County Engineer Mike Gardner said his budget is about $130,000 below last year’s budget. He said he would cover the main items in which there were significant changes. On the expenditures side, Gardner said, there was an $80,000 decrease in outside engineering, because they are caught up with the surveying and aerial surveying. Also, Gardner said, with the hiring of the new engineer, they will be able to handle a little more of this kind of work in-house. The rock contract was also decreased by $80,000. He said his department is going to do more of the hauling with its own people, to save money. Gardner said they are also decreasing the amount of material put on the roads, to save some money. New construction is also lower, $70,000 less than last year; this is just a matter of which projects are on the table, and the estimates for these projects. Gardner said these reductions total $230,000 lower on the expenditures side.

There are also some increases on the expenditures, Gardner said, including an additional $35,000 for the Calcium Chloride Safety Program. Lehman asked how this would translate into miles; Gardner said without the numbers in front of him, he didn’t know. Gardner said he underestimated the costs of putting the safety program into place, and the numbers are available only this year. Gardner said the $35,000 estimate may even be a little low. Stutsman asked Gardner to clarify that the increase is not adding more oiled roads; it’s just adjusting what is being spent on the program. Gardner agreed. Neuzil asked when the new traffic count numbers come from the State; Gardner replied they would be counting next summer, and the County won’t get the results for a year after that, so he doubted they would even have the numbers at next year’s budget presentation. Neuzil said he strongly suspected the County is going to have a lot more roads with a lot more traffic than what is showing on the current roads. Neuzil said that, at some point, there are going to be a lot more roads that need Calcium Chloride. Stutsman asked how much this line item went up after the Board instituted the safety program? Gardner said that in FY 2000, Secondary Roads spent just short of $81,000; in FY 01, they spent almost $182,000, a $100,000 increase. He said the cost has been pretty stable as far as material goes. Neuzil said these are good numbers to have when people call and complain that the County isn’t doing enough to maintain its roads; Stutsman said it’s also good data to show the impact of more development in the rural areas. The group briefly discussed the impact that roads and zoning have on the County tax base and the services provided by the County.

Stutsman asked if Gardner is still paying for rock from the Reservoir Roads Trust? He said that money has to be used on work done up in the reservoir area. Lehman asked if that money was enough, and Gardner said that in bad years, it was not enough, so the County also contributed. In a good year, he said, it’s still used, but in different ways. Thompson said that they only use the interest, never the principal. Gardner said that is what the Board has done for several years now. Thompson asked what happens when interest rates fall, as they have this year? Gardner said they’ve been funding the fund $100,000 in the past several years, but said he thought the principal is still growing. Stutsman agreed, and said that is another policy decision by the Board, whether to consider spending the principal. Thompson asked if the principal would pay for replacing Mehaffey Bridge? Gardner said it might. Stutsman and Neuzil said they advocated talking about spending this amount; the Supervisors noted that former Supervisor Charlie Duffy had been adamantly against this idea. Gardner recommended that they first get below the amount of the original principal. Gardner noted that the maintenance on the roads in the reservoir area cost much more than $100,000 each year.

Gardner said another increased expenditure was in the area of New Equipment, which went up $50,000. He said a lot of that was catching up from some items that Secondary Roads was not able to purchase last year, because there was no money. Also, Gardner said, they have increased the estimates for fuel prices by $35,000; this includes gas and diesel. The biggest share, Gardner said, is diesel, which accounts for $30,000 of the $35,000, because most of the Secondary Roads equipment is diesel. Secondary Roads has recently switched a couple of pickups back to gas, because gas is now cheaper than diesel. Lehman asked about the difference on trade-in value; Gardner said there was some, but he didn’t know if it was a significant difference.

On the revenues side, Gardner noted an increase in the Federal Bridge Replacement funds, because Secondary Roads is anticipating doing a federal bridge project this year. He said an 80% match on this project results in a $148,000 above this year’s budget. Stutsman asked which bridge this is, and Gardner replied Eagle Avenue. Thompson asked if the decrease in revenues were due to State funding issues, or just because of the projects that are planned for next year? Gardner said it is a little of both. Road Use Taxes are down $287,000, which is the adjustment that’s been made due to people driving less and using less fuel. The other is Construction Reimbursement, Gardner said, so that item is reducing $394,000, since they aren’t doing as many projects this year. Thompson asked if they are losing reimbursement, or will they get it back next year? Gardner said that next year they probably will have one of the projects that includes Federal money. He said the Federal funds and their reimbursements get confusing to track. Thompson asked if they should expect that this number will continue to fluctuate; Gardner replied yes, though they are trying to get it evened out a little bit.

Neuzil asked how the rural taxes played into Gardner’s budget. Horne said the Secondary Roads budget is transferred from both the Rural Basic Fund and the General Fund, but more from the former than the latter. Horne said there is a formula and a limit that the Auditor’s Office computes. Neuzil wondered if they could include more city money than they do currently; Horne and Stutsman thought that this is constrained by the rules, and is set by formula. Stutsman added that the Legislature does this so that rural people’s taxes go to pay for rural people’s roads. Stutsman said on a road like Deer Creek Road, JCCOG needs to identify that all 3 entities are using the road, and bring all the parties to the table to work together. Neuzil said he talked to Coralville City Manager Kelly Hayworth about this issue. Neuzil said these issues should be brought up at an ISAC meeting, and worked on at the national level. Neuzil asked if trails could come out the General Fund, instead of the Rural Fund? Harney said part of the funding comes from the State. Gardner said those are Federal dollars, but they have all been allocated for this region through the end of this transportation bill. Gardner pointed out that in FY 2000, Secondary Roads received zero out of the General Fund, and last year, they received the maximum that they could, $566,000. Lehman noted there was no equalization order this year.

Harney asked about the difference in acquisition fees and right-of-way fees. Gardner replied that right-of-way fees are for land purchased from property owners for construction projects they’re doing, while acquisition fees are for title searches, acquisition plats, the legal work needed to facilitate actual acquisitions.

Thompson asked Gardner to explain the $465,000 lower expenditures for fiscal year 2002, in Construction. He said that those are projects that aren’t moving along as fast as anticipated, so they will be paid next year.

Stutsman asked about contracting the survey in the North Corridor, and wondered if that is in Gardner’s budget? He replied no, there wasn’t anything budgeted for that; they were given the extra engineer and asked to do this in-house. Thompson asked if the Board is going to get a report soon? Gardner said yes. Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said that Secondary Roads would like more direction as to what the Board wants from the survey. Stutsman suggested they have a work session on this issue. Thompson thought that the direction was that Secondary Roads look at all the possible options and then narrow it down to 3 or 4 and present those to the Board, with pros and cons. Miller said there are a number of roads up in the area: Sugar Bottom Road, Newport Road, a number of gravel roads, and other possibilities that could exist if they shifted alignments. Thompson suggested they look at 3: Newport Road, some other existing road, and one new road, cross-country, that doesn’t exist right now. Miller said that a feasibility study typically includes a traffic analysis, environmental impacts, actual construction costs, and things like that. Miller said he would like to look at some different routes, but said he didn’t want to spend a lot of time doing an environmental study or a traffic study on something that no one is interested in. Neuzil suggested this be on the agenda when Secondary Roads, Planning and Zoning, and the Board of Supervisors meet. Miller said he wanted some ongoing feedback and meetings, rather than just preparing a lot of information in which the Board was not interested.

Gardner asked if the joint meeting with Planning and Zoning has been scheduled yet, and Lehman said no. Neuzil thought it was going to be at the end of January. The group discussed the impacts of moving the ongoing Sharon Center Road project back a few years, or eliminating it altogether. Gardner and Miller emphasized that they need a decision to be made on this issue as soon as possible, because it was too late to move some other projects up a year. The group discussed a future meeting, and decided on January 8th at 3:00, to talk about Sharon Center Road specifically, and the 5-Year Road Plan in general. Neuzil thought Planning and Zoning should be at this meeting, because the interaction between roads and development was a P&Z question. Thompson countered that Sharon Center Road is a transportation road, not a development road. Lehman said that there was plenty to discuss on the 8th, but said it might be nice for Planning and Zoning to attend, just for informational purposes.

Stutsman asked about Gardner’s request for another staff person to help with maintenance. She asked what the Board gave Secondary Roads last year, and Gardner said they got the engineer last year, but said he had asked for the maintenance position last year as well. He said the emphasis on the IRVM program (Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Program) has resulted in and increased workload, and there are 2 people doing most of the work. He said it is a lot of work, and Integrated Roadside Vegetation Manager Chris Henze is overwhelmed at times. Gardner said that if they got the full-time person approved, they could cut down on the number of summer workers. Stutsman asked if it would be enough of a cutback in summer help to pay for this position, and Gardner said he couldn’t say for sure, but probably not. Harney asked what this person would do in the winter; Gardner replied they would be hired as a road maintenance person, so they would be available to run a plow, or clear brush, etc.

Neuzil asked about the State budget cuts, and asked Gardner to provide the Board with details of how the State cuts were going to impact his department. Gardner said the impact is $287,000, which shows up on the revenue sheet. This is the Road Use Tax money, based on gallons of gas sold, and since the State has collected less tax, they will distribute less out to the counties as well. Higher gas prices are at least partially responsible for this trend of fewer gallons of gas sold statewide.

Gardner said there is a shortfall in his budget. Although his expenses have decreased, they have not decreased as much as his revenues have decreased. Gardner noted that Secondary Roads’ carryover balance isn’t available, either; last year, the carryover balance dropped below $1 million on July 1, and by the end of August they had $24,000. Thompson asked how it looks for this year, and Gardner said he didn’t know. He thought they would come out about as he had predicted for last year; expenditures are down, but so are revenues. He noted there is also a $650,000 revenue adjustment. Gardner showed the Board the declining carryover numbers over the last few years. He said these numbers include the $650,000 revenue adjustment. Thompson noted that high carryover amounts are necessary in Gardner’s accounts because his major bills come in before the County collects taxes. Gardner confirmed this reasoning, and said it is a cash-flow issue.

Recessed at 11:53 a.m.; reconvened at 11:57 a.m.

Administrative Assistant Jeffrey Gaulthier said he has been trying to live within budgetary constraints for this year, and in projecting for next year has tried to adopt the forecast to take into account a mix of services between the physicians and the non-physician investigators. Gaulthier thought they are on target to get the Investigator’s system going this year. He said his requested budget is 3.9% higher than the previous fiscal year, reducing a number of line items and moving some money around to reflect the transition from a all-physician investigative team to a concept that includes the Medical Examiner Investigators (MEIs). Gaulthier said they have also tried to address the autopsy line item, which required a supplemental allocation last spring. The only other adjustment, he said, is that the written agreement between the University and the Board of Supervisors provides for a rate increase that is indexed to the salary adjustments that the University might make. He said there was an adjustment in July that they did not recognize, but they will factor this increase into next year’s budget. Thus, he said, they will essentially be running a year behind. This increases the hourly fee for the physician component from $110 to $114.76.

Gaulthier said that his department set forth some goals. These included:

 

• Achieve full implementation of the Medical Examiner Investigator Program
• Be fiscally accountable for operations within budget amounts
• Begin exploration of expanding services outside of the County and thereby possibly create a revenue stream. Gaulthier noted that this item would of course be subject to Board approval.
• Maintain and continue coordination and collaboration with law enforcement.
• Conduct a physician education program in the County

Stutsman asked if a physician education program has been done before, and Gaulthier said he didn’t know. Stutsman asked why autopsies are increasing? County Medical Examiner Dr. David White answered that in previous years compared to National, State and County levels Johnson County was underautopsied. The rationale in the past was if someone died in a car crash without an autopsy then what was the cause of death, their injuries. What were their injuries? Fatal. He said this didn’t answer the question of why they died. From the DOT standpoint, from the highway deaths and trauma deaths the Federal Government on down needs to know why the people died, which related ultimately to funding for highways, state troopers and police. So the vital statistics of why they died is very important. He further explained that part of the increase is getting caught up to where they should be on some of those autopsies. Thompson asked if there was also an increase in the cost of each autopsy? Gaulthier said he didn’t know. He explained that the autopsies are done by one of two entities; the State Medical Examiners office, which has a fee set by legislation based on a survey that they did, or the Universities Department of Pathology. He said that he didn’t have enough historical perspective, but that he has taken the initiative to meet with the Department of Pathology to learn more about it. He said he had talked to Horne about it and observed that the Department of Pathology is not current on their billing. He said they’re trying to figure out a way to figure out a more predictable flow of expense to the County so it can be more current. He said he has a couple of ideas that need to be solidified, but he thinks they will make budgeting and monthly expense tracking more accurate. Reducing expense through a negotiating rate may be possible.

Harney he understands the need for clarification in autopsies being done, but he said it seems like there were more younger people having autopsies done. White answered that the State Medical Examiner would like any pediatric patient, which is anyone under age 18, autopsied. Any child, where there is any question as to the manner of death will be autopsied, either at UIHC or at the State. Harney asked what the determinations are of transporting that person to the State instead of doing it at the University. White answered that it’s on a case by case basis. For anything that is a forensic case or a homicide, the State is asked whether or not they want to do it. If there is any question if it is a forensic case or a homicide, then the State does it because UIHC doesn’t have a forensic pathologist on staff. He said that the State Fire Marshall has decreed that if there is a fire related death that they want the autopsy on, they want it done at Des Moines because of the forensic issues related to arson or other issues better done by a forensic pathologist. Gaulthier said there is an active dialogue to develop the forensic skill and knowledge at UIHC. With State Medical Examiner Dr. Goodman’s participation, UIHC is trying to recruit a forensic pathologist candidate that would take on some State-wide responsibilities based here in Iowa City to reduce the amount of traffic back and forth to Des Moines. Gaulthier said that transportation costs have gone up too. He hopes with the MEI system they can reduce those costs, but the Des Moines trips are expensive.

Thompson remarked that their budget was significantly overspent at the end of November. She asked if they think they will be able to come within budget at the end of the Fiscal Year. Gaulthier said that he didn’t know because he didn’t have any other experience to look back on to see whether or not it was a cyclical activity. He recalled that at the end of November 57% of the budget was spent. He suggested that some of the autopsy fees were from last year, but didn’t show up until this fiscal year. Gaulthier said that if they’re booking expenses in this year for services rendered last year it would always be a mess relative to the reconciliation. Thompson said that they know that because all the budgets are like that. She said the Board assumes that the ones they don’t pay this year that they pay next year will equal the ones they paid this year that weren’t paid last year. Gaulthier he understood that, but that he didn’t know enough about how the department has worked in the past and the pattern of activity to be able to feel comfortable with that. Thompson said that if they are over budget this year then the budget they’ve projected isn’t enough. Gaulthier agreed. He said that he looked at the activities engaged at this fiscal year and used that as a basis for the projections rather than looking at the dollars being spent. Gaulthier said this was the first budget he’s done with the Board under their system.

Harney asked if they have gotten their 2 vehicles yet? Gaulthier said that they have gotten one. Thompson asked how the vehicles is handled. Gaulthier that they’re University vehicles that the County is leasing. Thompson asked if it was paid for out of the Medical Examiner budget? Gaulthier said yes.

Stutsman asked about revenues, specifically reimbursements from other Counties. She said that she thought we were doing a better job of collecting them. Gaulthier said they have been. Stutsman commented that it is going down in the budget. Horne said all of the projected revenues have been collected this year already. Thompson asked if they should increase it for next year. Gaulthier said he didn’t address the budgeting issues of revenue. Neuzil said that it probably should be increased to be more accurate. Horne explained that it’s had a lot of variation in the past. Gaulthier said he only addressed the expense side. Neuzil said that if it’s FY02 and there’s a need for an increase in the budget, it makes it a lot easier for the community to understand that revenues went up and it balances out. He said it should be adjusted. Gaulthier said it can be adjusted. He said the cremation certificate revenue also introduced a new revenue stream, but they haven’t received as much in revenues as was projected. The Board and Gaulthier agreed this should be adjusted. Harney asked if they had purchased the siding for the back of the trucks. Gaulthier said no, that it’s not in this budget, it’s in the capital expenditures budget and its budgeted for the current fiscal year. Thompson said that a significant portion of the increase in the expense of the Medical Examiner is offset by increases in revenue. The group discussed the concept of having the Johnson County Medical Examiner Program be contracted out to other counties at some point in the future.

Lehman asked if there has been a performance review done by the University. He asked if there is a point where the University will say if the program has been working well or if there are adjustments that are needed. Gaulthier said that at the University they go through a budget process as well, which will be their review. Gaulthier said the milestone for them was to get the MEI program going because they’re counting on that to keep things in balance. He said from everything they’ve been able to determine, the University is happy with the way things are going.

Recessed at 12:29 p.m.; reconvened at 1:10 p.m.

(Continued in Part 3)