MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
FEBRUARY 3, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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: Formal meeting for Thursday, February 3, 2000. Second item on the agenda is Business from the County Engineer. This is discussion action needed regarding the Iowa Department of Transportation Agreement for Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program. What we call the STP Program for Project STP-S-CO52-5E-52. This is to grade, drain and pave Sand Road from 520th Street SE northerly, approximately 2 miles to the intersection of 480th Street SE. Do you have anything to add to that, Mike?
County Engineer Mike Gardner: That covers it pretty well.
Jordahl: Is that the way you refer to these things around the shop?
Gardner: All the time.
Jordahl: STP-S-CO52-5E-52.
Stutsman: We have with us County Engineer, Mike Gardner, so if you could fill in the details on this.
Gardner: OK. It’s fairly self-explanatory. Whenever we get the federal funding on these projects, we have to enter into a formal agreement with the DOT that we are going to cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s that we are supposed to. They just need the Board to take formal action so that the Chairperson can then sign the agreements and return them to the DOT and we can get the thing in order so we get reimbursed our funding once the time comes.
Jordahl: We talked about this, you and Mike and I, the other day about farm to market money as being (inaudible) market road and we talked about outside funding whether it’s being done with County tax dollars and then here we’re talking about federal aid dollars. Can you clarify for me what maybe what proportion of this we’re getting federal aid for?
Gardner: The agreement is up to a maximum of 80%. But, we’re also constrained by our funding guidelines in the Council of Governments. We have come to some kind of an agreement with the different counties that are involved with that over what our share of the money is. Then there are funding guides that we try to remain within those constraints to make it easier for everybody’s budgeting process down the road. In this particular situation, we’re nowhere near the 80%, but we are at what would be allowed to keep us within our funding guidelines for the year. The amount of funding we’re getting from the federal government on this particular project is $390,000 and some change.
Jordahl: And the total cost of the project?
Gardner: I don’t have that figure with me right now but it’ll be in the range of $1 million plus.
Jordahl: So, we’re talking about maybe around 1/3?
Gardner: Right.
Jordahl: Well, that’s still better than totally locally funded, which is kind of the impression I was getting when you, Mike and I were talking.
Duffy: This would be from the gas tax wouldn’t it, Mike?
Gardner: Right.
Duffy: Through the federal gas tax that comes down from the state.
Gardner: Through the federal, right. Right.
Stutsman: Any other comments?
Jordahl: Is this kind of a give and take thing with ECICOG where one year we get a project, next year somebody else gets a project, or is it a constant ratio?
Gardner: Everyone tries to stay within their funding guidelines so that there is not any one agency getting all of the funds. Before, prior to ISTEA, you were given your funding based on needs and area. The needs equation actually. So, we’ve tried to mirror that, but the federal guidelines won’t allow us to actually do that, so we call them funding guidelines and each County tries to police themselves to remain within those guides.
Jordahl: So, is this a kind of standard percentage that we get each time then of the total funds?
Gardner: Right.
Lehman: The question we had the other day was, if you could save up, in what you’re saying there, there’s some limits, and in many cases it wouldn’t help you to wait 3 years on a project because they are only going to give you so much per project.
Gardner: Right. And to a certain extent you can do that and save up your funding over say, a 3 year period and put it all into one project or spread that out over 3 separate projects and take a smaller percentage of the total. But, you still end up with the same number of dollars in the end.
Jordahl: So, that’s kind of a gentlemen’s agreement with the vote.
Gardner: That’s correct.
Duffy: Really its competition from other counties around us, too.
Gardner: Right.
Stutsman: Are there any other questions then concerning the agreement?
Gardner: We are still on schedule to get this project in the DOT’s bid letting on April 25th, just for your information, this spring.
Lehman: We might add for the public that Secondary Roads’ construction period runs over 2 Fiscal Years, and it’s tough for Mike to… If he could predict the weather, he would know how much he’d accomplish and what bills he’d have to pay before July 1st, and a real balancing act for him to get that done sometimes.
Gardner: Yes.
Jordahl: We want to emphasize, too, that we have a, it says grade, sand and pave and so forth, drain, but it doesn’t, it doesn’t say bicycle trails or recreational trails, but a feature of this project is that there’ll be paved shoulders just as on Prairie Du Chien.
Gardner: Paved shoulders. That’s correct.
Jordahl: So, we’ll have a popular route for people to bicycle down to Hills and other points to the south and southeast. Although this doesn’t get all the way to Iowa City, it is a start and we do envision that connection going all the way to the southern part of Iowa City. Where’s that on the 5-year plan? A couple 3 more years out?
Gardner: Right. Right.
Jordahl: That way (inaudible) see what Iowa City is going to do on that end of town, too.
Lehman: It’s going to seem (inaudible). That’s a large agricultural region down there. There’s a lot of farm equipment and that’ll help the safety factor, too. They’ll be able to use it off the side of the road a little bit, too, to meet oncoming traffic, so.
Stutsman: And we’ve mentioned the 5-year plan and this is kind of the culmination of having a project on the 5-year plan. I think since I’ve been here this has just kept working it’s way up and now we’re to the point of finally entering into an agreement and just making this project a reality.
Gardner: Right. This is the last step prior to construction.
Jordahl: I want to further emphasize that, as was the case on Prairie Du Chien, that there is no additional right-of-way required for this project, in order to get these recreational trails on the shoulder. That this is simply paving the shoulder you were going to have build anyway.
Gardner: That’s true.
Jordahl: So, this is really a tremendous gain to the public at minimal cost and at no extra imposition on the surrounding landowners in terms of land acquisition.
Duffy: Probably the reason that we don’t have to acquire more land is, I think from fence line to fence line is a little wider than most of other county roads and…
Stutsman: We don’t want to get confused that we’re not acquiring more land. But we’re not having to acquire additional land then because of the…
Duffy: Additional land. Yes.
Gardner: We are buying right-of-way.
Duffy: Between the 2 fence lines, we have other county roads and it’d be almost impossible to do that.
Stutsman: And I might add, too. I’ve gone to at least 2 public informational meetings concerning this road that involved the landowners along the road. Where it was very carefully explained what the routes going to take, what it’s going to mean and just going through the whole project. Not only the right-of-way acquisition part of it, but then, as the project moves along, what it’s going to mean as far as disruption in the traffic and detours.
Gardner: What they can expect when the construction begins. Yes, we’ve tried to enlighten them on that as well.
Jordahl: Yes. I want to chime in on that. I really want to complement you and your staff on those meetings. I went to the first one and I was impressed with the maps and graphs and charts and stuff. They showed the cross section of the road, and this stuff was all very, very clear. So, it wasn’t just you and your staff standing up and talking about it like we’re going to put a road through, maybe we’ll need to buy some right-of-way. You were able to ask very specific questions about, well, how close is this going to get and how it’s just… Really excellent work at addressing the subsoil qualities and it’s…
Gardner: Appreciate that and I’ll pass that along to Al and Jinyeene because they did all of that work and they’ve done a heck of a job.
Jordahl: Yes. I thought so.
Duffy: Well, you’re kind of modest. You helped, too. It’s those meetings but I thought the other 2 did a good job and Al kind of took control of the thing, he’s a, well, I’m not saying you’re lucky to have a good assistant like that.
Gardner: I’ll say it.
Jordahl: Well, I want to say the same thing about Jinyeene. She was prominent I think in that 1st meeting.
Duffy: And they told things the way it was. A lot of questions and that’s the way it should be.
Stutsman: So, you said bid letting is scheduled for April 25th.
Gardner: April 25th.
Stutsman: OK.
Gardner: If we don’t hit any roadblocks and we don’t anticipate any at this point.
Stutsman: So, we’ll put this on then for next Thursday for formal action. Anything else, Mike?
Gardner: No. I don’t believe so.
Stutsman: OK.
Gardner: Thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Jordahl: Thank you.
Stutsman: Item 3. Business from Lisa Dewey, SEATS Director. And Item A under that would be Discussion Action Needed Regarding Approved Budget Amendment Request for $15,000 for Scheduling Software Upgrade Required for the MDT/AVL Installation. I understand Lisa isn’t here this morning, but I think Burnell Chadek who is Assistant Director, and Tom Kriz, Johnson County Treasurer, are here to talk about this item, as well as Deana Pillard, who is the Administrative Assistant in our office that deals with budget matters.
Jordahl: It takes 3 of them to replace Lisa.
County Treasurer Tom Kriz: That’s good numbers. Yes. That’s right.
Stutsman: First off, could you do the acronym for the MDT/AVL. I have it somewhere. Or what that stands for.
Chadek: That is short for mobile data terminals/automatic vehicle location.
Stutsman: OK. Thank you.
Chadek: And those are the units that would go on board the SEATS vehicles.
Stutsman: All right. We had an executive summary in the packet, but I’m just going to turn it over to the 2 of you to explain what’s being requested here.
Kriz: OK. I’ll start with the first part of that Sally. Lisa had a conflict that had been scheduled some time ago. She couldn’t get out of it and asked me to present some of this and then the 2nd phase of that Burnell will take over on.
Stutsman: All right.
Kriz: I sat on the committee that Lisa put together to look over the software needed to make this project happen, as did people from Information Services, Mike Sullivan from Ambulance. So, we had a nice cross match of it and that’s in some ways fine here today other than with the numbers. But you had the summary from Lisa. Basically, the County received the FDA grant, requiring the County to provide $18,000 in matching funds to receive the $72,000 to purchase the MDTs and AVLs. Those funds have been approved. Initially on the amount budgeted for the software for this project was projected to be $50,000, which is the amount currently budgeted, and I’ll get into that in just a second here. We went through a number of requests for proposals ranging in dollar amounts from $72,000 to $150,000, (inaudible) going to get into. That’s where the bids for the software actually came in, which include the installation, the hardware, the training of the people and everything to go with this. Through some hard negotiating between Burnell and Lisa, with the software vendor of our choice, that was negotiated down from the $72,000 to $65,000, which still meets all the needs that SEATS will have for this project. What Lisa’s asking for here is a 2 phase thing. First of all, in last year’s budget, not counting personnel, this is just in general operating budget, SEATS did not utilize $37,027 of it. That was made up. As I went through her final budget report from last year, there were savings in the fuel area, repairs, radio maintenance, custodial services, things like that, that totaled an excess of $20,000 of that amount that was not spent. What Lisa’s requesting is that the budget amendment be done and approved to utilize $15,000 of that money to move over into this budget for the completion of this process. I think the key issue to this is without that $15,000, the project can not go ahead. We lose the grant, which is $72,000 for the equipment for the County. What she’s asking for is to move $15,000 of that unspent money from the FY 99 into this year’s to be spent there. Now, also, something that works in conjunction with that is with this year’s budget, it also needs to be amended. Part of the progression into making this happen was the sale of some vehicles, which the income has come in this year in the amount of $24,092. That money would actually have to be moved then into the Technology Fund, which has $26,000 in it already for this project, which would give her the $50,000 needed. Because that’s come in as income, it actually would have to be amended to move that $24,092 from the sale of those vehicles into the Technology Fund to accomplish this, so it’s kind of a 2 step process. First of all, taking money that’s already been received, and it’s actually a movement from the regular to the Technology Fund for the $24,092, and then approving $15,000 to be brought back from the unspent money from the FY 99 budget (inaudible) process to get it to the $65,000 limit.
Jordahl: Tom, may I ask a question.
Kriz: Sure can.
Stutsman: Well, are you done with your presentation?
Kriz: No, that’s fine, that’s fine. Yes.
Jordahl: What we were talking with Mike earlier about East Central Council of Governments and this kind of joint funding deal, I want to make sure everybody understands that this is a grant that we’re responding to, a grant here. We didn’t go out and figure how can we spend $100,000 on software? I know Burnell’s been wrestling with stuff for years, making it work, but rather we had this opportunity. The question I have is you said by this $24,000 sale of vehicles, those are basically ECICOG vehicles rather than Johnson County vehicles. Is that the form that the grant money is coming in, in part, is through the sale of the vehicles? Or, how’s that work?
Kriz: Burnell might speak to that a little bit.
Chadek: The grant itself for this project was something that was started a long time ago in terms of applying for the funding. Back when we originally installed our dispatching scheduling software in about 1996 or so, this is part of the project that re-envisioned it. At that time, we did ask ECICOG to apply for the grant, and that whole project $90,000, $72,000 was secured by ECICOG in 1997, I believe. It’s been carried over, as we’ve been deciding exactly how to approach what we want to do internally at SEATS if you upgraded the software. It’s a pretty old project in terms of the age of the grant itself, and it’s just come time to use it or give it to someone else, essentially. But it’s not related to the vehicles.
Stutsman: This might be a good time to explain what this grant will do, you know, what are we talking about, for people who aren’t familiar with it?
Chadek: What it will do is it will complete the entire package, so to speak, of scheduling software system in conjunction with the mobile data terminals on board the vehicles themselves. What we’re going to be adding essentially, besides upgrading our software, is components that will tie directly into the software in real time, as our vehicles go about their routes on a daily basis, both with the data terminal on board. They’re very, very similar to what you would see on the Sheriff’s or the police car, in terms of real time messaging, the actual communication between the drivers, the dispatchers regarding the trips, the locations, the changes that come in and the real time scheduling that a dispatcher does. All of those functions will be automated and tied directly into the dispatching scheduling software that will allow for much easier data collection, more accurate data collection, better service overall, because we’ll know where the vehicles are and we’ll be able to dispatch those much more efficiently. It really does tie everything together, and we’ll have a very good system in place as envisioned originally, in 1995.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Thompson: Tom, I didn’t understand the numbers.
Kriz: OK.
Thompson: You said the total cost of the project was $65,000?
Kriz: $65,000, that’s right.
Thompson: We have a grant for $72,000?
Kriz: The grant part of it is for the equipment that goes in the vehicle, not the software. The $90,000 there, $18,000, is in the budget already, and the $72,000 is the grant money. That’s for the equipment in the vehicles, that’s not the software.
Stutsman: We’re talking about 2 different things.
Kriz: There’s 2 issues. You have the equipment first of all, then you have the software at the level, and the software is the issue we’re addressing right now. But without the software, it makes it not feasible to do the other part.
Stutsman: To clarify a little bit about this process. This is kind of confusing because we’re not doing a budget amendment today. That will come in March, Deana?
Pillard: I believe so, yes.
Stutsman: That requires a public hearing and whatnot. But I think what Lisa wants is tentative agreement from the Board to go ahead with this in order to be included in the budget amendment and that process. If the Board’s not in agreement with this, well then, we just…
Kriz: Then we don’t go any further from this point. That’s right.
Thompson: I’m still not getting it added up. You need $65,000 and there’s $24,092 to be transferred from this year’s revenue, and $15,000 from prior year carryover.
Kriz: Right.
Thompson: And $18,000 already in the budget.
Kriz: No, $26,000 already in the budget in the Technology.
Thompson: OK, that does it.
Kriz: You’ve got $26,000, $24,092 and the $15,000 requested which comes to $65,092. It’s confusing because you have the 2 issues. You have, first of all, the equipment for the vehicles. That’s where we already have $18,000 set aside for that, and the grant of $72,000, which is the bulk of that expense. The expense for SEATS and Lisa and Burnell is the $65,000 for the software to take us into the next...
Jordahl: It’s confusing because they’re similar amounts of money, for one thing.
Stutsman: Are there any other questions?
Kriz: That’s at least on the first part. She had a 2 part summary, but the first part kind of proceeds what needs to be done on the 2nd part, because without being able to move that $15,000, the funds aren’t there.
Stutsman: I wanted to clarify, too, for people that might be confused. Lisa talked about she didn’t spend all of her budget last year. That money reverts to the General Fund. It doesn’t go back to individual departments. Anything that’s left over at the end of the year goes back to the General Fund. What she’s asking is to access dollars from the General Fund that would be used to amend this budget to put into…
Kriz: That goes into the County’s general operating fund, which we look over through the Treasurer’s office and invest.
Stutsman: Really, she’s just kind of pointing to the fact that there was this carryover that was attributed to her department, but that really doesn’t have much to do with this year’s budget. It’s sort of a fact.
Kriz: It’s a fact that the funds were there, and those would be needed as a crucial step in making this whole.
Stutsman: At this time, there really isn’t any action to take on this. It’s just kind of a heads-up, and inform the Board of this. I think we can reach some kind of consensus or general agreement.
Jordahl: Straw poll.
Stutsman: In favor of this, and moving ahead.
Thompson: I like it that this is a culmination of a plan that you’ve had and that it puts us on the cutting edge as far as services for SEATS riders, so I’ll be in favor.
Stutsman: Do you have any problems Charlie, or…?
Duffy: I’ll be in favor. It does say discussion/action though.
Stutsman: We’re in informal. But even next week, we can’t formally approve this because it has to go through the budget amendment process. That’s when the action will take place, when we hear all the budget amendments.
Kriz: I think that’s what Lisa and everybody are looking for, just to make sure that we’re on track. As Burnell said, this has been a number of years in coming to this point. We’re finally to that level now where it can happen.
Stutsman: Jonathan, Mike, is it…
Jordahl: Yes. I was going to say that I like these executive summaries. Lisa’s really good about providing facts, and we got 2 pages of this stuff here that details this.
Stutsman: It certainly helps clarify it.
Kriz: There’s been a lot of work, looking at it from the outside in and working with that committee on getting this. When you saw the proposals, and as high as some of them ranged with (inaudible) and some of those, there was a lot of negotiating then to get it just down to this level so it would encompass everything we need. To truly take this into a new area while we deliver that service.
Lehman: Like Burnell had said, one of the base things I see is increasing availability of service, and that’s one of the problems we’ve had is trying to get everybody rides. What it is you’ve got maybe a last minute call comes in or something like that, dispatch will be able to see where vehicles are, possibly reroute someone without have to call and ask where are you, they know exactly where they are. You’re not far from this request, maybe you can accommodate them.
Jordahl: This is going to fit together well with GIS, too. East Central Council of Governments has got an initiative to get GIS established throughout the region. They’re hiring staff, if they haven’t already completed that, to serve as the technical assistants for counties that may not be able to hire their own, and this, you know, we would be able to put that together with our electronic map. The future’s right around the corner here.
Stutsman: OK, if we’ve answered all questions, are we ready to move on then to the 2nd part?
Kriz: Right, OK, and Burnell can kind of take that.
Chadek: OK. The 2nd part, the executive summary, has a lot of things that we’ve already covered. Essentially, what we’re asking for in the 2nd part is to discuss the contract itself with the selected company and then put that in for next week for formal action. As we’ve already discussed, and Tom did a really good job of discussing the process, we had an Evaluation Committee comprised of Lisa and myself, Tom, Mike Sullivan from Ambulance, Jean Schultz and Bill Horning from Information Services. We put in our RFP late last summer, received our response in December, and then we sorted through and evaluated each and every one of the proposals, and we selected 2 for demonstration of which one was the Stratagem which we were recommending to go forward with. The committee unanimously and overwhelmingly, I think, selected this particular company called Stratagem Systems as the software that work the best, in terms of integrating with the MDT/AVL Project, and also, in just its technical capability, above and beyond what anyone else in the market is offering currently. Luckily for us, the best software that was identified is also the least expensive. It became an issue of actually considering a replacement of the existing software in terms of who the company involved versus upgrading the existing software, and upgrading the existing software by staying with the same company is actually much, much more expensive. They came in at the highest end of the range there.
Jordahl: You’ve been having trouble with that software too, haven’t you?
Chadek: Well, because it hasn’t been integrated with MDT/AVL, it’s been somewhat of a tedious task to get the data, the MDT/AVL in conjunction with the data collection much, much easier and much less time consuming. I believe you’ve all received a copy of the contract. Janet Lyness from the County Attorney’s office has reviewed this. We’ve incorporated her suggestions and final draft of this contract. It’s actually been sent to us, and it’s already been signed by the president of the company. All it awaits is our action at this point, then we can proceed.
Jordahl: Aren’t we stuck here behind this budget amendment? How are we going to work that time-wise?
Thompson: Will they have cash flow?
Chadek: We’ll have the $50,000 that’s already budgeted to get us started, and the payment schedule is indicated on page 2 of the contract itself, under the item 3, the compensation 3.1 license fees. We’ve got the $50,000 which will provide us with enough money to get the process started immediately, plus over a several month time frame is what they’re indicating in their installation scheduling, a 3 month time frame at minimum to complete the process. There won’t be any problems with cash flow.
Jordahl: But we’d be committing ourselves formally to the purchase of something for which we don’t formally have the money. I’m kind of bothered by that.
Stutsman: Deana, do you have some clarification for…
Pillard: Well, part of what has to be understood is the revenues that were coming in for the sale of the vehicles, that the budget still needs to be amended for those funds to be spent.
Stutsman: That can’t be done until March. Are we going to run into a cash flow problem, or if we enter into this contract.
Jordahl: We may not have a technical cash flow problem, in that the Treasurer’s office would be able to disperse County money in our General Fund balance, but it seems like there’s something backwards about…
Kriz: The systematics of the timing, how the funds flow in there. But as Burnell said, with the initial $50,000 that’s already there, that takes care of the first thing. Once again, you would be looking at doing something, but you’d have to approve the amendments in March.
Jordahl: Yes, we’d be presuming.
Thompson: Is the $50,000 in the right account to spend it out of, or does that have to be amended?
Pillard: $25,000.
Kriz: $25,000 is in that right, their $26,000 is in that right now, and then the $24,000 would go into that.
Jordahl: We have to assume that in the public hearing that someone might stand up and say something that would convince us not to amend the budget in that way. Otherwise, the public hearing is meaningless. I guess, I want to point to the idea that you had earlier, of this $37,000 from last year. Could you find this within the existing budget, like last year there was $37,000 left. If you need an extra $15,000, maybe there will $15,000 left this year. Could you cash flow this thing, could you do this out of your existing budget if the budget amendment failed?
Kriz: I have not looked at Lisa’s this year (inaudible), but I would say probably it would be tough to do. I think it’s probably pretty tight, but I have not jumped into that in depth.
Jordahl: I mean, I foresee it passing but there’s a problem.
Stutsman: Well, and you’re exactly right.
Thompson: Well Tom, maybe you can discuss this with Lisa, and by the time we have this on for next week’s vote we can have an answer.
Kriz: Sure, she can certainly do that. It’s unfortunate she couldn’t be here today because she has a little better handle on the every day things as Burnell will have for that office.
Stutsman: What’s the timing of this contract, Burnell? Does this have to be signed before March?
Chadek: It would certainly help in terms of the other component. The software is the first item that needs to be installed before MDT/AVL can proceed. What we’re waiting for is approval from State DOT to go ahead with the project, but we do need something that the MDT/AVL will work in conjunction with, and our present software will not work with that system. It is a timing issue for the other component, the federal grant.
Jordahl: Let me ask about department head’s discretion. If we budget money to a department and it’s budgeted for a certain item, the department head has discretion to spend it… Let’s say, for example, that something were purchased for less money than was originally budgeted. The department head can go ahead and spend that money for something else, right?
Stutsman: Right.
Thompson: As long as it’s not in a personnel item.
Jordahl: Right, so couldn’t the… I would assume, then, that Lisa would have discretion to say well, even though I don’t have money budgeted for this, I’m going to go ahead and spend this now gambling that the Board will approve this budget amendment, recognizing as a possibility that we won’t, and she might have to find a way to eat that $15,000. I think she could do that on her own nickel, so to speak, otherwise we have to have a budget amendment earlier, I think. Somebody help me here. Maybe Pat would like to chime in.
Stutsman: No, I think you’re exactly right. If, in fact, the budget amendment isn’t approved and she goes ahead, then she’s going to have to come up with the $15,000 within her budget and reduce expenditure somewhere to make that up. Whether she can do it or not is…
Thompson: Does the payment schedule indicate that the $15,000 wouldn’t be spent until after the public hearing?
Jordahl: But the contract indicates that we would have to make good on that.
Kriz: But you would have to perform on the contract regardless of how it was spent, right. Some of it would not be spent until…
Stutsman: To not get confused, the money is there for this contract. It’s just that it’s the timing that’s got things all messed up, because we can’t transfer the sale of those vehicles until after the budget amendment.
Kriz: That’s exactly right. When you have a project that’s gone over 2 or 3 years like this, and finally all comes to where it’s ready to happen, then it’s trying to find out how that all falls into place. But Pat could probably comment on that. I agree. You could do that, as I might try to through my Treasurer’s budget, knowing that it would probably happen, but have to suck it up and find those funds somewhere else if it didn’t. I don’t know.
County Attorney J. Patrick White: It’s not uncommon for your budget amendments in the past to be catching up with prior spending decisions. You’re free to say we don’t want anything spent until after a budget amendment that hasn’t historically been the County’s approach. For years, approved, made spending decisions that you knew were going to require budget amendments, and technically, you’re correct. You’ve got to hear what the public has to say and make a judgement. A lot of budget amendment is housekeeping rather than substantive decision making. I think it’s a policy question for you, at least as I understand the proposal, they would be asking you to vote to approve the contract, and you certainly don’t need to do that until you’re ready. Approving the contract would…
Jordahl: It’s tantamount to, excuse me.
White: No, go ahead.
Jordahl: It’s tantamount to making the budget amendment decision. We commit the County’s honor performing on the contract, which is to say that the budget hearing is meaningless.
White: Or that you have a backup plan in mind, you decide not to amend the budget, that you’ve got some other way to do it.
Stutsman: But during the hearing process, part of what the hearing process is, to hear input from the public. Even with that input from the public, if they’re adamantly opposed, if we feel that this is in the best interest of the County, we still can go ahead with it. I think that’s kind of what we’re agreeing here right now, is tentatively saying we feel that this is an important project. It’s been well thought through. It’s important enough that we probably will go ahead with a budget amendment, even if someone comes violently opposed to it.
Jordahl: Suppose, just for the sake of argument though, that at that public hearing there was only one item up. The only budget amendment we had was this one. It would be a meaningless hearing.
Stutsman: No. You still have the opportunity for the public to give input.
Jordahl: Then you say we plan, we will ignore public input.
Stutsman: There is always the chance that somebody could bring something forward that would change our mind, but I think we’re… And suppose that we aren’t supposed to have our mind made up. I don’t want to get into a long discussion.
Lehman: In that case, we would turn down amendment, and it would be up to the department head, in this case, Lisa, to find other…
Jordahl: Yes. Yes, I think that’s right.
Thompson: Yes. But as long as this doesn’t… There’s nothing in this proposal that doesn’t just transfer money that’s already been saved or, I mean, it doesn’t result in any new taxation. I think the chance of opposition is minimal.
Stutsman: I think if someone came in with a 10 million dollar change in the budget, yes, I think we’d have the Board room full, but I agree with Carol. I think that this probably pretty…not a huge…
Kriz: I think you’re looking at the scope of where it really takes us into the future with SEATS.
Stutsman: I think that’s what the Board has to weigh, too.
Kriz: I think that’s what the public probably weighs as they look for what’s best for Johnson County and where it needs to go.
Jordahl: I don’t think it’s correct to say this doesn’t require new taxation. We can’t do new taxation mid year. It would reduce our ending balance as projected by $15,000, which would reduce our carryover for next year’s budget by $15,000, which we then have to tax to make up for.
Thompson: No, I think we’re talking about money that would be beyond the planned carryover.
Jordahl: Where’s it from then?
Thompson: From the last year’s carryover that was beyond the plan.
Jordahl: That’s in our current plan. The Auditor uses last year’s carryover to project next year’s carryover. This $15,000 isn’t coming out of nowhere. This is tax money.
Stutsman: Oh.
Thompson: Well, we know that, but it’s tax money that was already planned in the budget.
Jordahl: That is planned in our current budget planning, and if we approve this, then the numbers for next year’s budget is saying that they weren’t just projections. We’d come down by $15,000, or else the taxes would go up by $15,000. We’re planning to spend money, and we have to tax for it to make up for it. That’s a simple fact.
Stutsman: Are we ready to put this contract on for next Thursday to approve this contract, or do we want more input from Lisa as far as the circumstance of the budget amendment. Carol?
Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: It was requested that we…
Stutsman: That it be on? OK. Are there any questions? It has been reviewed by the County Attorney’s office. We’re OK with that. The fee schedule for additional help is pretty steep on this. Is SEATS ready to take advantage of all that initially will be covered under the contract and not have problems come up later on that we’re going to be spending $100 an hour plus how much for expenses to have somebody come in.
Chadek: You’re referring to the Exhibit A on page 7?
Stutsman: Yes. I just want an assurance that you guys have got all your ducks in a row so that you can maximize all that’s included in this contract before having to go back and have additional cost involved to get this up and running.
Chadek: Yes, those hourly figures are support figures on a per-incident basis. It’s very common for software vendors to offer support in different tiers like this. I know in Jean Schultz’s budget, she has set aside, say, a certain amount of dollars anticipating maybe 2 calls per year, and that’s exactly what we do in subsequent years under this arrangement. It’s a tradeoff between what we’re spending in our annual maintenance cost. If they were to offer 24 hours around the clock support, their annual maintenance costs would be much, much higher. This really is an incentive not to call them unless it’s a catastrophic failure. Under most circumstances, any problems will be easily handled within the normal hours or by SEATS staff. I don’t anticipate any problems. All of the references that Stratagem has provided have indicated that they’ve never had an outside normal hours call, where something couldn’t wait to be resolved. That’s a very good indication that it will be a very minimal use of that. It would be prone to budget in future years to anticipate future incidents, at least.
Jordahl: I think that the way to handle this would be to sign the contract in a timely way and send a message to Lisa in connection with doing so… A formal statement that she may have to eat this within her budget if the budget hearing goes against it, but anticipating that probably we will approve it at the budget amendment.
Kriz: I can pass that onto her. As I say, I apologize for being a little green at what I try to give you on some of those other numbers and everything.
Stutsman: I think you did very well.
Kriz: Lisa really would like to have been here, because she and Burnell had gone through with me. It is an exciting time for SEATS as you look at this and look at the possibilities and what can be done. Even from the outside, as I say, coming in. It really takes us to another level.
Stutsman: I think she had a great pinch hit team presenting this between Burnell and Tom.
Jordahl: As far as green goes, Tom, I mean, as Pat pointed out here, I’m learning about the budget amendment process, trying to figure this out. He says it’s always been done, you know, I’m not real conversant on how it’s always been done. We’ll try to figure this out as we go. It just seems like the pieces weren’t quite lined up in the right order. Of asking questions, I’m not questioning your integrity or anything like that.
Kriz: Oh no. I agree, as we try learn how to make it happen when you get down to a timely thing, and it’s ready to go, but B got in front of A, and it’s shuffling around.
White: Particularly, Jonathan, with grants, it’s almost impossible to get the budget amendment in front of an approved grant. Particularly, your year-end budget amendments frequently are catching up with grant funding spending decisions that have already been made.
Jordahl: As far as already, I think it’s another key word there. I could already have asked you or Tom or anybody these questions before coming into the meeting here and giving the impression that somebody didn’t know what they were talking about, and it’s maybe me who doesn’t know what I’m talking about. But, thank you.
Lehman: Green’s a good color for a Treasurer.
Kriz: That’s right. That’s perfect for that. That’s all I have.
Stutsman: Any other questions? OK, thank you very much. I think now would be a good time to take a short break before we move on to business for the Board of Supervisors. Why don’t we come back maybe a little before a quarter of?
Recessed at 10:05 a.m.; reconvened at 10:17 a.m.