• Conservation (24)
• Conservation Trust (82); and Special Resource Enhancement (32)

Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 3:30 p.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Mike Lehman, and Sally Stutsman; absent; Jonathan Jordahl and Carol Thompson.

Conservation Board Chairperson Christine Rohret introduced Conservation Board member Tom Hoff, Conservation Director designate Harry Graves, and Conservation Naturalist Kristen Goldsmith. Rohret thanked Conservation Director Rod Dunlap for his 30 years of service to the Conservation Department and mentioned that this is his last budget hearing. Stutsman said Dunlap has served the County well and left the County in such wonderful condition.

Rohret said that last December they did Strategic Planning with Tim Shields. She said they are not finished by they do have a framework laid out. Stutsman inquired as to how that process went for the Conservation Board, and Rohret said they had some very good discussions about their vision and where they think the Conservation Department should go in the future. She said they talked about organizational issues as well as future plans and the budget can now follow the vision of where they want to go. Rohret listed the Conservation Department’s long range goals: educational programming for diverse populations throughout Johnson County; trail development; enhancing revenues; and developing a comprehensive program plan. Rohret said that they established an Internship Program for the Environmental Education Program, and that’s reflected in their budget request, as well as computer software and hardware to help with newsletters and improve communication. Rohret said they will keep the Board informed as they work out more strategic planning details.

Dunlap then began his explanation of the budget. It was revised, he said, because they included the insurance money in the amount of $25,156 to replace damaged trees from a past wind storm. He stated that the new proposed budget is in the amount of $804,960. This is an increase of $52,555 over the present budget, or a 7% increase. He noted that the request of $25,156 is a good percentage of that increase. However, he continued, the budget increase that is requested has been caused by full-time employees’ merit increase governed by the Johnson County Conservation Board Employment Merit Plan. Also, Dunlap said, a 3% cost-of-living increase is built in for full-time employees, and additional funds are in the part-time wage accounts for seasonal workers. Dunlap noted that there has been some increase in funding requested in this area, because they have to be very competitive in wages with other employers in Johnson County who are also hiring part-time workers. He explained that the Conservation Board allows the Director to have a dollar amount, rather than trying to set the wages. Then it’s the responsibility of the Director to fill those spots for the summer months and stay within the framework of the amount of money that’s been budgeted for part-time help.

Dunlap reported that they are experiencing between a 30%-49% increase in cost of diesel fuel, gasoline, and natural gas. He said they are also experiencing an increase in repair cost to their vehicles and equipment, due to the age of the units, and high operational hours. They have an account number within the Department 24 budget that is used for any contracted work that they have, in repairs to vehicles. That number has been increased, Dunlap said, primarily due to the fact that a lot of the new equipment and vehicles have technology that they are unable to make the repairs in-house. He also said that the cost of materials and supplies is increasing, and gave an example of pine oil, used in their toilet pits, which has increased in cost over 100%.

Dunlap said that the increase in expenditures for the Environmental Education Program was broken down in his written proposal. He would like to hire a part-time seasonal naturalist to increase the public programs. This isn’t a significant amount, but the Conservation Board did put $2,000 in the salary and wage portion of the budget to try to put an intern on this summer for the Environmental Education Program. Another increase in cost, Dunlap pointed out, was due to a new program, the Environmental Education Newsletter. Dunlap concluded by explaining that expenditures for land acquisition and development are not in the Department 24 budget and have not been there for a number of years. Those funds are built into the request for Department 82 Trust Fund Budget and the Department 32 REAP Budget.

Stutsman asked Dunlap if it were true that the budget was not changing that much, but he was reallocating within the line items. Dunlap replied that they only have one decision package, and if you were to take out the amount of money requested for replacing the trees, there is probably less than a 3% increase in the requested budget. He noted that in the budgeting process, they have been able to reduce expenditures in some line items and increase other line items. This is not an unusual practice, he said, and is basically forced upon them because it depends upon what their projects are going to be for the budgeted year. Dunlap explained that they were estimating a revenue increase for 2002, at $53,055. Revenue is hard to estimate, he said. The Conservation Board increased fees going into this period, and they have seen an increase in some usage. Most of the projected increase in revenues, Dunlap said, is in the user fees. Stutsman asked about the Parks Maintenance line item in the amount of $24,000, and whether this was for the purchase of a vehicle. Dunlap said yes, it is a replacement vehicle for a patrol unit with close to 100,000 miles on it.

Lehman asked about a leased vehicle, Dunlap said that was another vehicle, the dozer crawler which has been paid off. Lehman asked about the mower replacement line item in capital expenditures, and Dunlap said that this was for replacement of a mower. Lehman asked if they solicit a lot of bids on those. Dunlap said that they go out and get prices but don’t go through an official bidding process. Lehman said that he was thinking of the case with the Caboda. Dunlap said that it was the first time they had gone with the Caboda, as it happened to be less dollars than the other brand of mower that they had had for many years. Dunlap said that it was a decision that was made by their field staff and superintendent, and recommended to the Director. Lehman said the reason he asked was because they purchased it from Linn County and there was a dealer in Johnson County who was not asked to come out and look at the trade-in. Lehman wondered how comfortable Dunlap is with getting the best deal if he didn’t shop around a little more. Lehman said he would like to see the dollars stay in Johnson County. Dunlap asked Lehman if he was saying that they did not contact the Johnson County dealer. Lehman said that he works at that facility and he was called and given some rough numbers but was never asked to look at the trade-in to get some more concrete dollars. Lehman said that when someone is asked to give a value over the phone without seeing equipment, he’s not sure you’re doing justice to either party. Dunlap said to Lehman that he’d prefer if there was a complaint or comment on it, that Lehman contact him. Dunlap said that he did not know anything about it, and said he’d follow up on it if Lehman wanted to raise his concern with Dunlap. Lehman said it is now after the fact, and he just wanted to make sure that Dunlap was getting the best deal. Dunlap said they try to do that.

Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne asked if the new Director was going to be living at Kent Park, and Rohret said that they were not going to be. Horne further inquired as to who was going to live in the house. Rohret said that those are decisions they have not made yet, and is on a future Conservation Board’s agenda. Lehman said that the Board of Supervisors would be interested in hearing back about it. Rohret said the Conservation Department now has rangers patrolling the park, so the house is no longer necessary for the Director. Dunlap indicated that the Director has made a written recommendation to the Conservation Board to consider putting the other full-time ranger in residency there. This, he said, would be a big plus towards the supervision and security in service to the public. Stutsman inquired as to whether he would pay rent, and Dunlap answered that this was entirely up to the Conservation Board. He also noted that the Conservation Board is going to need to expand its office space and there was always the possibility of turning the residency into an office, rather than approaching the Board of Supervisors for funding for a new office. The facilities being used out there for office space, Dunlap said, are not adequate for the operation.

Stutsman asked for an update on the Conservation Education Center. Dunlap said that the Center is in operation, and that the naturalist is doing public programming out of the Center but usage for renting it out to environmental groups has been slow because the Conservation Department hasn’t made contacts well enough because they were still in the process of completing the landscaping, so they were not actively seeking business for it. Stutsman asked if the Conservation Board intended to pursue the renting of this facility and Rohret confirmed that they were very interested in increasing the usage of the facility. She noted that the trails, prairie, and pond area are beautiful right now.

Stutsman then asked if there were any questions about the Trust Fund or the REAP budget, and asked if there were plans to purchase land this coming year. Dunlap said that the Conservation Board does like to put some funds into those accounts for land acquisition if there happens to be natural area lands that come up for sale. He said that they have been working on one area of land for a number of years now that they’d like to have funds to negotiate with if it becomes available. Stutsman asked if the increase of purchasing land was enough to keep up with all the purchases as far as maintenance. Dunlap said this was a good question that he’s not in a position to answer. He did say that the lands that the Conservation Board would be interested in if there were willing sellers are those areas that are natural areas, passive usage, and not as expensive to maintain and operate as an outdoor recreation area is. Rohret noted, they do want to have money available so that if land becomes available, they have some bargaining room. She said that they are concerned about the corridor area, and they know that this area is being populated very quickly. They want to watch this area, because they think there will be an increasing demand for park areas, and they think they are in a prime location to provide services for residents there. Rohret said one thing they did this year was develop guidelines for land purchasing, so instead of waiting until after something becomes available, they can be more proactive about thinking about what is the purpose of the land, and other issues related to cost and maintenance.

Stutsman asked Horne what the Board of Supervisors needs to put into the Conservation Department budget in order to qualify for the total REAP funds. He replied that he had not received an answer back yet on this question.

Dunlap reminded the Board that Johnson County, out of the 99 counties in the state, is ranked 94 from the top in terms of the millage levy. Stutsman complimented Dunlap on making the dollars he has go so far. Dunlap also asked the Board of Supervisors to strongly consider allocating money for the replacement trees. Lehman asked how many trees that was, and Dunlap said they did not have a count as to how many trees were damaged, but they had over 300 trees just in their Day Youth and Landscape Areas that were destroyed. Lehman asked how many young seedlings $25,000 could buy. Dunlap said that if the funding was approved, the Conservation Board would break up some of that money for seedling trees, only 50-65 cents per tree. He said they would also want to take a portion of that and buy some larger stock, some container or bulb burlap stock, which could be up to $75-$100 per tree. Lehman asked if the Department ran a nursery, where trees are planted in a fenced area to keep wildlife away from them, and then transplanted later. Dunlap replied that they have this on a small scale; every year they say they are going to put a larger nursery in where they can grow their own stock, and it seems to become a low priority. Stutsman said that part of what the Board of Supervisors is trying to do with the budget process is tie goals to budget requests. Since the trees are a big part of what the Conservation Department is requesting, she asked, which goals do the trees represent. Rohret clarified that this money is for replacing something. She said that enhancing complexes or more resources for managing plant communities fit into the goals , but since the trees are replacing what was destroyed, it’s not stated in their goals.

In a related topic, Rohret said, the Conservation Department realized that they need to talk with the Board of Supervisors more about the budgeting process. Rohret offered an invitation that they get together before budget time next year so that the Board of Supervisors can help them understand the process. Rohret said they also had questions about revenues, what happens when revenues are increased, support for Human Resources in the County, and modification of personnel policies and procedures, which has not been done for awhile. Rohret said they’d like to discuss these issues with the Board of Supervisors after the new members come on board. Stutsman said that sounded great, and that the Board wanted to be more proactive in presenting a consistent process for all the departments, which would include educating all departments in the budget process.

Lehman asked about the reforestation of the Frytown location, and asked if this was the same line item as the $25,000 for new trees. Dunlap answered that it was a line item out of the Maintenance and Operational Budget, or maybe in the Trust Fund. Dunlap reported that work has been completed this year at Frytown. This included a bridge crossing a creek, so they could get into lands so they could manage them, where they didn’t have access before, and they also repaired the culvert. Lehman asked about the wording of this as a Trust, and Dunlap answered that this was a misleading word. By law, Dunlap said, it’s called a Reserve Fund, and Johnson County calls it a Trust Fund. Lehman asked if the trees in the budget for this year could come out of this account, or what the criteria was for using that. Dunlap said that this was something the Conservation Board was going to have to address. Dunlap noted that the Conservation Board did follow the Board of Supervisors recommendation that the trees be put in as a budget item. He said that the trees have been a budget item in the past, and have been removed from the budget from the storm damage. Duffy said that the Trust Fund was for land acquisition and development, and he didn’t think it would include trees. Dunlap said this was a gray area, in terms of considering it development, but he said it’s really replacement. Dunlap said that this money is the amount left over from what the insurance company paid, and is in the budget now. Rohret said the Trust Funds have traditionally been spent on larger projects.

Adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary