consider it on Friday. Thompson asked whether or not they got close to the last growth part in the cut they did. Stolze said that in supplemental they are $213,000 above the allowable growth and unusual needs dollars. Thompson asked if before it was $431,549. Stolze said yes. Thompson said this is not a bad increase for a County this size. Jordahl said they are still in the process of making up for the tax freeze. He said you can account for basically all of the $213,000 that didn’t get done during the capital projects savings freeze. Thompson said she doesn’t feel bad about this but does feel bad that it comes so much on the farmers even though there is nothing they can do about it. Thompson said she feels like $213,000 is defensible. Jordahl said it depends on who is spending it. Lehman asked what the figure for new tax from new construction is. Jordahl said that is the $395,000.

Stolze said there is also another $282,000 in general basic and another $54,989 in rural basic. Lehman asked what those figures total. Stolze said that in the first packet the total came to a little over a million for allowable growth dollars and unusual needs dollars for general basic and general supplemental combined. He said it was $115,000 for rural. Stolze said that for general supplemental and rural basic the numbers for each of those funds are shown and whether or not the Board is currently asking for taxes above or below the figure of allowable growth and unusual needs. He said that for rural basic it could go up to $2,380,000 and right now they are at 2.196%. Stutsman said for everyone to look this over. She said they will hear the report tomorrow on GIS, have the executive session with the County Attorney on 2 of the collective bargaining units and then on Friday morning look at this once more.

Adjourned at 1:28 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Amie Kelley, Recording Secretary