Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 3:10 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Lehman said that the Board was going to orchestrate the upcoming budget hearing. He reviewed the Board’s plan for the presentation: they were going to start with an overview; then Horne would talk about revenues, the Supervisors would each give a report, rotating through the service categories, Tom Slockett and his staff would give information on the impact the taxes would have, and Lehman would conclude with a small wrap-up summary. Thompson said that she had looked at some budget information over the weekend, and said that she had noticed that the increases in the various budgets look a lot larger than they are, because the revenue increases offset them. Thompson suggested that the Board all try to mention this as often as they can.

Lehman read his executive summary that would open the meeting: I would like to open this public hearing with the executive review. We will not spend a lot of time reading the fine print for you. We would like to highlight areas of major consequence and impact. The 5 members of the Board of Supervisors will each cover one of the major service categories of proposed expenditures and use of funding. We have received many inquiries as to how individual departments relate to these service categories. This can be complicated, because some departments may fall into more than one fund and more than one service area. Rather than go into too much detail, we will try to give a general review and spend more time answering specific questions. Johnson County Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne will present revenue sources, and Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett and his staff will present the impact of the budget. Horne requested that Lehman add some information to his presentation, and he agreed to do so. Lehman read the sections to be added, information Lehman and Horne had discussed previously. Board members are also County taxpayers and property owners. Board actions have the same effect on Board members as they do on County residents. During the budget process, forms were sent to the department heads in October, and completed forms were due in November to the Auditor. The budget presentations by the departments were made in December. The budget work sessions took place in January. Many department heads were called back for a second round of presentations to visit with impacts on funding or non-funding.

Lehman also agreed, at Horne’s urging, to include in his section information on the State of the County, the County financial summary, and the Board priorities. Horne said that he didn’t think that they should alternate every slide, that the presentation would run more smoothly if there were fewer transitions between speakers and parts. Lehman read more of the additions to his executive summary: The County is in good financial condition. It has a growing tax base. We provide excellent services to residents in a financially responsible manner. There are no debt holdings. We try to maintain adequate cash reserves. Priorities in proposing this budget include: safety and upkeep at the current jail facility, maintaining commitments to human services, maintained a 5-Year Road Plan, space needs and capital projects, continued implementation of the Land Use Plan, expanded Geographic Information Service capabilities, keep tax increases at a minimum, provide equitable salary increases to employees, and commitment to open and accountable government. Horne said that he then had a slide that showed the budget broken down into the 5 service areas, leading into a more detailed slide on each of those 5.

The Board decided to then transition to the Board members’ presentations on each area, moving Horne’s presentation about revenues later. Sally Stutsman then covered Human Services, using 5 slides. Stutsman said that she was going to begin with an overview of the Human Services area, talking about the total budget for this area, $16,000,000, 30% of the County’s budget. Stutsman said she would then talk about Social Services, Physical Health, and Mental Health and Education, the 3 broad categories under Human Services. Stutsman said that they also needed to include SEATS under Human Services, and Horne agreed.

Thompson asked Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards if he had had a chance to ask as to why the Mental Health budget could be increased so much this year. Edwards said no, he hadn’t. Thompson said that last year they had been told that the maximum amount the Mental Health budget could increase was almost infinitesimal, but this year it was a fairly large increase. Thompson asked how this could be done in a capped budget? Deputy Auditor Joe Elder replied that the new expenditures could go up and down, thought the budget could remain capped. Horne also noted that this budget had some carryover from the previous fiscal year.

Thompson said that she planned to say was that the largest portion of the Capital Projects budget goes for County Roads projects, including bridges and culverts. She reported that expenditures for Capital Projects for Fiscal Year 02 would be $356,000 less than Fiscal Year 01, because the scheduled projects for this year are less expensive. She said that Capital Projects also included remodeling and replacing County buildings, and explained that the County had established a Space Needs Committee, and began setting aside funds for these projects. She said that for Fiscal Year 02, the Board had set aside $950,000. She said that expenditures include the contract payment on the Mall Drive property, intended for a future Health and Human Services Building, a renovation project at the County Courthouse, and major repairs and renovations to the Johnson County Jail. Thompson said that funds are also earmarked for land acquisition to meet the long-term goal of a County office campus in the area between the Courthouse and the Admin Building. Thompson said that she would also say that technology was also included in Capital Projects, which was $800,103 for Fiscal Year 02, the largest expenditure of which was for GIS and savings towards new County voting machines.

Lehman then read his section of the presentation, Program Services: 14% of the Johnson County 2002 budget is proposed to be expended in this area, or roughly $6,000,000. This was would be an increase of $645,584 from the current year. For state and local government services, the total budget is $1,484,084. These include service areas of departments of Recorder, Treasurer, Elections, and Records Management. Interprogram Services have a proposed total budget of $4,591,991. These departments include County Attorney, the Auditor, the Board of Supervisors, Human Resources, Information Services, and the Physical Plant. Interprogram state, local, and governmental services budget highlights for the year 2002 is reorganization of Human Resources, elimination of a position in the Treasurer’s office due to increased technology efficiency which will amount to approximately $27,000, a 30% increase in health insurance costs amounting to $480,000. Horne said that he also wanted to point out that the Attorney’s portion of Interprogram services is more like the work that the Attorney does for the County, such as planning and zoning, as opposed to criminal prosecutions.

Neuzil then covered Roads and Transportation. He reported that the total budget for Roads and Transportation for Fiscal Year 02 will be a little over $6,000,000. He said that this budget includes the Secondary Roads Department along with road maintenance, roadside vegetation, weed control, and snow removal. Neuzil said that some of the goals of the Secondary Roads Department include: completing work on construction projects scheduled for the year 2002 as listed in the current 5-year construction program, reducing the number of miles of chip seal oil surface roads in the County, reducing the number of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges in the County, and reducing the amount of brush problems within the right-of-way through competitive seeding of native prairie. Neuzil then reported that the total budget for County Environment would be nearly 1.4 million dollars; this includes the Planning and Zoning Department, as well as the new Buildings Inspections unit, Conservation, Kent Parks, and the County Park system. He said that some highlights from the County Environment included the Secondary Roads Departments’ addition of an Assistant County Engineer, which will cost a little under $80,000. Neuzil said that the Board was also going to work with the Conservation Department, which was going to receive around $804,000, and said that the Board approved the level required to access REAP funds for the Conservation Department. Neuzil said that the new Building Inspections Unit was under the Planning and Zoning Department, and resulted in the large increase in that department’s budget.

Harney reported on the County Public Safety and Court Services. He said that the total Public Safety and Court Services budget is $9,930,795. Harney said that the Public Safety budget is $8,812,013, which covers Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services, the County Attorney, Medical Examiner, the Sheriff and his expenses, and grants of Juvenile Crime Prevention and Disaster Services. Court Services total budget for Fiscal Year 02 is $1,118,782, which covers the cost of legal administration, Juvenile Justice Administration, and Courthouse protection. Harney reported that the Public Safety and Court budget highlights included: increased safety at the Jail, increased Courthouse security with an addition of 4 deputies and a matron for a combined cost of $239,906. Harney said there is also an agreement with the University of Iowa to provide medical services for the medical examiners. The Board suggested to Harney that he emphasize that although expenses would be up, this increase in expenses would be partially offset by an increase in revenues. Stutsman suggested that Harney could mention that the juvenile justice budget had leveled out after huge increases in the past.

Horne then detailed the revenues, reporting that Johnson County has 3 major sources of revenue: the first is net current property taxes, the second being interest, charges, licenses, and permits, and the lastly federal, state, and local governments. Horne reported that net current property taxes is by far the largest of the 3 revenue sources; the County has approximately 46,000 parcels of property, and $.17 of each dollar of County property tax goes to the County government. He said that this accounts for 51% of the County’s revenue, about $21 million. Of that, Horne said, 75% of it goes to the General Fund, 12% goes to the Rural Fund, and 13% goes to Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Fund. Horne said that the second category of revenue, interest, charges, licenses, and permits, includes other County taxes, delinquent property taxes, property tax penalties and interest on back property taxes, investment income (mostly interest payments), charges for services, and things like fireworks permits. Lastly, Horne said that 3rd category of revenue, and the 2nd largest after property taxes, is funds from federal, state, and local governments. He said that quite a few of the revenues pass through the County directly for programs, and often what seem like large expense increases are actually offset by revenue increases in these sources. Horne said that the County receives various grants from state and federal agencies, as well as state property tax relief and reimbursements for services provided by the County’s residents.

Elder then showed the impact that this year’s budget would have on an average taxpayer. He showed a variety of slides, beginning with showing where the taxes are coming from; the 2 biggest slices were from Iowa City and Coralville, which comprises 60% of the County’s taxes. Rural residential accounts for 18% of the County’s taxes, and 22% come from miscellaneous rural taxes and the other cities in the County. Other slides showed: where the tax dollar goes for an Iowa City taxpayer, where the tax dollar goes for a Newport township resident in the Solon school district, the percentage tax increase a taxpayer would experience as a residential taxpayer or a commercial/industrial taxpayer, the percentage increase in various departmental budgets from the previous fiscal year, the percentage increase in fund balances, and comparisons between Johnson County and other governments (including taxes, total expenses, and total revenues).

Lehman then read his concluding statement: In many areas, we are mandated to fund programs and services. We have no control over impacts of this nature. Many dollars are pass-through dollars, meaning the County administers funds, grants, and programs from state and federal organizations. Also, in some categories, large percentage changes in dollars in departmental fundings may actually amount to a small amount of dollars. Conversely, departments with large-dollar budget amounts may reflect a small percentage change, but amount to a large dollar amount. We hope that our presentation has been helpful for you to understand how we arrived at the proposed budget after many hours of study by department heads, their staffs, the Board of Supervisors, Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne, and Auditor Tom Slockett and his staff. At this time, we would like to open it up to the public for any questions or inquiries.

Stutsman noted that they had not said anything about fund balances, and wondered if they needed a slide showing information on this issue. Horne said that he could set up a slide showing details on the Johnson County fund balances, and Neuzil suggested that he compare the Johnson County balances, around 10%, to those of Linn County, around 25%. Stutsman said that it was important to meet this issue head-on, and explain why, in some areas, the fund balances may look large, but in reality the County is saving money for future identified projects. Horne added that the County needs to maintain a certain amount for cash flow, as well.

Neuzil asked what would happen if one of the Board members would be unable to make it to the meeting. Lehman said that if each Board member would give their information to Horne, he would have it all, and someone could substitute if there was an absence. Lehman said that this would also help Horne follow along each Board member’s presentation and better know when to change slides. Neuzil suggested that Horne prepare a short version of the slides and handouts so that Board members could use them if they needed to take the budget information to other venues and meetings.

Adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary