• Discussion: Fiscal Year 2003 Budgets

  • Capital Projects (85) and Space Needs

• Discussion: Proposed Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:35 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne warned that some of the numbers for the Capital Projects budget have not been reallocated. Thompson said there were some projects from last year with leftover money, and these amounts should be added to what’s available to spend next year, along with $12,915 of interest income. Horne said the interest amount is even more than that now, around $31,000 of interest. Thompson noted if they make these adjustments all at once, they will not have to amend the budget later. Horne clarified that the amounts are only designated, not budgeted; the amounts have been set aside, but not appropriated to spend. Stutsman asked if there is any leftover money from completed projects? Horne said there is a little bit left from the DHS/Health Building project, around $9,000. He said the Space Needs Committee has recommended reallocating all of the smaller, leftover amounts to land acquisition. Stutsman asked about the SEATS relocation money. Horne replied that it is for SEATS to get a new building in 4-5 years. Thompson noted that SEATS Director Lisa Dewey did not send this to the Space Needs Committee, so it is not on the list for Capital Projects or Space Needs, prepared by the Space Needs Committee. Dewey has asked for $10,000 this year. Horne said that Capital Projects is a list of projects approved by the Space Needs Committee. Lehman suggested they go down this list, line-by-line; Thompson agreed.

Thompson said some money has been set aside for the Ambulance Department’s relocation and DHS’s moving expenses for a future relocation. She said these 2 items have been going on for a number of years. Stutsman asked what the balance is in these 2 accounts? Horne said that DHS will be $72,000 after the FY 03 payment. County Attorney J. Patrick White asked how they know that; where does it show up? Horne said this amount does not show up in the budget, officially; the Auditor tracks it with a separate spreadsheet. Lehman explained that it shows $48,000 now; another $12,000 will go in this year, and the proposed $12,000 in 03 will make $72,000. Thompson said this budget is confusing because the money is kept in 2 places: the money being saved is kept in an interest-bearing account, and they move it to a different account when they are ready to spend it. Stutsman asked if $72,000 is enough for saving for a DHS relocation project; should the Board increase this amount, and do they need to keep taxing for this project? Horne said Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney did request this amount in her budget this year. Stutsman said that in this tight budget year, she was wondering if there is a definite plan that, in 5 years they are going to build a building, or are they taxing and saving for an account that may not be built in 5 years? Stutsman said they all have good intentions for these projects, and saving money, and this was all OK when they had plenty of money. Now, with the tight budget, Stutsman said she is starting to rethink this; she wondered if this could be a year when they would take a sabbatical and not save the money for future projects. Stutsman said she understood the philosophy of why the Board has been saving, to avoid spikes in the budget for huge expenses. But, she said, she’s almost changing her philosophy, that they might be better not to be taxing for these things as they go, but to bond or tax for a large project only when they have a need. Lehman said the Board will be criticized either way. Lehman said the Board should reevaluate its philosophy each year, and it could change from year to year. Lehman wondered what the target amount is for the DHS building; was it $100,000, or $72,000? He said the Board should have a target. Stutsman agreed; she wondered if they need to keep taxing for DHS relocation dollars if they are not going to have a building for 10 years? Harney wondered what that money is intended for? Is it intended for a building? Thompson and Stutsman said it is intended for the moving expenses and rewiring computer and telephone systems. Stutsman said that none of the Board wants to raise taxes this year, but said they didn’t know how they are going to make the budget without eliminating some expenses from last year. Harney thought the budget will be even tighter next year.

County Treasurer Tom Kriz said the idea of putting off savings is fine, but said if the Board begins to bond or borrow, this really draws a project out. Kriz said the bonding process needs to be anticipated, as well, and started 2 years before they wanted to build. He suggested that the Board really try to continue to put money away for these future projects. Lehman noted that some counties have been criticized in the area of property tax limitation; they have saved money, but are not set up for anything. Lehman repeated his earlier point that the Board needed to know how much money they actually are going to need. Kriz said the Board can move more quickly if the funds have been previously earmarked. Kriz said when the Board needs a large amount of money in a short amount of time, those savings are very important. Harney thought that former Supervisors have been frugal, without planning for the future; he thought that at some point the Board needs to buckle down and put some dollars away to build the buildings. He said the County is way behind, and needs to start catching up. White thought the Board should be setting aside more dollars; he said they are just kidding themselves, trying to trim back. White said passing a bond issue is going to cost a lot more money, no matter what it is used for, because it is money that has to be paid back. White said that all a bond issue does is get authorization to spend money; it does not raise money to pay it back. He said this is one of the reasons he was dubious about the Jail Bond Issue, because the County was assuming that if the voters said yes, it was going to be able to add $3 or $3.5 million into the budget, to finance the bond and pay the increased operating expenses. If, as a matter of County policy, the Board was prepared to do that a year ago, White said they should be able to put a pretty big chunk in to the annual budget to start to save for future needs. He said the County knows the need is there, for a jail, for DHS, the Health Department, the Courthouse, and parking for the Administration Building. White said the sooner the Board began to save more money for these projects, the better off the taxpayer is going to be. Lehman noted that it is more expensive to borrow and then tax, than it is to save now and have that money earn interest. He said that either way, the Board still has to tax.

White thought they should also have a discussion fairly soon about whether, as a County financing approach, the County should start using the annual bonding authority that is there, as a way to get started on some of these projects. White said borrowing $800,000 a year would force the Board to put that cost into the budget. Stutsman reported that she had recently spoken to Tony Roetlin, who said that bonding would be a way for the County to get back some of the Coralville TIF money. She asked for clarification on this issue. White said there are bonds that are exempt from a TIF, so if there is a bond issue, the TIF does contribute to retiring those bonds. Harney said he also had a conversation with a bonding expert, who told him that if a government like Johnson County were to bond for something, the County would get money out of the TIF area as well as the rest of the County. Harney said the TIF area would pay an equal share, as any other taxpayer. Thompson said it would work like MH/DD works now. White concurred, even though MH/DD is not a bond. Stutsman said the County has always had a philosophy of not going into debt, but wondered if the time has come where, because of the needs, the Board needs to start looking at some other ways to finance some things.

Thompson said that since they’ve been saving for a number of years, they could look more at the bottom line, at how much they are going to save each year, rather than at the individual items for which they are saving. Thompson said the Space Needs Committee recommends saving $1.5 million, which is what the Board has been trying to work up to. She noted that if they save that much every year, they would have enough saved for the things they want to do, and the question would be, what should be purchased with the money this year? White said this works only if the Board truly saved $1.5 million. He pointed out that the Board is doing a disservice to that goal by continuing to roll all the annual maintenance and repairs into this budget. Thompson said they do have to keep up the County buildings. White said he knows this, but said this money is separate; it’s not saving for long-term space needs. White thought the Board should have a budget fund or line item for ongoing maintenance that has nothing to do with the long-term jail and DHS space needs. Harney thought that $1.5 million is not very much money for building buildings or buying property.

Thompson suggested they run through the rest of the line items, to get an idea of the whole picture. The Mall Drive contract payment is $152,500, of which $100,000 is principal and $52,500 is interest. She noted the interest amount goes down every year. She said the Board usually puts in $10,000 for pay architect Dwight Dobberstein for the incidental things that he does for the County during the year. The next 4 items, Thompson said, constitute a project for each of the County buildings; the Space Needs Committee pared Facilities Manager Mark Bulechek’s requests back somewhat, but came up with one project for each building. The bottom item was to repay an 02 project; Thompson said Bulechek needed $3,000 this year to finish some electrical work at the storage building, and it was proposed that this money be borrowed this year, and paid back next year. This would allow the space to be used immediately. Another project was saving for future projects, Thompson reported that Bulechek had recommended that they save $261,500 towards next year Capital Improvement Projects. Thompson said an amount of $624,000 was being saved for land acquisition. The total of these items is $1.5 million, Thompson said, and pointed out that the Space Needs Committee has delineated the amounts they think are available for land purchase. She said if the $624,000 is saved, they would have $821,000 at the beginning of July 03. Thompson said this still is not very much money, pointing out that the Fisher property cost $275,000, and this was a relatively small property. She said this means that much of the purchasing would have to be done on contract, with longer-term arrangements. White said they can’t do this if they condemn; you need a willing seller to buy on contract. Thompson agreed. She said there had been a 10-15 year period when the County buildings, such as the Jail and the Administration Building, did not require any large maintenance, because they were new. She said the honeymoon is now over. Lehman thought the County should have been saving money at that time, for future needs. Stutsman said they did put a lot of money into the Courthouse during that time, over $1 million. White confirmed this.

Thompson asked Bulechek to describe his recommendations for this year. Bulechek said the limestone at the Courthouse is a big project. The architects estimated $300,000 to fix this. The sandstone absorbs water, which freezes, and then over the years it starts to crack off. Bulechek said there are some lintels that are getting bad; if they repair them now, it will be cheaper than it would be if they waited 10 more years. Stutsman asked if that project was on this list, and Bulechek said no, that will be an FY 04 or 05 request. Bulechek said he tried to put on the projects that needed immediate attention. Thompson said Bulechek reviewed all the buildings, and brought a 5-year proposal to the Space Needs Committee. White repeated that this is just to maintain the existing buildings, and does nothing for the $30 million to $40 million need between the Jail, Courthouse, Administration Building, and DHS/Health Department. White said his argument is that should go in a different budget someplace, because it’s slowing the County down. White said a few years ago, the Board put a line item of $100,000 or $150,000 in the Physical Plant budget, and this handled the sorts of projects Bulechek is dealing with right now. Bulechek said that line item is no longer there. White said he knows, and said he is advocating putting it back, with a larger amount.

Bulechek began describing the projects being proposed for this fiscal year. At the Administration Building, there have been some roof leaks, necessitating some replacement of cracked tiles, and reinstalling flashings. The rods and sealants on the building are original, now 16 years old, and need to be replaced. The HVAC system in the Administration Building is inconsistent, resulting in hot and cold areas in the building, and lowering productivity. He said this system should be updated, at a cost of $8.00 per square foot, for a $200,000 cost. He said the increased productivity of workers should pay for this cost in 2 years. Thompson noted that there are also future plans for updating the heating and air-conditioning systems in the Administration Building. Harney said he knew of a number of buildings in Iowa City with slate roofs that had had problems, necessitating total replacement. He wondered if they are better off replacing the roof with some other material? Bulechek said the roof system he personally likes is a standing seam metal roof, but it also has drawbacks, such as heavy hail storms. Bulechek said slate is typically considered a 100-year roof; there is a slate roof on the Courthouse that has worked for many years. Dobberstein thought that Bulechek was right; slate is a long-term roof, and repairing the flashing is cheap compared to the cost of a new roof. Harney said he knew of 2 cases where a new slate roof had to be replaced within a year. Bulechek said he didn’t have an answer to that; it could be the slate itself, or a problem with the contractors. Bulechek said the Administration Building roof does not have very many leaks in it, considering it is 16 years old, but it does have some leaks. Bulechek asked Dobberstein the cost of a standing metal seam roof, and he answered $8-$10 per square foot; Bulechek said that would be $100,000-$125,000. Lehman asked about the drawbacks of tile? Bulechek said slate is basically rock, so it repels water, but a slate roof is built like an old wooden shingle roof, with hooks, and layered. Bulechek said the material is fragile; if somebody walks on it, they can crack and split it. Thompson asked if the roof leaks were because of cracked tiles, or the flashings? Bulechek said that most of the leaks have been from the flashing, but there are some pieces of slate that are cracked and missing. Every time the gutters are cleaned, he said, there are a few handfuls of slate. He said this is standard maintenance. Bulechek said that at this point and time, he does not advocate changing the roof they have, as it would be more expensive than the proposed repairs. Bulechek said the cost might be less than the $35,000.

The next project, Bulechek said, was to the storage building. Last year, the County put a steel mezzanine on the north side, for additional storage. The County is still short of storage space, and the contractor has proposed the addition of 2 more bays, which would fully cover the north side of the storage building. This would include a dividing fence and a mezzanine walkway for the Sheriff in the back, all at a cost of $27,000. Bulechek said the Sheriff’s storage is layered 2 and 3 deep. Thompson said the Sheriff’s storage tends to be items, not paper.

Next, Bulechek said, the Courthouse was in line for several small projects this year, including: removing the false ceiling on the 3rd floor (part of restoring the Courthouse to original construction), remove the old fire escape, update the computer controls for the HVAC, replace the hot and chilled water pumps in the boiler room, and hide some exposed conduit on the 3rd floor (again, part of returning the building to its 1901 condition). Bulechek noted that about 2 years from now, there is a much more expensive project that needs to be done in the Courthouse.

At the Jail, Bulechek said, the main project is installing a new boiler. Bulechek said they tried to replace it this year as part of the roof project, but it cost too much, so the project was moved back to next year. Also, Bulechek said, the locks on the cell doors in the Jail need yearly maintenance and selective replacement. He said the manufacturer had come in last year and readjusted all of the jail locks, and had told Bulechek that all of the locks are "on their last legs," and have been adjusted as much as possible. When they stop working now, they will have to be replaced or completely rebuilt. Both are quite costly. Another Jail project is replacing the control valves in the fixtures; the fixtures are no longer available, so the County has stockpiled spare parts, but they are out of valves. Harney asked Bulechek about the $10,000 for replacing the locks; he remembered last year that this number had been considerably larger. Bulechek said the $10,000 was only the bare minimum; it paid for $6,000 for a maintenance contract, and paid for 2 locks a year. Bulechek said if the Board wishes to replace all of the locks, which would be a good idea, the cost would be more than $100,000. Thompson said there had been considerable discussion about this issue, and it had been decided that fixing the locks piecemeal was the best way to go. Bulechek reminded the Board that if 5 locks break, the $10,000 will be insufficient to cover the costs. He said replacing 2 a year is his estimate. Stutsman asked how much money the County spent on the Jail this year, and Bulechek answered it was around $700,000. Harney said it was $750,000, but thought with everything added up it would be close to $1,000,000. Bulechek said another expense for next year was $3,000 to repay a project from last year, in which bids had come in higher than expected.

Horne asked the Supervisors if they wanted separate budgets for maintenance and capital projects, as White had earlier suggested? They answered yes, and Lehman suggested Department 88, Capital Maintenance, as White had said. Horne said he could create a line item for each of the buildings within that budget, to help separate these things out. Bulechek said it would be nice to know how much he was going to have every year for maintenance.

Harney asked about the maintenance of the DHS building, which is owned by someone else, but the County does perform some maintenance on it. Thompson said that maintenance is an item included in the DHS budget, and some of it is reimbursable from federal funds. Lehman asked about Chatham Oaks, who takes care of most of its own maintenance. He asked if Chatham Oaks submitted anything to Bulechek? Bulechek replied no, they didn’t; he hasn’t heard anything from Chatham Oaks about maintenance. Bulechek suggested that they should do an inventory of all the buildings in the County. Horne said they have an inventory of County buildings for insurance purposes, which includes the square footage, when they were built, etc.

Kriz encouraged the Board to separate the maintenance and acquisition items. He asked if the County received insurance money when the storm came through the area, money that has been set aside and not used? Bulechek said if there is a problem that can be associated with a storm, the County has a $1,000 deductible on that building for that occurrence; that first $1,000 comes from Bulechek’s standard budget. The remaining amount, Bulechek said, is paid for from the insurance budget. Bulechek noted that if the County performs storm-caused repairs in-house, they are not reimbursed. Kriz said part of his question was whether the County has received any large, lump-sum insurance payments, and if so, what happened to those monies? Stutsman said it has been Board policy that insurance money goes into the General Fund if it is not used for repair. She thought they had done some repair work on the Administration Building roof after the storm. Lehman asked White if it would be proper for insurance money, for example, from hail damage to cars, to go into that department’s vehicle replacement fund? White answered that the Board can do it almost any way it wants; the only limitation would be if it were replacing, for example, equipment from the Secondary Roads fund, then the insurance money would have to stay with the Secondary Roads fund. Other than that, White said, the Board has a lot of freedom as to what to do with the money. He noted that, historically, the Board has rarely given the money right back to the department, because the Supervisors wanted to review whether the spending was needed. White said that most departments argue that the funds should be returned to their budgets, but traditionally the Board has not done that. Stutsman said there has been a gentleman’s agreement that the Board will still take care of the department’s needs. Stutsman summarized the answer to Kriz’s question by saying she thought all of the insurance money has been used.

Thompson thought that the money Bulechek requested in this year’s budget for the Courthouse, Jail, Administration Building, and storage building, $423,000 plus $261,000, would give a guideline as to how much the Board should put away every year in a different budget, if they chose to do so. Horne asked if this is something they would like to do within the General Fund, or would they prefer the creation of a separate fund, as they do Capital Projects? Stutsman asked if it were in a separate fund, then it wouldn’t revert to the General Fund every year, and Horne confirmed this; it would earn interest within its own fund. Stutsman said this would be the advantage of splitting it up, because if they didn’t spend all of the money, it would carry over into the next fiscal year. Horne said this new system would be simple, with only 4 or 5 line items in the budget, and Bulechek could just request money for the projects he wanted to do that year. Stutsman asked if there would ever be a time when they needed to carry money over in this fund, or would it zero-balance at the end of every year? Horne said the biggest problem would be with fiscal years, the same problem they have with Capital Projects now, when a project begins in one fiscal year and ends in another. Thompson commented that the biggest advantage of splitting the budget would be that they would not have to talk about land acquisition and basic maintenance at the same meeting. Horne said a line item would not carry over, but would have to be re-appropriated in the next year. Harney said the new system would be to define money that is targeted for land acquisition; currently, it is too easy to spend all of the money in the single budget on maintenance. Horne explained that he proposed making 4 or 5 line items, one for each building: Maintenance-Jail; Maintenance-Administration Building; Maintenance-Courthouse; Maintenance-Storage Building; Maintenance-Public Health. Horne suggested that Bulechek could explain in his annual budget presentation the projects the money would pay for. Horne said this would simplify the process for him. Bulechek said one thing that would simplify things for him would be if the line items could be carried over, because the construction season typically straddles 2 fiscal years. Lehman said this would be similar to that of Secondary Roads.

There was some discussion about Chatham Oaks, which has been paying all of its own maintenance costs, including some large items that they thought Chatham Oaks might have brought to the Board for payment. Stutsman asked Bulechek if he has been communicating with Chatham Oaks, and he said no; he was told that if Chatham Oaks had a problem, they would call him, and he should look at the 3 main County buildings: the Jail, Administration Building, and Courthouse.

Bulechek said he needs to go out to the County Farm and do an inventory in order to prioritize the future needs for maintenance and upkeep. Harney said his concern is the roof at the County Farm, which he thought was leaking last year. Bulechek said the wood shingles have absorbed water, curled, and are temporarily leaking, but this should not continue. Harney didn’t think they should be leaking. Bulechek said the roof should have lasted 100 years, but it doesn’t look like it will. Harney said he also knew there is some rotten siding on the building. Stutsman said they could be talking about a lot of money and should have a discussion as to how this building should be maintained, because of its historical status. Stutsman said historical maintenance costs money, and said she didn’t know if the Board is prepared to put those types of dollars into the County Farm. Lehman thought there could be an opportunity for a grant; Stutsman agreed. Stutsman wondered about maintenance on the Secondary Roads building, and Bulechek said Secondary Roads basically does their own maintenance on their building.

Bob Welsh suggested the maintenance budget should have at least $500,000 in it. He also liked the idea of separate budgets for maintenance and land acquisition. Welsh thought that the Board should put at least $2 million into land acquisition for this year, and said it would be worth raising taxes by $20 or $25 a year. He suggested the Board look into possibilities of a bond or a TIF. Welsh said that since the Fisher Property, a small property, cost $275,000, the County should be talking about more than $1 million for land acquisition. Welsh thought that $2 million might not be enough, either.

Thompson said they had budgeted $950,000 last year for both Capital Projects and Capital Purchases. Stutsman said the Board always starts with good intentions, but when it gets to the end of the budget decision-making, these budgets were often the ones that got cut. Thompson noted that the only number that is fixed is the $152,500 for Mall Drive. White reminded the Board that the Administration Building HVAC system upgrade should be complementary to the Board’s still viable plan to expand the building. He said the upgrade should either be capable of heating and cooling a possible building addition, or at least allow the possibility of adding another unit to the system. Thompson asked Dobberstein about this issue; he didn’t think they had got that far in the planning process. Dobberstein didn’t think that what Bulechek was proposing would affect the heating and cooling of a potential addition to the building.

White summarized his position by saying that the proposed budget before the Board does not advance the County’s Space Needs at all. He said the Land Acquisition budget would, arguably, give the County only enough to catch up with the parking need. Horne said he agreed with Lehman’s earlier point that, if the Board is going to save up for something over the years, it should have a plan for Space Needs, and then finance it accordingly. Stutsman said they don’t have a plan. Horne said one reality is that the University is coming up on the County’s doorstep, and that they are soon going to be a player in acquiring property in the area of the Administration Building. Lehman and White agreed with Horne. Horne asked White if the University could condemn from the County, and he answered that he thought they could, but said they won’t. Thompson said that anything the County purchases around the Administration Building, then, runs the risk of being condemned by the University. White noted that the County would get its money back, so there was no real risk; he said they would have a hard time convincing the Board of Regents to condemn County property.

Lehman said the University has a plan for all of its property, and noted that the County doesn’t even have enough money to buy land, much less put up a building. Stutsman said the County doesn’t have a plan, and she would have a hard time justifying the $800,000 to a questioning taxpayer. She said the County is all over the map, considering buying land around the Administration Building, buying the Armory, fixing the County Farm, etc. Stutsman wondered if they should continue to sit on the Mall Drive property, or should it be put on the market? Stutsman asked why they can’t just make a decision? Neuzil thought the indecision was related to the Jail problem, because the Board knows it has to act on the Jail problem first. Stutsman said the Board hasn’t even made a decision on that. Neuzil said if the bonding had been successful, this decision would have been a lot easier. He said it is hard to justify putting money away for other buildings with the current Jail problem. Neuzil said if the philosophy of the Board was that they are going to bond the Jail, no matter what, and not build until this occurs, then what would be the next priority? Would it be parking? A human services building? Harney said his thought is that they should bond the Jail, and could proceed with the other buildings. Thompson said that the Jail is so expensive that saving up for it is impractical, because it would take so many years. Neuzil noted that the Board had saved $1 million to help with the Jail, but they have had to spend it on repairing the current Jail. Thompson asked how much of that $1 million has been spent, and Horne replied $450,000: $200,000 for prisoner transport, and another $230,000 for the maintenance project. White said this is one of the reasons that the budget is going to be tougher this year, because the Board used Capital set-aside to cover an annual cost. Thompson said they have an increase of $413,000 built into this year’s budget that was not there last year, for transporting prisoners. White said the simplistic answer to Stutsman question, "Why can’t the Board make up its mind," is that 3 Supervisors have not coalesced around what, specifically, is the Board’s priority. He said the Board changed a year ago, which naturally slows the process until the 2 new Board members have input, and feedback. White noted that the County bought Mall Drive on a 3-2 vote. Thompson thought the Board should make the best plan it could, and go with it, since there is no perfect plan. Stutsman said they have historically tried to keep all of their options open, and sooner or later they were going to have to limit the options, and forge ahead and do something.

White said they do have a fairly crude concept plan for the area around the Administration Building, incorporating the Armory and the Davin property. He said it has not been adopted as official County policy, but there is a document. He said it would not be very difficult to expand that into the block north of the Administration Building, which he thought was such a logical place to go. He said he worried that something could happen that would take this opportunity away from the County. Stutsman asked if the University is looking at the block north of the Administration Building, and several in the group said yes, they are. Lehman said they want to move their Physical Plant. White said when the University looks, it looks everyplace. Kriz said it was reasonable to say that if the County hasn’t moved on the block north in the next year or so, it will have closed the door on this opportunity. Kriz mentioned the County does also have a fund that it could use to leverage in order to make some of these things happen. He said he would be happy to visit with anyone about this. Thompson said they have Mall Drive; they could go ahead and get someone to build a building, and lease it back to the County. White said they could also try to buy Plamor, in order to make the package more viable. Thompson said the Board hasn’t been able to agree on the Plamor issue. Thompson said they could build Mall Drive just for DHS. White said one thing that the Board has always assumed that doesn’t have to be, is that Mall Drive is a DHS and the Health Department. He said that the Health Department does not have to be with DHS; there are some advantages with Child Health, but there’s no particular advantage for the Environmental Division of the Health Department to be located with DHS. He said there is actually some advantage for the Environmental Division of DHS to be located near Planning and Zoning. Stutsman said the future of the Child Health Clinic is still up in the air, as far as federal direction. Disease Prevention Manager Kot Flora said that they surveyed their customers for a 2-week period. Anyone who came into the Department for services was asked to fill out a questionnaire primarily about access, and they are tabulating those results. Flora said they are wondering how people get to the Health Department. White said another issue was where they park, when they come.

Stutsman said another option would be to abandon the plans for land acquisition in the area of the Administration Building, and start looking to build on land the County already owns, at the County Farm. She acknowledged that this was not a very popular idea. Lehman suggested that the Board have a work session, where each Supervisor numbers their priority, in order to try and reach some kind of consensus as to what is important to the Board as a whole. Stutsman said that looking at the very long-term, property is getting more and more expensive around the Administration Building, and she wondered even if they do build around here, are they still limited by the available space? Horne noted that the County Farm location is in the center of the County, geographically. Welsh reminded the Board that the vote to purchase Mall Drive was not a vote to build either the DHS or the Health Department on that site; the 3-2 vote was to purchase the property and hold it, in case it was needed. Welsh said that the Board was advised that it was a sound investment, even though 2 Supervisors had thought differently. Harney acknowledged Stutsman’s point about the possibility of relocating at the County Farm, but said the value of the ground at the site is very high. Stutsman said she was being perfectly honest when she said it is going to be much more palatable to the taxpayers if the County builds on that, rather than selling it for development. She thought the choices were that either the County builds on the site, or leave it as is, as a huge County park. Lehman said they could also look at half the site as a park, and the other half reserved for County buildings. Lehman and Harney said they need to have a plan, and stick to it. Stutsman said one positive thing is that the County’s needs have not diminished. She said this is a growing area, and they are going to continue to have needs. Harney said that when Coralville or the University of Iowa have done controversial things, there has only been an outcry for about 3 days, and then people move on. Stutsman and Lehman agreed.

White said he believes that County government’s weakness, which is also its strength, its lack of centralization, is a reason why the Board has had so much trouble making decisions like these. If it was somebody’s job to get something done, and bring it to the Board for approval, White said, it would happen faster. Kriz said Johnson County is doing things the right way, by taxing only for what it spends, and avoiding the huge fund balances causing criticism in other counties in the State of Iowa. Thompson thought the legislature should allow counties to bond for a general purpose; Horne said they do, but they don’t define a jail as a general purpose. White said there was a recent Supreme Court decision over the Polk Count Event Center, which they are building with no referendum. Horne said it is a revenue bond. Stutsman said Cedar County had also built a jail without a referendum. White thought they had a local option tax. Neuzil asked how Polk County got away with that, building a $70 million jail? Horne thought it was a revenue bond. White said the legal question about referendum has to do with essential purpose versus a general purpose. Thompson asked what was an essential purpose, and Horne said voting machines is one of them. White said he didn’t understand why a jail isn’t an essential purpose. Thompson thought the Legislature should change this law. Lehman said the jail bond was made more difficult to pass because there was a proposed library on the same vote. White agreed.

Thompson asked Welsh what he had proposed. Welsh said he was advocating giving Bulechek $500,000, but Welsh said he differed from Horne because he thought it should be given to Bulechek in one piece, and let him have the responsibility to keep the buildings up. Secondly, Welsh said, he wanted to put a significant amount of dollars in land acquisition, enough so the County could do something with it. He said if the County doesn’t move north soon, it will cut out those options, which would be foolish. Welsh said he liked the idea of the Jail, Courthouse, and Administration Building being in the center of demographics in the County. White said that moving out to Melrose would be governmental sprawl, contradicting the County’s land use policies. White suggested talking to the school district, in the hope that they won’t rebuild their central offices far out. White thought that keeping the school district’s central offices in the center of the community is a good idea.

Horne asked if the Board wants to stay in this area, and Lehman and Harney answered that they do. Thompson asked if they want everything here, including Human Services? If so, they need more space than the block north. Lehman said they should start working on buying some land. Thompson said they have never officially said who would be negotiating on behalf of the County, and wondered if they could get that done today. Thompson said that Horne, Kriz, Sullivan, and Harney have been working together, and this situation has been working well. Horne said they can work together, but they need direction from the Board as to what to do. White said that, more importantly, they need the money. White thought they should put this item on the agenda if the Board wants this group to get some price estimates on land in the area. Harney said that the University was adamantly against giving the County property near the Jail. But Harney said that when he mentioned the possibility of the County trading the jail for the former A & P Store (near the Administration Building), the University was very interested. White said the University would love to have the Jail site. Harney said the University even sent a form stating how much money they have invested in the former A & P site. He said he wanted to visit with White, and perhaps put something together, if the Board is willing, to send back to the University. Harney said the Jail could then be pushed up against the railroad tracks. Thompson asked if there is enough room at this site for the jail, and Harney and Dobberstein answered no, not on one floor. There would have to be 2 floors. Neuzil thought there could even be 3. Stutsman noted that relocating west would include the costs of tearing down a building. Lehman said he thought they should look at acquisition, not building. The group had more discussion about the County’s and University’s plans and philosophies on expansion in the area between Dubuque Street and the Administration Building.

Welsh asked if they had given up on the idea of a Judicial Center and Jail Complex, and Harney said no, that was still possible. Welsh said this made sense to him, and thought something could be worked out with the federal government regarding air rights over the existing post office parking lot. This would allow parking underneath a building, Welsh said. Thompson said that public buildings with parking underneath them are not popular right now. Lehman said he agrees with White in that this discussion should take place again at an informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors, after it has appeared on an agenda. Stutsman said her biggest concern is that the Board has not stuck with any particular plan; they’ve made contacts, but haven’t followed through. She said the University’s persistence gives them an advantage over the County. Others in the group agreed. She requested that if the County is going to do start acquiring property, it should be more persistent. Horne said OK, but White pointed out that you can’t do this without money in your pocket. Kriz said that the County has been persistent, to a certain extent; there has rarely been a month when he and Pat have not stayed in contact with the properties in question. Kriz agreed with Stutsman’s point that if the County acquires property in the area of the Administration Building, at fair-market value, the property will retain its value. Neuzil said that this is going to be a very tough budget year, with some significant cuts; he said he doesn’t like the other option, to raise taxes. Stutsman said the County could also borrow or leverage, and said she thought there are other funding possibilities that the County has not explored. Harney said that the University asked the County to give them a proposal about the property trade. White said that is always what the University says; they wanted to discuss these issues only when the County had firm plans in place. Harney said the University had basically said that if the County wanted more than 10-15 feet, the answer would be no, since the University had its own plans for expansion.

Lehman asked about a work session, and Thompson thought they could just put it on the agenda to officially appoint a team to work on these issues. Neuzil thought they already have a team; Thompson said the Board has not officially done this. Harney said the Board needs a group that will be proactive, and bring 2-3 options to the Board for their approval. There was discussion regarding the possible members of the group: Lehman, White, Harney, Sullivan, Bulechek, Horne, and Kriz. Stutsman thought this group was too big; Horne answered that members of the group could work on separate things. Lehman didn’t think he needed to be on the committee; Harney and Horne could represent the Board. Horne said they could begin their work by using the appraised values of the properties on the block. Lehman thought this issue is beyond the Space Needs Committee; it is now the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors, and they need to work on it. Welsh said he agreed with the team approach proposed by the group. He said that his observation, through the years, is that White is a very good negotiator, and is a good person to make the contacts. Stutsman said she agreed with Welsh, but that White’s prosecuting duties during big trials could potentially slow the process down. She said White’s first priorities should be prosecution. Stutsman thought that momentum was very important. Thompson thought that White should still be on the committee to make sure they are legal and viable; Stutsman agreed, saying that Kriz has experience negotiating as well. She said it is a good team. Harney said they also need some type of direction as to what the County plans on building on the properties, to answer potential sellers who ask what will be done with their properties.

White repeated that he thought the discussion had moved beyond what was on the agenda, though he admitted that it has been a good discussion. White said if 3 or 4 Board members are interested in the block north of the Administration Building, it would not be difficult for Dobberstein to provide a concept plan that shows a hypothetical building, which could be a Jail, DHS, Health and DHS, etc. He said this would provide a footprint. Dobberstein confirmed that he has the information necessary to provide a concept plan. Harney asked if it was considered a full block, or a block and a half; he noted that a street ran between. White said his personal feeling is that if the County is going to consolidate in the area of the Administration Building, it will want the block north, and across Lafayette all the way to the railroad track. He said this assumes that the Armory property will also become the County’s. White said that, someday, Iowa City is going to be ready to move away from the sewer plant site; Harney said he also had thought this, until he talked to them recently, and they indicated otherwise. Harney asked if they are looking at only the block north, or also the area between this block and the railroad tracks. White thought they should be looking at the whole area.

Horne asked about condemnation, and wondered if they could talk about that? White hoped this was at least a possibility, but the issue needs further discussion. Thompson said they could make decisions about condemnation when the Board saw a plan. Horne thought they should at least plant the idea that condemnation is a possibility. Kriz said that if there is no money, condemnation isn’t an issue. Lehman and Thompson agreed; Thompson noted that they have a grand total of only $197,000. White said that the County has acknowledged publicly that it has asked for an appraisal of the Davin property, and condemnation could enter into the equation on this property. White said when the appraisal is finished, he will be on the Board’s agenda for an executive session. Stutsman wondered why they are talking about the Davin property, if the emphasis is to expand north? She said it doesn’t make sense for the County to continue to pursue so many different options. She asked why they should even be considering the Davin property? White replied that they need the parking for the Administration Building. Harney said he visualized the County needing most of the property in the area, from the creek to the railroad tracks. White noted the County missed its opportunity to buy the Auto Parts building, and said it is too late for that; Stutsman said it wasn’t too late, because anything is for sale, at a price. Thompson wondered if the Armory plus Davin would be enough for either a DHS site or a Jail. White thought they would need more than that; parking would still be very tight. White said they would have to use a multi-story building to make it work, which would be easy for a DHS office building.

Horne said there would be an agenda item next week for the Board to approve a committee to pursue properties in the area. He asked if he has direction to separate the maintenance and property acquisition budgets, and the Board replied yes. Horne said he would rework those 2 budgets, separate them, and bring them back to the Board next week.

Neuzil asked a question for the FY 03 budget, and where Horne thought they should be by the end of the month? Horne said they would be finalizing the numbers by the end of the month. Neuzil asked when Horne was going to come to the Board and tell them what the revenues were, and Horne replied he would start talking about in about a week. He said they have a work session scheduled to last that entire afternoon. Neuzil asked if these estimates would include salaries and insurance, and Horne said he just got the salaries numbers yesterday, and it would be worked in. Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek gave him a preliminary number for insurance, also, which he would also work in. Horne said he hasn’t heard anything about the Sheriff’s budget yet, as they are currently renegotiating their union contract. Thompson said they don’t talk about those numbers until after the negotiations are finished, so as not to influence the negotiations. Horne said they could talk about non-bargaining, and he said he could also tell the Board what each 1% increase would cost, and give the varying scenarios. Stutsman and Thompson said that would be a good way to do it.

Stutsman said she got confused every year about the personnel categories. She asked about the different categories? He clarified that there are basically bargaining units and non-bargaining units; non-bargaining includes management. Elected officials and their deputies are a separate category, he said. Stutsman said that they often forget that bargaining units have an impact on non-bargaining and elected officials and deputies. Thompson said the only salaries they don’t know this year are the Sheriff’s Department, the non-bargaining units, and the elected officials. Stutsman reminded the group that all of the contracts are due to be renegotiated next year, and would have a budget impact. Neuzil asked if all of these issues would be discussed at an upcoming work session, and Horne said yes. Horne said he would give the Board scenarios stating what each 1% change would cost the County, for each of the salary groups that are not yet fixed. Neuzil asked if this meeting would include the discussion about the salaries for elected officials, and Horne replied yes. Neuzil asked Horne to be sure that the agendas included a general item, such as "Discussion regarding proposed FY 02 budget," as this allows the Board flexibility as to what to discuss. Horne replied that this is the only item on that work session’s agenda. Horne said he has targeted personnel that day, but wanted the option of discussing anything. Horne said he asked Shramek to also attend the work session regarding personnel.

Stutsman asked why Elder Services is on the agenda of an upcoming meeting? Thompson said they are coming in with their budget request. She said the Board needs to make a decision whether or not to give Elder Services some of the money the County used to spend on Senior Dining. Stutsman asked if they have any idea what Elder Services is going to ask for; Horne said he needs to follow up on this. Lehman said he had heard figures between $30,000 and $50,000. Thompson said the Board voted to give them $30,000, but they had forgotten to include payroll additions, which brought the figure to $52,000. Lehman said they have $50,000 budgeted that will not be spent, because the Heritage Area Agency on Aging has paid for that. Thompson said they also have $35,000 in the budget for SEATS transportation, and thought the Board could give them some part of that, and let Elder Services hire somebody to do it. Thompson said she was sure they could hire someone to provide service for less than $35,000. Neuzil said the Board also needs to decide if this is something they can even afford to do anymore. Stutsman said this might be the year of all years, where the Board simply doesn’t have the money for these things anymore. Lehman said this might the year they have a good excuse to do some housecleaning that has not been done in the past. Neuzil said the situation is very different for programs that the County doesn’t have anymore.

Horne said he has asked County Engineer Mike Gardner to come back in next week as well. Horne said he is going to find out what kind of flexibility exists in the levies, and has asked Gardner to resubmit his budget. Horne said Gardner will present an option based on the current levies, and Horne will show some options with the levies, in case the Board wants to add something back in. Horne said that for cash flow, Gardner needs to keep his fund balance, for a future safety net. Horne worried that if they don’t correct the problem this year, there could be a bad problem in the next year or 2. Thompson asked if they could do this by a combination of things, and Horne replied yes. Thompson wondered if he could move a bridge project planned for this year into the Sharon Center Road slot, to save some money this year. Lehman thought he would come in to the meeting with some possibilities.

Horne said there would also be a few meetings in February to discuss the final numbers. Neuzil asked about the final deadline, and Horne responded that the budget is certified on March 15th, but Thompson thought the Board needs to be done with the budget before the end of February. Horne agreed, and said the Board should be done by mid-February, when the budget will be published by the Auditor. Neuzil asked if they have enough time to complete the budget, even if departments have to resubmit budgets? Horne said the Board would know by next week if an across-the-board cut was necessary, and could deal with this issue then, if needed. Stutsman stressed the importance of working on the budget, saying that she had experienced times when the Board had barely gotten the budget done by the deadline, and this had not been a pleasant experience. The Board clarified that the remaining work sessions on the budget, between January 10 and the middle of February, are: Wednesday, January 16th (1:30), Thursday, January 17th (1:30), Thursday, January 24th (1:30), Wednesday, January 30th (1:30-6:00), Friday, February 1st (8:00-11:00), Monday, February 4th (3:30-5:30), Tuesday, February 5th (9:00-5:00, all day), Wednesday, February 6th (3:30-5:30), February 11th (9:00 AM-Noon), and February 13th (all day, just in case).

Horne asked the Board what they thought about the revenue expense adjustment? Thompson said she would like to hear a recommendation from Horne about this issue. Thompson said that as the budgeting process gets more precise, this should be less and less of a factor. Horne agreed. Thompson asked Horne to put together a recommendation of how the Board should handle the revenue expense adjustment over the next 3 years. Horne said they take the last 3 years of overages and underages and take a weighted average of the most recent year, which counts more than 2 and 3 years ago. Then, those 2 averages are averaged. Horne said this number then comes off the tax askings, so to get rid of this would cause a spike in the tax askings. Horne said encouraging department heads to be more accurate could eliminate the need for the adjustment. He wondered about scoring department heads on accuracy within their budgets.

Stutsman asked if there are any other things they should be thinking about? Horne said the big-money issues are the most important, such as how much of the financial software does the Board want to fund? How much voting equipment should the Board pay for? There was some discussion about the fact that the voting equipment can be bonded and paid for without a bond referendum. Stutsman said that a tax increase is a tax increase. Neuzil asked when the bond has to be paid back, and Horne said not necessarily. Horne said that the equipment cost $600,000, which isn’t a lot of money in the County’s budget. Thompson said if they are ever going to borrow money, now is the time to do it.

Stutsman wondered about using some different and creative ways of funding, methods not normally used by the County. Horne said that the County has to be very careful about bonding, because Iowa City’s and Coralville’s bond-holders are going to affect anything the County does. Horne said when S & P or Moody’s looks at Johnson County’s debt, they will see all the debt in the area, including that of Iowa City and Coralville, and that could affect the County’s ability to bond. Horne said they look at the tax base, not individual government entities. Stutsman wondered how this might impact the County, and Horne replied that the County might not get a AAA rating, so the borrowing rate would be higher. Horne said that Iowa City has a AAA rating. Thompson asked what is the current rate on tax-free bonds, and wondered if it was around 2%-3%? Horne said it was very low. Neuzil said it was important for the Board to know, specifically, the kind of impacts that the State cuts are having on the County. If the County is talking about some tax increases, it is important to be able to share the blame. Thompson said the Board should have a page in its budget presentation that states how much the County spent on the Jail, how much it lost to the TIFs, how much it lost in State funding, and how much revenues decreased, etc. Thompson said she could not remember another time when the County had decreased revenues. Neuzil said these are the kinds of the things that will help the Board justify a tax increase. Neuzil asked when the budget presentation occurred; Stutsman answered that Tuesday, March 5th is the public hearing. Horne elucidated that this is an evening meeting, at 5:30. Stutsman noted that on March 7th, the Board certified the budget in their meeting. Horne asked if the Board wanted to follow the same format as last year’s budget presentation, where Supervisors each talk about a certain service area? The group said they would like to use the same format, and agreed that the public forum was a good opportunity to educate the public about various impacts on this year’s budget.

Adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary