• County Engineer Mike Gardner: FY2001 Secondary Roads Budget
• Discussion: FY2001 Budget

Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Stutsman explained the Board had some questions regarding the ending year balance for the FY2001 Secondary Roads budget. She said numbers in the current budget would result in an ending balance below the $900,000 recommended by the County Auditor. Thompson explained the State’s Equalization Order increasing ag property by 15% has hit farmers hard before taxes are even calculated. In order to minimize that impact the Board has adjusted transfers, which reduced the FY2001 ending balance about $112,000 below the recommended amount. Deputy Auditor Dan Stolze explained it in more detail, how using the beginning balance, revenues, transfers, and expenditures, a projected ending balance is calculated. Jordahl added to this the history of inaccurate projections of the ending balance prior to Gardner’s tenure as County Engineer, with balances coming in higher than projected. He said the Board needs to know if there is any slack in the projected balance.

Stutsman said what the Board needs to know what the minimum amount Secondary Roads can operate under for an ending balance. Gardner said that when there was low turnover in engineering staff, the balances went down. He added that when they experienced turnover, the balances increased, because it was difficult getting prepared to complete projects. He said they have reduced the balances with the recent stability in staffing. He reviewed the statewide figures for county secondary roads fund balances- FY96: $1,165,000 avg.; FY97: $1,199,000 avg.; FY98: $1,157,000 avg. He also gave a summary of his review of annual reports going back to 1972, one year being $900,000+, one year $500,000+, and all other years being over $1,00,000 for an ending balance. He said the balance is a safety net; if they are hit by something at the wrong time, that is what they use. Thompson said the question they’re faced with is do they want to tax for a safety net in a year that’s tough on farmers. Gardner was concerned about letting the transfer fall too low to receive State Road Use funds. The Board indicated that is covered and asked Stolze to confirm that. Stolze explained they are at the minimum to receive the State funding. Thompson said there are 2 numbers they don’t know: what will the ending balance be this year and what will they spend out of next year’s budget, both can increase the ending balance for next year. Gardner said there are a number of unknowns: what kind of spring they’ll have, if there will be staffing problems, and costs for right-of-way acquisition, among others. Thompson asked what kind of risk they are willing to run. Since the $900,000 is below $1,000,000 Gardner would recommend, Stutsman said she is nervous going even lower. Jordahl said the Auditor said $900,000 is safe. Gardner said he is a little uncomfortable with another office making decisions about the Secondary Roads budget. Stutsman said that is exactly why the Board asked Gardner to come in. Stolze said the balance at the end of the current year has been re-estimated at $1,416,000, and Gardner said he had estimated $1,142,000, asking who re-estimated that. Stolze said they used the information received from Secondary Roads.

Duffy said he doesn’t want to give the impression that the County Secondary Roads Department is the author of new taxes. He placed the blame on the Board of Supervisors. Jordahl disagreed, saying the rural side of the budget is separate from Duffy’s concerns. Jordahl said the reason they are looking at the Secondary Roads budget is not due to any problem with the job being done by Secondary Roads; it is because of the effect of the 15% equalization order on farmers. He said the Board can’t do anything about that except lowering the taxes that effect the farmers. He said they would have to cut taxes on the general basic and supplemental side 4 times as much to have the same effect as a cut on the rural side.

Stutsman asked if Secondary Roads can operate on the projected amount. Gardner said he can’t predict that and Lehman said that balance could predict what projects they are able to complete in the year. Thompson suggested they could put off some vehicle purchases until revenue comes in. Gardner said they usually hold off on that type of purchase until after they see the impact of the winter.

Jordahl asked what was the budgeted ending balance for FY2000 and Gardner replied $948,807. Jordahl said, whether they used the Engineer’s or Auditor’s re-estimated ending balance for this year, there will be a higher balance this year than was budgeted by $200,000. He said that gives them the additional amount they need for the ending balance for the next year, noting $112,000 is needed. Gardner and Miller discussed the fact that they have not completed the acquisition of the Sand Road right-of-way. Gardner reported that the statewide average for ending balances is about 24-27% of the budget. Thompson said Johnson County Secondary Roads is at much less than that. Jordahl asked what figure was in the current spreadsheet for this year’s ending balance. Stolze said the current year’s ending balance is at $1,416,000 and Gardner said he had projected $1,142,000. Stolze said the difference between the 2 numbers should be the revenue-expense adjustment they put in the spreadsheet. Jordahl noted the revenue-expense adjustment is $250,000. Stutsman said, based on Secondary Roads following prior instructions to spend down the balance, she cannot understand why the Board would ask them to reduce it down below the amount they would be comfortable with. Jordahl said they need to look at the numbers and what the resulting balance would be. Stutsman asked for a review of the scenario. Stolze said the difference in the figures they have come up with is the revenue-expense adjustment, which is based on history of each department for budgeting revenues and spending compared to actual numbers. Thompson said, due to the change in management and the direction for Secondary Roads to spend down that balance, history may not be a good predictor. Lehman noted the trend most recently doesn’t follow previous trends. Stutsman said sooner or later they may need to cut back on projects if they cut the balance down too far. Gardner said they might have a spike at some point because they have been funding some projects by spending down the balances. Jordahl said ideally they won’t have high equalization orders on ag land each year. Thompson said Duffy had indicated there would be one more bad year for farmers in the productivity formula used to calculate valuations. Thompson asked how Gardner would feel about reducing expenditures to bring the balance up to a desired level. Gardner said they already came in at $150,000 below this year with the proposed budget. Jordahl asked for clarification on the differences in the ending balances. Stolze said the revenue-expense adjustment shows up in their ending balance because it shows up as additional revenue. Duffy and Stutsman indicated they don’t want to go below $900,000. Gardner said he is not arguing with the Auditor’s projection, but if it isn’t right, then his department would be in an even more difficult position. Stutsman expressed concern about what would happen if there was another budget freeze, if the County lowered the balance too low and were caught short. Gardner said that is why he is concerned, because they have been funded at a lower level, spending out of carryover balances. If something happens that they are stuck at that level for revenue, they wouldn’t have the funding to operate. Stutsman said it comes down to the question of being able to provide the level of service the public wants for their roads. The Board discussed whether to increase the balance to $900,000 and all agreed to do that.

Recessed at 9:38 a.m.; reconvened at 9:48 a.m.

Stutsman asked the Board what else they wish to discuss. Thompson said she feels GIS and space needs should still be on the table. Stutsman asked what they want to do about GIS (Geographic Information Systems), keep it in at $200,000 or lower it. Jordahl said they need to keep in the $200,000, in order to accomplish anything. He said in subsequent years they could look at adjusting that amount. Jordahl said $70,000 of that would be for salary, benefits, and equipment for a GIS Coordinator position. Stutsman asked what they had previously budgeted for GIS. It was noted that Planning and Zoning had purchased ArcView and the Needs Assessment was done for 23 to $24,000, with $15,000 brought together from various department budgets.

Thompson asked for clarification on the GIS implementation, as far as staffing costs. Besides the Coordinator, she said the proposal from the consultant, Farragut Systems, Inc., indicates a Map Delineator would be hired in the Auditor’s Office for the conversion of data. Jordahl said the proposal was not specific about which department that position would go into. Thompson said the Map Delineator position would be for 1,800 hours, not for a full year, 2080 hours. Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler said the figure of 1,800 only covered the largest portion of in-house hours, manual edits to the database. He said with the other tasks included there would be 2080 hours needed at the Map Delineator level and an additional 210 hours of County management level hours are built in. He added there would be several hundred hours of time included in the project by the consultant. Thompson asked if the $18,900 left out of the $200,000 budget beyond the Coordinator and the basic conversion proposal would be used for equipment. Kistler noted the proposal from Farragut also included costs for a database management interface and a mapping application, some of which could be built in the first year, or they might use it for equipment, if that is needed. Jordahl said that if it is necessary to spread some of these expenses over 2 years, that could be done simply by slowing down the pace of the project.

Jordahl reviewed the letter from Jeff Hanson of Farragut Systems, Inc. which states what can be accomplished the first year, if the recommendations are fully funded. Jordahl said the GIS Subcommittee opted to put off implementing an internet application the first year to keep the costs down for the first year; they would be hire the Coordinator and do the database development. He said the idea was to get this up and running by the end of the first year. Jordahl said if they cut back on that, they are basically talking about still hiring the Coordinator and still making progress, but by not getting as many hours of assistance during the year.

Duffy asked if the Auditor’s Office could handle this whole thing. Kistler said he would rather not comment; that they discussed that in GIS committee. Lehman said he is concerned that the Auditor’s Office workload has not allowed them time to work on a pilot project. He said staffing for closing the polygons should be temporary, under a GIS department or qualified in a way that a department doesn’t say in a year they are too busy to get the GIS project done. He said they need goals and timetables. Jordahl said they don’t have a final Needs Assessment yet, which is due soon.

Stutsman said she sees the need for the Coordinator to get this project going. She would favor funding $100,000, including the Coordinator. Thompson said the Auditor has asked for 3 staff members and a partial position to meet their statutory requirements, and they did not receive all the requested staff. She said they will have statutory requirements that will be difficult to fulfill. Thompson said, if they can’t fund the staff to meet the basic operations of their office, they shouldn’t be expanding into another area. Jordahl said he hopes he isn’t hearing an arguing for additional staff in the Auditor’s Office at the expense of the GIS project, because the Auditor’s Office has been very supportive of the GIS project. Stutsman noted the concern raised about placing staff for GIS in the Auditor’s Office with other demands for staff time. Jordahl said that is why they need an independent Coordinator, who would expend the dollars used to pay staff for GIS. He said the needs assessment does not say the staff would have to be in the Auditor’s Office. Stutsman asked if the Coordinator would supervise the staff. Thompson said that in an earlier meeting the understanding had been that the Coordinator would not be supervising any staff, that the other staff person would be in someone’s office. Jordahl said the person would be answerable to the Board of Supervisors and have an interdepartmental coordinating function; it is nothing to say that person could not supervise staff. He said the funding listed in the draft report from the needs assessment is not for existing staff but for additional staff. Thompson said they would be working in the Auditor’s Office on the Auditor’s maps. Lehman said they wouldn’t physically have to be there, but could access the mapping from the server. Kistler said the Auditor’s Office has been very forthcoming in their concerns about their ability to keep up with their work, their needs for staff. He said, that if they are concerned about a position dedicated to GIS being drawn away, he would point out that during the mapping project done in the Auditor’s Office they hired the equivalent of 5 full-time employees and a deputy. Kistler said none of those employees were drawn off work for the project for other purposes, other than possibly himself working unpaid overtime on an election day. He added the project was done on-time and under budget. Lehman asked what happened to those positions that were hired. Kistler said they were temporary positions, including himself. He explained he moved into an open permanent position at the end of the project. Jordahl said the point he and Kistler were making is that the money in the $200,000 recommendation is to pay for additional staff to make the GIS project happen. He said it is not clear where that work will occur. Thompson asked if they were adding a new level of bureaucracy to the County. Duffy said that is right. Stutsman said the additions were necessary if they want to do GIS. Jordahl said this has been much discussed in committees and the Board has gone on record that when GIS is implemented, a central GIS Coordinator would be necessary. Stutsman said this a project that cannot be accomplished by committee; there has to be a central Coordinator.

Lehman suggested putting into the budget the $38,000 requested by the County Auditor for a Map Delineator position and reducing the GIS request from $200,000 to $162,000. He said this would be a good start for GIS and help the Auditor with their workload. Jordahl asked if the position for the Auditor would be for the GIS data editing. Lehman said that would just be for the Auditor to keep up with their workload. He said they may need to wait until about October to start on the GIS. Stutsman asked Pillard to confirm staffing approved for the Auditor’s Office so far. Pillard reported that one Accounting Clerk II had been approved; another Account Clerk II and a Map Delineator had not been approved. Lehman asked for clarification about what area of the office the Account Clerk II positions were requested for. Kistler said one was requested to help with the accounting side of the office and one on the tax side to work with real estate. Lehman asked if the tax Account Clerk II does some of the work a Map Delineator would do. Kistler said the work is all related, but the tax Account Clerk works more with the numbers on the database side and the Map Delineator works more with the mapping graphics side. Stutsman asked if one of the positions that has not been approved would help with the workload they’ve seen in the Auditor’s Office. Kistler replied that is correct. Thompson asked how long it would take to close the polygons in the GIS conversion. Kistler said Farragut’s report states the manual edits should take 1800 hours. He added that Farragut’s proposal includes work to be done by Farragut to create the customization to make the editing process more efficient. Lehman reported Deputy Auditor Chris Kahle hadn’t had an opportunity to work on GIS in a month and a half. Kistler said someone in the Auditor’s Office who has to work on getting the daily work out will not be able to do the work on GIS as efficiently as someone whose time has been dedicated to GIS work. Kistler said that if they approve the position in the Auditor’s Office for the daily work, and even if they have to start a little later in the year on the GIS project, he would hope they dedicate one position to working with Farragut on the GIS conversion, even if it is a temporary position. Jordahl asked how the added position in the Auditor’s Office makes more sense than hiring part-time student positions. Thompson said that person would fulfill the statutory requirements of the Auditor to provide the plat maps. She noted the dog-eared maps they have. Jordahl said they have the electronic maps. Kistler said they have the maps and the database information, but they aren’t linked. Thompson asked if closing the polygons will bring that information together. Kistler said closing the polygons and placing the label points will allow them to bring that information together. Thompson said that will allow them to bring the plats up-to-date. Kistler added that also allows Planning and Zoning, Public Health, and everyone else to use that same data; everybody gains. Jordahl said what they are talking about with the $200,000, is to just basically get those maps together to provide the base level to which things can be linked in subsequent years. He said the costs in subsequent years would be the ongoing expense of the Coordinator and the development of databases and linking of information from various departments and development of software to make it accessible.

Stutsman said to her the decision comes down to: Do they want to go ahead with GIS? If they are, she said they have to put in the $200,000. If they do that, she asked if there was another $100,000-$200,000 they want to cut out somewhere else. Thompson said she rather cut $100,000 out of GIS and start out in the middle of the year. Jordahl said he’d rather cut $100,000 out of space needs. Thompson said she was going to want to do that, too. Duffy said he’d rather cut $100,000 out of both of them. Jordahl suggested cutting $200,000 out of space needs and fully funding GIS, because it is more important. He said $200,000 could go quickly in spending for a building, but $200,000 for GIS would make a world of difference in the lives of each of the departments. Stutsman said it bothers her that Johnson County appears to be fumbling around with GIS and cited the example of Shelby County having GIS available on the Internet. Duffy asked how far they want to go with GIS. Jordahl said all the way. Duffy said this over future years could cost over $2,000,000. Kistler said the large numbers that you hear for large GIS projects includes the costs of creating the base information, which Johnson County has been already done with the mapping project. Duffy noted that effort was done by the Auditor’s Office in-house. Jordahl said they are planning to do the GIS effort in-house, too, with a jump-start by people who have done this before. He said the combined effort is the most economical effort. Duffy suggested postponing this for a year. Stutsman said they had postponed it for a couple years. Kistler said the mapping was completed in 1996. Lehman said a Coordinator could look for some grants, but he added many grants ask for a commitment of local funds as well. He said the grants could help justify the position. Duffy said he would be for a good grant writer, because the position could pay for itself, possibly with just one grant. He said you can’t have everything and space needs are a little high. Jordahl emphasized that the GIS project is an interdepartmental thing that benefits all County departments. Jordahl said he didn’t think you could find a department that would say GIS was a bad idea; you could pack a room with supporters.

Stutsman asked for some consensus. Lehman asked Kistler what area the Account Clerk would be working in, if the Map Delineator was granted. Kistler said it was uncertain at this time how they would be using the position to help meet all the various needs. Lehman said he would be content taking the $37,700 from the $200,000 for GIS for the Auditor’s Map Delineator position, leaving $162,000 for GIS. Jordahl agreed. Thompson suggested reducing the GIS expenditures to $100,000 and granting the Auditor’s request for a Map Delineator at $37,700. Jordahl said that would give the GIS Coordinator and Map Delineator positions and almost nothing for the project with Farragut Systems for actually processing the parcels. Thompson said the project could be started with the assistance of Farragut and the GIS Coordinator hired in October. Jordahl said it would probably have to be January. Thompson noted there would be savings in hiring the Coordinator in October, as well as starting the project then. Pillard asked if Farragut Systems would work at the same costs proposed, if there were a delay. Kistler said that is a good question, but they do want to work with Johnson County very much. Stutsman agreed with Thompson’s proposal of $100,000 for GIS and $37,700 for the Auditor. Stutsman asked Duffy to be the third vote on one of the 2 proposals. Duffy said he wanted to knock more out of the budget someplace else. Thompson said she would agree to cutting space needs $200,000 to $1,000,000. Lehman said that when they get into the GIS, the committee or someone else will have to decide how to use the money given to GIS, including how far into the year to start the project. Stutsman said that can be done. Lehman said the Map Delineator may give the Auditor more time to work on the project, too. Thompson said Farragut Systems may look at the money available and come up with a different proposal. Lehman said he hoped the impact of GIS for economic development would help, citing the example of Story County. Duffy approved the lower amount for GIS, along with Thompson and Stutsman. $37,700 was put in for a Map Delineator in the Auditor’s Office and $100,000 for GIS.

Stutsman asked to talk about space needs. They discussed having cut the amount being added for space needs from $600,000 to $300,000. Stutsman asked if they want to cut that further. Thompson said she would be comfortable taking off another 100 to $200,000. Stutsman asked if they would then go with a total of $1,000,000. Thompson said they made a plan that showed they would be able to do all the projects on the table, but because of the Jail they aren’t getting a project off the ground. She agreed with Jordahl that they don’t need to save too much for a project they don’t even have off the ground yet. Stutsman said the Jail has to be a bond issue. She said they can’t even think about funding it out of this budget. Thompson said, because of the energy and time spent on the Jail, they don’t have the will to say, in addition to the Jail, they are going to fund these other projects one at a time. She said the Space Committee has tried to separate the other projects from the Jail and they don’t seem to have been able to do that. Jordahl said this is where Sycamore Mall might form a reasonable solution to all the space needs, because they might be able to put all the departments they need to in there and deal with décor later. Thompson said they want $3,000,000 for the mall, and with an additional $200,000 in this budget, instead of $300,000, they can afford it. Duffy asked what they would do with the Mall Drive property. Jordahl said they could sell it. Thompson reviewed the capital projects balance, revenues, and expenditures. She said at the end of this year they would probably have about 1.6 million, and if they add another million, they could have enough at the end of the next year to purchase Sycamore.

The Board agreed to reduced capital projects to $1,000,000, $100,000 over the current year. The Board asked what the impact of the $250,000 just reduced in the spreadsheet would have on the bottom line. They looked at the Auditor’s projections. Jordahl noted the amount taken off of GIS would have a small effect on the levy.

Stutsman asked Pillard if there was anything else to consider. Pillard said they haven’t looked at a 1% increase for non-personnel items in Secondary Roads. Thompson said the Secondary Roads budget had been lowered. Stolze reviewed the budget packages that were approved. Pillard said she would talk to the Engineer about what portions of the non-personnel increase would be needed.

Duffy brought up the tax impact on certain classes of property. Stutsman said the State-ordered rollback and equalization changes were beyond their control. Duffy said they need to make some reductions in the budget. He noted positions he would reduce. Thompson and Stutsman argued for the need for the planner in Planning and Zoning and the position the County Attorney. Lehman suggested asking the County Attorney to pursue back taxes with the new position as a means to return revenue. Stutsman said they could communicate that to the County Attorney.

Stutsman asked if there were any vehicles that could be taken out of capital expenditures. Thompson said they had reduced Public Health’s vehicle expenditures. Pillard asked if there would capital expenditures in SEATS tied to the proposed trainer for furniture and a computer that could be taken out. Lehman said they may need to use some of the space needs funding when SEATS relocates.

They recapped the funding for neighborhood centers, which is $25,000. This would cover requests from North Liberty ($15,000) and Hills ($4,500) with a little left for another site.

Jordahl said road equipment, such as snowplows, is a capital expenditure in the Secondary Roads that hasn’t been looked at for possible reduction. Lehman said they might need to do a better job in getting quotes. Stutsman said that would impact the rural side. Stutsman said the capital expenditures in Secondary Roads aren’t broken out separately. The Board discussed a possible $200,000 reduction in the Secondary Roads budget. Thompson said they need more information on what Secondary Roads is spending on capital expenditures, because $200,000 may be too much.

Stutsman asked Pillard if there were any other places they could cut. Pillard said she could talk to departments about trying to shave something off their budgets. Stutsman asked if they wanted to direct Pillard to look for a certain amount. Jordahl said it wasn’t a matter of dollar amount but a question of importance to a department. Lehman said they could cut $100,000 on the rural side or struggle to find $400,000 out of the general fund. Stutsman said they are more limited on the rural side. Jordahl said the other place on the rural side where they could cut besides Secondary Roads are the libraries. The Board discussed contracts for library services and the costs. The Board discussed whether multiple contracts would be needed with the sharing agreements between the libraries and whether a reduction in the number of contracts would reduce the level of service to rural residents. Stutsman said they need look at the library issue in the future. Thompson said Linn County funds a library committee, which distributes the money, curtailing the amount they spend. The Board decided to not make any changes concerning libraries at this time.

Thompson said Secondary Roads had $410,000 in their budget for new equipment and $30,000 for equipment such as tools. She said they have spent half the equipment money this year. She asked if they should cut $50,000. Jordahl said they could ask them to stretch out their replacement cycle. Duffy suggested talking to the Engineer about it. Stutsman said she would also want to look at the libraries. Thompson said they have a contract with Iowa City, so it would have to come out of the other libraries. Duffy and Jordahl said that could cause difficulties for the rural residents, if particular libraries aren’t funded. Stutsman said $262,290 is committed to the Iowa City Library. Pillard said the total budgeted for libraries is $387,634. She noted Iowa City had a $6,711 increase, North Liberty had a $9,811 increase, Solon had a $8,697 increase, Oxford did not ask for an increase, and Coralville asked for a $635 increase. Thompson asked if they could look at purchasing prices at Secondary Roads to look at possible savings. The other Board members suggested Lehman and Duffy, as the Roads Committee, could work with the Engineer on looking at purchasing. Stutsman said there appeared to be a consensus of the Board to look at Secondary Roads purchasing and the library contracts prior to producing the budget next year.

Duffy suggested cutting 1% off every department budget. Thompson asked if that would effect the revenue-expense adjustment. Stolze said that might not effect the revenue-expense adjustment because it is decreasing the approved increases. Lehman said cutting what has already been approved would lead departments to inflate their budgets in the future. Jordahl said it is a reasonable thing to ask departments to find some slack. Stutsman asked if there was anything else they need to decide. She asked if they want to direct a 1% decrease. The Board members said they only wanted to look at the numbers, not make a cut at this time. Stolze said it would be a little over $300,000, if special revenue and expendable trust funds and capital expenditures and technology weren’t cut.

Adjourned at 11:10 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Mark Kistler and Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary