• Elder Services Director Connie Benton Wolfe: Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

  • General Basic Block Grants (20)

• Discussion: Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

• Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier: Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

  • Veteran Affairs (50)

• Discussion: Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

Chairperson Thompson 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.

Thompson welcomed Elder Services Director Connie Benton-Wolfe to present the General Basic Block Grant budget, Department 20. Benton-Wolfe said that the first goal of the Nutrition Program is to have no disruption in service, and thanked the Supervisors for their commitment to this goal. She said the service rolled smoothly from one organization to the other, and said it was to everyone’s credit that the transition occurred seamlessly. She complimented former Senior Dining Director Mike Foster for his professionalism during the transition.

Benton-Wolfe said she appreciated the chance to come before the Board and ask for their continued support of the Nutrition Program. She said the program has not reached a point where it can run independent of County funding support. She said the final budget numbers are not clear yet, but it certainly appears that the program needs the Board’s support in order to keep operating. Benton-Wolfe said that for fiscal year 2003, she wanted to request some special support from the County regarding the rural service associated with the Nutrition Program. She estimated that they are going to be able to serve 9,500 meals in the rural parts of the County in fiscal year 2003, and said they are committed, as an organization, to aggressively target the rural areas. She said their request is for $33,155. Harney and Stutsman asked if that was just for the rural program, and Benton-Wolfe replied yes; they would target the $33,155 to rural areas. Thompson asked if the funds would be used for people that couldn’t afford to pay for their own meal? Benton-Wolfe said the requested amount did not reflect the entire meal cost; there would also be client donations that would be a part of that. Thompson clarified that these would be non-waiver meals, and Benton-Wolfe acknowledged that this was the case. Benton-Wolfe said there are a number of people in the rural areas that fall just above the waiver level; they are low-income, but are just above the level that allows them to participate in the waiver program. She explained that the case management program for the frail elderly is the program that allows people to access those Medicaid waiver funds. She said that, wherever possible, they will be tapping into those funds to pay for meals, as meals are one of the allowable expenses for the very low-income. Stutsman asked if the $33,155 was in addition to the other money that the County was contributing to Elder Services, and Benton-Wolfe said yes.

Benton-Wolfe said she thought that Elder Services was going to see more need to document the dramatic need for nutrition services for very frail elderly. She said they have found that approximately 25% of the clients who come into a home-delivered meals program are suffering from malnutrition, a very significant medical condition. She said they have not previously had the tools to track or assess this condition, but they are now able to get a better fix on a client’s nutritional health, and hopefully craft a meals and/or nutrition program that gives the client an individualized service intervention to better serve their needs. Benton-Wolfe noted that a nutrition program can significantly impact health outcomes, with a serious intervention. She said the program would better equip Elder Services staff to make assessments, and then try to design some additional flexibility into the program, to provide a more comprehensive service program for people at significant risk. Stutsman asked how the assessments are done? Benton-Wolfe said there are 2 tools. One, a numerical nutrition risk screen tool, is built into the assessment package that the State of Iowa requires. The second tool, which is newer, gives a better health fix on those individuals by using a series of questions, and also some non-intrusive bodily measurements such as weight and arm circumference. She said the 2nd tool gives a better idea of what the individual was dealing with from a nutritional standpoint. Harney asked whether it was that the individuals don’t have food, or whether they aren’t eating a variety of food? Benton-Wolfe said it is a variety of things; some don’t have the money to buy food, others have the money but no way to get to the store to buy it, others have money but have to spend it on medications, and still others may lack the motivation, will, or the ability to prepare meals. She said these programs began in the 1970s as social programs, but have really taken a turn toward becoming health programs that make a difference in people’s lives.

Stutsman asked if Elder Services identified someone with certain nutritional needs, would they get a special diet within the Nutrition Program? Benton-Wolfe said that therapeutic diets were one thing they were considering doing more with, but this is not exactly what she’s discussing right now. The current issue, she said, is the level of meals, whether it’s one, two, or 3 meals, and whether the meals include supplements; she said these issues are more medically-oriented, not a one-size-fits-all program. She said they would not be able to immediately implement the entirety of this program, but hoped that Elder Services could soon begin to offer some kind of expanded home-delivered service to the very frail.

Thompson asked if Benton-Wolfe turned in a budget to Heritage that included all of Elder Services’s expenses? Benton-Wolfe replied that she turned in a budget to Heritage that included the amount of funding that the County gave to the Nutrition Program last year, $50,000. She clarified that today’s budget request is what Elder Services is going to need from the County, and they would seek the rest of the money from Heritage. Thompson said that the Supervisors thought this would be reversed, that Elder Services would be going to Heritage for the full funding, and then coming to the County for the remainder. Thompson said that Heritage always told the County that it had to put in extra money because the salaries for County employees were higher, and they spent too much on raw food. If one assumed those things were true, Thompson continued, then Heritage should be able to fund Elder Services fully. Benton-Wolfe said no one said this to her; she said Elder Services is basically using the County’s budget as their guide. Lehman said part of Benton-Wolfe’s problem is that Heritage decides their budget after the County does, so the natural sequence is to come to the County first. Benton-Wolfe apologized if she misunderstood the sequence of things, and said she hoped that the County would continue to value the program, and want to commit to seeing it continue.

Neuzil said that he certainly values the program, but continued by saying that Heritage had made the decision to make Elder Services the subcontractor, and not the County. When they did that, Neuzil said, the County was done with its commitment, as far as he was concerned. Neuzil said the County doesn’t have the money that Benton-Wolfe was requesting, and if Heritage thought the County could continue the program, and provide the $50,000 funding, then the County should have kept the program. Neuzil said this was his understanding. Benton-Wolfe said she understood that this was a difficult situation all around, and said Elder Services is approaching this by identifying the amount of money that it would take to deliver this service. Benton-Wolfe said that Elder Services doesn’t have the track record that they County does, and might not be able to provide the service at the same cost the County did. For some things, Benton-Wolfe said, there are some expenses that the County did not charge for that her agency, a non-profit, will have to charge for. Thompson agreed, and said some of the work the auditing work the Auditor's Office had performed in relation to the Nutrition Program. Benton-Wolfe agreed, and said Elder Services is just trying to make this program work. She said that once they are beyond the transitional phase, any budget requests could be worked into the regular Human Services committee budget request with the County.

Lehman noted that the Board isn’t criticizing Benton-Wolfe for asking, and she said she understood that. Lehman said the Board has been criticized in the past for not putting enough money in the program, and said the extra money they contributed ensured that the County employees were paid well. He said that every year, Heritage sent the message to the County that they could provide the service for less, and said Elder Services was the provider that could do that. Benton-Wolfe said she is aware of all of the political pieces involved in this issue, but said she needed to make the request anyway, because she thinks Elder Services is going to need the funding. She didn’t think it would be outside the realm of possibility that the County would want to support that kind of service. Thompson said there are a certain number of things that the County is required to provide, under the Code of Iowa; these include elections and roads, and the Supervisors are looking very carefully at any additional expenditures. Benton-Wolfe said she understood this. Thompson asked what would happen to the program if the Board did not fund it. Benton-Wolfe said that she didn’t have enough information about Heritage’s funding to be able to answer this question exactly. Benton-Wolfe said she had built in some money from the County, and said she assumed they would continue their involvement, in order to serve the 104,000 meals currently being served. She said she would have to review the budget numbers, with complete information on Heritage’s contribution, in order to see the impact. Benton-Wolfe said they have only been operating for 10 days, so she doesn’t have the background financial data to make accurate projections. Because of this, she said she is relying on the County’s budget amounts as a gauge.

Thompson clarified that Elder Services is asking for over $50,000 this year, and $33,000 next year, and wondered why it is less? Or, Thompson wondered, is the $33,000 request in addition to the $50,000? No, Benton-Wolfe replied, it is not an $80,000 request for Fiscal Year 03. The lower requested amount for Fiscal Year 03 is due to a combination of factors, she said. One reason was she thought they could increase revenues by doing more with Medicaid waiver meals. Also, she said Elder Services was also going to try to do some local fundraising surrounding the Meals-on-Wheels program. Additionally, Benton-Wolfe said she is hoping they can build in some efficiencies in terms of small-scale cost savings, perhaps around 5%. These factors, she said all contributed to the lower budget request for FY 03. Benton-Wolfe said that for Fiscal Year 02, she tried to work with the number the County had built in, and the County’s projections for meal service; she said this tied in with Elder Services hope that they could keep things operating very much as the County had them in the past. She noted that many seniors were very concerned that something negative would happen to the service as a result of this transition. She hoped that Elder Services could continue the program through this fiscal year in the same way the County had started the program, at the beginning of their fiscal year. She said this gives Elder Services some time to get experience and numbers regarding the service.

Harney asked how the rural-delivered meals would be delivered; would it be by volunteers? Benton-Wolfe said it would depend; she knew that SEATS has helped with rural delivery in the past, but noted they did not submit a proposal to Heritage. She said they will need to figure out some alternatives, then, in these areas. Benton-Wolfe said she is going to try to secure local funds to purchase a vehicle that would be better-equipped to deliver hot meals. In summary, Benton-Wolfe answered Harney’s question by saying the meals would be delivered by a combination of volunteer and paid drivers.

Lehman asked if the projected 9,500 meals were about the same number as in the past. Benton-Wolfe said this is an increased number from the County’s 8,000 projected meals. Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne asked if this is strictly a projection of the rural, unincorporated areas, or did it include small towns? Benton-Wolfe said this involves everything outside of the Iowa City/Coralville area, including the small towns. Horne asked if she had a count of the number of people in the unincorporated areas, and she replied no, she did not think so. Stutsman asked if Elder Services was also going to request funding from the towns, such as Solon and Lone Tree, and Benton-Wolfe said yes. She noted that the County was her first stop. Thompson said she had lunch at the Senior Center today, and it was fine. She reported that she has talked to people who said that nothing has changed in the delivery of meals to homes, either. Benton-Wolfe said that has been their goal; usually, maintaining the status quo is not her goal, but in this case it has been.

Harney said he knew that SEATS is cutting back service to Lone Tree and Solon, and said Lone Tree is looking for grant money to help subsidize their home-delivered meals program. Benton-Wolfe reminded the Supervisors that Elder Services added a Geriatric Social Worker about 18 months ago, through a grant, in order to better service the rural areas. She said the people living on farms are very isolated, and the Case Management Program does affect them, by assessing them and providing services to them. She said Elder Services was fortunate in the last year to have access to Senior Living Trust dollars for some specific situations in rural areas. She said she is proud of her staff and their creativity in facing incredible daily challenges. Benton-Wolfe thanked the Board for listening to her, and invited them all to come to the Senior Center for lunch.

Horne said he has only recently gotten the Iowa City valuation numbers that he has been waiting for. In a handout, he showed the Board these numbers. He said after the last meeting, the Board requested that Horne add a couple of things to the budget, which he has now done. He said the current budget numbers include the Sheriff’s new collective bargaining agreement, and noted that the corrected numbers are fairly close to what he had previously estimated. Horne said the goal had been to find some reductions in the General Fund, so he decreased a total of $557,000. He said he has reduced the General Fund Road Transfer to its minimum amount.

Horne continued by showing the changes made to the budget: reducing the Compensation Board’s recommendation by 25%, setting the non-bargaining cost of living adjustment (COLA) at 3.75%, setting the Sheriff’s Bargaining Unit basically at 3%, and placing the prisoner transport expense back into the Sheriff’s budget, from the decision package. Horne said that after looking at the current and projected numbers for the Medical Examiner, he added $10,000 for autopsies, because he isn’t sure their estimate is high enough, and he wants to be sure that area is covered. Also, Horne said, he removed the Special Needs Daycare from the DHS budget; Stutsman clarified that was still in the MH/DD budget. Thompson thought this was a decision package, not actually included in the DHS budget request, and Horne said Thompson was correct; he had made a mistake. Horne said he removed the technology related to all the new positions, lowered the amount for financial software to $150,000, a decrease of $200,000, and removed the total amount for the voting equipment. He said the voting equipment is down $283,000. Neuzil asked if the savings for the voting equipment was still there, and Horne said yes; he had eliminated the decision package for new dollars. Neuzil asked what the County has invested so far in the savings for voting equipment; was it $150,000? Horne said yes.

Horne said he also removed all Capital Expenditures, including the Sheriff’s cars. Thompson asked if he had left Capital Projects the same, and he said yes, thus far. He said he had reduced it before, by transferring the Physical Plant’s projects into a different place. Thompson asked if the budget was reduced to $950,000, or to $1.2 million? Horne said it was actually lower than that right now. Thompson asked for those numbers, so the Supervisors could keep track of where they were. Horne said they originally had $1.5 million; they took out Bulechek’s request for approximately $400,000 for maintenance, as well as an additional $261,000. Stutsman said they will still be taxing for these items; they have just been moved to a different place in the budget. Horne agreed, and noted that he has not yet reduced Capital Projects. Harney and Neuzil asked about the Sheriff’s cars, and Horne said they have been removed from the budget as of now. Harney thought this item could be included in a possible bonding, if they wished, as an essential purpose. Horne didn’t think so, saying he was almost sure the cars would be a general purpose, not an essential purpose. Harney said the City bonds for the cars, but Horne noted that cities have different rules than the counties.

Harney wondered about including in the budget the costs of possible Jail alternatives, such as the Hope House. Harney said this is an item that they have been discussing in the Jail Committee, an idea they believe is worth trying. Stutsman asked what this would cost, and Harney said it would depend on how many beds they used. Neuzil wondered if this would come out of the budgeted amount that the County pays Linn County. Harney didn’t think that budgeted amount would be sufficient to fund both the Linn County prisoner housing and the Hope House alternative. There was discussion as to how, or why, the County should fund this alternative. Stutsman and Harney thought the Board should pursue this because the taxpayers told the County that they wanted the County to pursue other options in housing Jail prisoners. Thompson said this is a double-edged sword, because if they increase the total number of people being incarcerated, the program will not result in cost savings. Harney said if the Hope House closes in July, and begins releasing prisoners into the community, these people could end up in the County Jail. Stutsman wondered if the Board should put the money for the Hope House program in the Sheriff’s budget, since he is not crazy about the idea? Harney replied that Carpenter will do it if the Board wishes. Thompson noted that the situation was more complicated because the space problems at the Jail mostly involve space in the maximum security cells, not minimum security areas. Stutsman thought the County should look into these alternatives, and carefully document whether it did or did not save money and/or reduce overcrowding.

Stutsman asked how much money they were discussing for the Hope House project, and Thompson said it would depend on a variety of factors. Harney said the original proposal was for about $600,000, but they are preparing a new proposal. Thompson said the first proposal was for 15 beds at around $45-$49 per day. Neuzil repeated his belief that he didn’t think the County could afford a new program that cost $600,000 but doesn’t reduce the amount of people in Jail. Harney said they didn’t know if the program would or would not reduce that number. Neuzil said that spending $415,000 on transporting prisoners next year, plus an additional, possible $600,000 more, was a lot of money. Thompson said this year they used the money they had set aside to use if the bond issue passed, and they would not have that money this year. Neuzil said he is open-minded about alternatives, but thought they should concentrate on alternatives that reduced the Jail population and would, at least, be revenue-neutral. He said an alternative that cost $600,000 didn’t make sense to him. Harney countered that if there are too many people in Jail, and the number should be reduced, as Neuzil said, then this is an option to do that. Neuzil asked why they would pursue this option if it costs $600,000 compared to the alternative of putting them in Jail anyway, what was the benefit? Harney said this alternative would prevent prisoners from returning regularly to the Jail and the criminal justice system, and help people become self-sufficient. Thompson added that one advantage to this program is that there would be treatment available, whereas the Jail is so crowded now that no treatment program is possible. Neuzil agreed. Stutsman said that this was always the problem with preventive programs: did they work, or not? Thompson said the program has a 10% success rate, and though that is significant, it still doesn’t help the Jail situation that much, overall. Stutsman said the other positive factor was anger management training, which prisoners do not get now, but is a part of the Hope House program. She said this would go a long way to reducing future crime. Harney agreed.

Lehman noted that alternatives may not reduce the current Jail population, because people make appointments to come in and serve their 2-day sentences. Neuzil said taxpayers will be asking if the County should spend this $600,000 on youth, or other preventive programs, instead of spending the money on inmates. Neuzil said he didn’t know if they will be able to do either of these things, with the current difficult budget situation. Lehman likened the funding of this program to that of the neighborhood centers; any possible impact might not be felt until 5-10 years later. Stutsman wondered about putting some dollars into a pilot project, and assess it at the end of a year. Harney agreed, though he admitted it may not be feasible this year. Stutsman wondered what would happen if the Board put $20,000 into an alternative program, and ask the Hope House what they could do for that amount? Harney said the Hope House is supposed to be getting the numbers for what it would cost for 10 beds. Thompson said that the intensive supervision program would probably cost at least $100,000.

The group discussed whether or not several individual items are included in the current budget. These included a vehicle for the Planning and Zoning Department, office equipment savings Human Services, savings for a phone system for Human Services, and a phone booth for MH/DD. Stutsman noted that they have taken away the funding for a vehicle for Human Services. Horne asked if he has direction to put the following items back into the budget: Sheriff’s cars, Ambulance, SEATS vehicles, and the Information Services vehicle? In response to a question from Thompson, Horne noted that SEATS already has some money for vehicles; the department is just asking to spend it. Stutsman asked about the Physical Plant dump truck; Bulechek requested $8,000 to save for a new truck. The Supervisors decided to wait a year for these savings. Thompson asked Horne which items vehicles are remaining in the budget right now? He said the following items are in: the Sheriff’s cars, the Ambulance, SEATS match, and Information Services vehicle. Lehman asked if they are approving $18,000 for a new van for Information Services? Neuzil and Stutsman agreed that for $18,000, they would have to buy a used van, not a new vehicle.

Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier said his Fiscal Year 03 budget request contained a requested increase of $7,000 in the area of rental assistance. He said 45% of his total departmental budget was used for rental assistance. He said Johnson County is considered the highest in the State of Iowa for the cost of housing. Baier said that Johnson County also has a 2.3% unemployment rate, a reflection of a strong job market that draws veterans to the area for employment possibilities. He noted that Johnson County’s unemployment rate is lower than that of both the State and surrounding counties.

Baier said that he is asking a moderate increase of $1,000 in the areas of utilities, and noted that this budget item is very hard to predict, because of weather. Another item, Baier said, is burial costs for the 1,500 veterans who die each day; he felt his request for a $4,000 increase is reasonable. Baier explained that his department pays for burials only if the deceased is a wartime-era veteran. Last year, Baier said, his department helped fund 3 burials. Stutsman asked if people have to meet the guidelines to be eligible for burial assistance, and Baier replied yes. He said his department pays a $1,500 maximum for burials, less any other veteran’s-related monies already received. Baier said another budget item was his rental agreement for his office space, which he negotiated in 2000, for a 5-year contract that costs the department $10.52 per square foot. Baier said he also has requested another $100 to help his costs in attending 2 in-service and training events each year. Baier said he also usually attends the District 1 Fall School, in Washington, Iowa. The final item, Baier noted, is that his department will be changing income guidelines next year; he said they feel it’s more equitable. He didn’t feel this would impact his budget a great deal, perhaps 5%-10%.

Thompson noted that because of the tight budget year, it is entirely possible that they will not approve the increase in guidelines. Baier didn’t think his department has to ask to do this; he said they feel it is the right thing to do. He asked if he needs to ask the Board for permission to increase the guidelines, and she noted that they had asked, last time. Stutsman thought if it was going to impact the number of people who are eligible, and if there’s an increase in cost, she thought the Board has to agree to fund that increase. Baier said that the current guidelines are $518 a month, which is ridiculously low. Baier said he isn’t asking for an increase in benefits; Stutsman noted that more people will be eligible for those benefits, so costs will increase. Baier acknowledged that this could occur, but said it would not be a lot. Stutsman didn’t think that Baier has tracked this at all; Baier said he could, and repeated his estimate of a 5%-10% impact. Thompson said the bill would be $6,500. Baier said that the request was not unreasonable for veterans, people who have been asked to serve their country. He said it was good enough for the Department of Veteran Affairs so it should be good enough for Johnson County. Thompson said it was a question of money. Baier said that Black Hawk County has not quite twice as many veterans as Johnson County, and their budget is $343,000; Baier said his budget was peanuts, considering Johnson County’s veteran population was 6th-highest in the State. Stutsman noted that Johnson County has a Veteran’s Affairs Hospital, and other services for veterans that Black Hawk County doesn’t have.

Stutsman asked about the changes to the guidelines, noting that Baier had not included them. He said that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs approved pension plan, currently, is $796 per month, or income, from the current $625. Baier explained his earlier point of how his department is always behind 6 months: these changes are approved in December, go into effect in January, but are not adopted by the County until July 1, at the beginning of the next new fiscal year. Thompson thought that large of a change would allow a substantial growth in clients. Baier disagreed. Neuzil asked about the history of increasing income guidelines; Baier replied that they went through this process a couple of times before Neuzil was a Supervisor. Thompson said the last time Baier increased his guidelines, he didn’t think it was going to make a difference, but it did, and he needed a budget amendment 2 years in a row. Thompson said because public meetings are taped, they have Baier on tape claiming that new guidelines would not increase his budget, but it had in fact done so. Baier acknowledged that there could be some slight impact, and claimed he had said this before as well. Harney noted that last year, when Baier had come to the Board for an amendment, they had asked him to include all of his expected expenses in his initial budget request. This could account for some of the increase in Baier’s budget request. Baier pointed out that his amendment had been for $7,000, but they had only used part of that amount.

Neuzil asked if Baier is asking for an 18.5% budget increase; Baier said this is possible, but he didn’t know. Neuzil thought that an 18.5% request was quite high in this difficult budget year. Neuzil said he is concerned with what would happen if Baier sets certain guidelines which the Board doesn’t give him the money for? Baier said he would try to reduce the amount of the money that he pays out, as he did last year. Baier said his guidelines state that he will pay up to $350 for a rental assistance, but it is up to him to determine the amount. Baier said his budget is currently 50% expended, which is right where he should be. Neuzil said he understood how important the Veteran’s Affairs program is, but repeated his concern about an 18.5% increase in a year when some departments were going to be cut 10%, 20%, or even 30%. Baier said the Board makes the decisions; he was just stating his request. Baier said he was willing to compromise, but did not want to close the doors and stop providing very valuable services, as the Supervisors realize. Neuzil said, again, that he is concerned that Baier was going to be using guidelines that the Board could not properly fund. Baier said he is prepared for this, and knows the County needs a Jail.

Harney asked if the government raises the amount allowed for rental assistance, or does Baier set those guidelines? Baier said Veteran’s Affairs sets the guidelines, and said the most they would pay for a single bedroom would be $350 a month, and the most they would pay for a family is $450 monthly. Baier said he is watching the distribution of funds in his account, because he is a taxpayer, also. A Veteran’s Affairs Commission member commented that the department might have to look at cutting or reducing services, if the budget situation became serious enough. He agreed with Baier’s earlier assertion that the new federal standards would not change the budget very much. Veteran Affairs Commission Member Al Monsanto noted that this department has very low overhead, and therefore the County gets a lot of service from the money it puts into this program. Baier said that whenever possible, he refers veterans to Iowa Veteran’s Home (IVH), in Marshalltown, which also reduces the County’s costs.

Recessed at 2:49 p.m.; reconvened at 3:06 p.m.

Horne asked if the Supervisors want to make any structural changes in Department 45, Human Services. Thompson said she didn’t personally see the need to change their budget; although it is a hybrid, it seems to work. She thought they have had enough changes this year. Stutsman asked if Horne is talking about the monies in Whitney’s budget? Horne said no; the question is does the Board want to maintain General Assistance as a single budget, whereas someone from Cedar Rapids, or somewhere else, might be doing this budget in the future. Thompson said they would only do one part of it, and Human Services Account Kathy Lynch could take care of managing it. After some more discussion about who would oversee the County’s part of the Department 45 budget the group decided to leave this budget structure as it is.

Thompson asked when they are going to get the Information Services revised budget? Horne said the number they have in front of them is the updated number. He said he had recalculated her numbers according to her directions, removing the amount related to the new positions, lowering the amount for the financial software, and removing the voting equipment. What is left, Horne said, is the Central Technology accounts, GIS, and a consolidated version of document management. Stutsman suggested that if the Board is uncomfortable with the tax asking, they could consider cutting in this area? Thompson asked Horne if the Board has to revisit the tax asking because it’s over the allowable limit? Horne said the General Supplemental is over, so it has to be reduced. Thompson said that both General Supplemental and General Basic are full, so they need to reduce spending by about $1 million from the General Fund. Harney asked if any decision packages are included in the current numbers, and Horne said no. Stutsman said the other choice was to pay for some items by bonding; Horne said this is possible, but said Financial Advisor Tony Roetlin should come in to discuss this issue with the Board. Horne noted that the requested money for voting equipment has already been taken out of the budget, so bonding for it would not help the current budget.

Neuzil said the items the Supervisors added at this meeting, such as the Sheriff’s cars, the Ambulance, etc. add a few percentage points to the budget. Horne agreed, and clarified that every $200,000 the Board spends is about 1 percentage point on the Iowa City residential and the other cities. Thompson asked if they have to count the $135,000 for the daycare; Horne said this was a decision package, so it is not included. Stutsman thought it is in MH/DD’s budget. Neuzil and Horne qualified that this item was included in both budgets, but it was a decision package in DHS, so it is not included, currently. Neuzil said they have added about $300,000, with the Ambulance and Sheriff’s cars. Thompson repeated that they are higher than they can be, and Stutsman surmised they have to cut around $1 million.

Lehman asked how much money is in the budget for Capital Projects, and Horne said $820,000. Lehman noted that this is where any property purchases would be paid for, and wondered what they would do if property came up for sale? Could they start the bonding process quickly enough to buy any property, if they wished? Horne said they could borrow from the fund, and pay themselves back, which gave them flexibility. Lehman said this is like a credit card, and Horne agreed. Horne said he didn’t think that bonding is necessarily a bad idea, but repeated that it commits the Board to the project for future years, limiting overall flexibility. Horne said if there are good years ahead, it might not be a problem, but if there are 3 straight years such as this one, then it could become a problem. Thompson thought the County should have a plan as to how much they intend to bond each year for the next 10 years, so people could have an idea as to how much their taxes are going to be. Thompson projected that every $100,000 the County bonds for 20 years, would cost the County $70,000 in debt service, at about 5% interest. Stutsman said she is approaching bonding not as a bail-out on the budget, but for those things that the Supervisors have decided are high-priority, and are willing to commit to, long-term. Thompson said an example of this would be property purchases. Harney agreed, and said the Board needs to make budgetary cuts of non-mandated services to stay within budget.

Neuzil said that to get even close to the small increases the Board passed last year, they are going to have to cut an additional $1 million to $1.5 million. He said that for Iowa City residents, the Board had passed a 2.9% increase, and whereas this year’s increase, with the current numbers, would be 14.6%. For rural residents last year, he continued, the Board passed a 4.5% increase, whereas with the current numbers, the increase would be 11.8%. Neuzil said he understood that they cannot match last year’s numbers, because the County’s needs, particularly with the Jail issue, justify an increase. Thompson said the Supervisors are going to have to cut $1 million dollars anyway, because they are over the allowable limit, even though they have already taken out all of the decision packages and new requests, except the Sheriff’s decision packages. Neuzil said they also have not heard the budget numbers for block grants; Thompson said she hoped that block grants will come in at the same levels as last year. Neuzil said right now they are at a 10% increase. Stutsman asked how much money this is, and Thompson answered $144,000, which is not all in United Way. Horne agreed, and said there is also money included in the budget for Emergency Management, JCCOG, and the Senior Center. Neuzil said if the Supervisors are going to do something with the Senior Center, they should vote on a resolution within the next 2 weeks.

Stutsman asked if the Supervisors are in agreement that they are going to cut $1.5 million? The group said yes; Neuzil noted they have no choice but to cut at least $1 million. Horne said the 20% increase in health insurance wreaked havoc with the budget, and said this increase is figured into the current numbers. Horne said the General Fund is where the budget difficulties are. Horne asked about the Board’s goal; do they want to cut $1 million out of the budget? Neuzil wondered if the Board should cut the departmental budgets, or if they should give this responsibility to the department heads? Horne said this is up to the Supervisors. Stutsman said it would be easier to give this task to the departments, and said she wanted to be fair to the departments. She thought it was more difficult to cut some departments than others. Horne said a 5% across the board cut would be $1,177,000. Horne said they could also decrease the amount allocated for prisoner transport, and force the Sheriff to make some room in his budget for this cost. Also, Horne reminded the Board that it still has the rest of the Jail project money available, which could be used for prisoner transport next year. Horne said this would be the last of that money, but would solve the problem for this budget year. Stutsman said this would just prolong the agony; what would they do next year? Horne agreed, and said he was just giving the options. Horne said the Health Department’s revenues fell much more than expenses; they had a real increase in tax askings of approximately $200,000. Neuzil said on the block grant budget, the Board has to ask whether they are willing to cut County services in order to pay for non-mandated programs and services. He said the programs are wonderful, but he didn’t know if the County can afford to pay for them? Horne said the Supervisors could also reduce the Compensation Board’s recommendations further, explaining that the current budget numbers already include a 25% reduction in those recommendations. Horne said the non-bargaining COLA is set at 3.75% in the current numbers, and this too could be adjusted. Thompson asked about changing this to 3.5%; Horne said it would lower it some.

Thompson remembered that in another year, the Board had given the Sheriff’s management staff a higher rate, and wondered about giving the Sheriff’s management a raise higher than the raise given to the union. Neuzil said they are also giving the Sheriff’s Department more benefits, including longevity. Harney thought it would be fair to give the Sheriff’s management the same amount the bargaining unit gets. Thompson pointed out that if they do this for all the County contracts, they will eventually end up with 6 different pay plans, making a lot of work for the Human Resources Department. Stutsman said Story County is attempting to negotiate some union contracts down, and said the unions agreed to it in the interest of job security. Stutsman didn’t know how they could keep giving large COLA increases, and said this amount has been steadily rising since she has been on the Board. Thompson said it does go down; she remembered when it had been 8.5%, and during the farm crisis, it had been zero for 2-3 years in a row. Neuzil thought the Board should at least consider that the non-bargaining increase be less than 3.75%. Thompson asked Horne to figure out what it would be if every non-bargaining staff member receives the same raise as their bargaining unit. He said he could do this, but didn’t know if it sets a good precedent, and would be difficult to administer. Horne said Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek would argue for consistent treatment across departments, with non-bargaining-unit employees. The group agreed there are problems with having so many different bargaining units.

The group also discussed the impact of reducing the raises for elected officials; Horne said this would not provide very much funding. Stutsman said she wants to sit down with the Compensation Board next year before they meet, and indicated she is not pleased with the high raise the Compensation Board suggested for the Supervisors. Neuzil said he looked at this issue differently, and said the Compensation Board’s suggestion recognizes that the Board of Supervisors went for 3-4 years without any raises, in the 1980s and 1990s. The group discussed that because of the Compensation Board’s recommendation, a 2% raise for the Supervisors would give the Auditor and County Attorney, and their deputies, a 0% raise. Neuzil said the only way that the Auditor’s Office and County Attorney can get the same raise as the non-bargaining employees would be to approve a 7.5% increase for the Supervisors and a 4.5% increase for the Sheriff, Recorder, and Treasurer.

At the Supervisors’ request, Shramek joined the meeting, and said it would be a lot more work to match the non-bargaining COLA raises to the bargaining units. She also said this would be a change of philosophy from previous County policy. Thompson said a couple of years ago, when the Sheriff’s union got a larger raise than the County’s non-bargaining raise, the Supervisors increased the Sheriff’s management, in order to match their union. This year, Thompson said, the union is getting less than what the Board is considering for the non-bargaining employees; should the management be given the same raise? Shramek said they have always treated the Sheriff’s Department’s administration the same as the union, and agreed when Stutsman noted that they are not a part of the County pay plan. Shramek said it will be problematic to divide up all departments, and create separate pay scales for each; she and Horne noted that they are not talking about a lot of money, since the raises are all within .25% of each other. Neuzil asked what a reduction from 3.75% to either 3.5% or 3.25% would do; what kind of savings would that generate? Horne said that each 1% COLA for non-bargaining is $60,920.

Thompson summarized the suggested raises decided upon in this meeting:

3.09% for the Sheriff’s Department (excluding the Sheriff and his deputies), the same as the bargaining unit

3.25% for all other non-bargaining management

3.25% for the Auditor, County Attorney, and their deputies

3.9% for the Treasurer, Recorder, and Sheriff, and their deputies

6.5% for the Supervisors.

Thompson noted that the last 3 are the Compensation Commission’s requirement. In response to Neuzil’s questions, Horne said that the longevity and merit bonuses are already budgeted. Neuzil said the Supervisors have to send a message to the bargaining units that the County can no longer afford to give the same size raises that have been given historically.

Thompson asked the group if the County should be talking about a spending freeze and a hiring freeze, asking people to delete non-necessary expenses? Horne clarified that this would mean amending down. Neuzil didn’t know how else they could cut $1.5 million. Horne said they could do this, though it would change their fund balances. Neuzil thought there are some programs that will no longer be part of County government after July 1. Horne said the Board should be careful with fund balances, and using their carryover, because these factors determine the County’s credit ratings. Horne said the consistency of the fund balances, give or take a few percentage points, is the important thing. Harney asked if the Supervisors should go through each department and look at what can be cut? Stutsman thought they could return this decision to each department, asking them to cut a certain percentage, or a certain dollar amount, from their own budget. Thompson said everyone has items in their budget they are waiting to spend until the end of the year, to see if they are going to overspend somewhere else. She gave utilities as an example; utility bills are going to be cheaper than expected this year. Thompson suggested that the departments could agree not to spend what they did not spend on utilities, which would save the County money, and make for a higher end of year fund balance.

Stutsman asked if the Supervisors wanted to freeze new hirings, and Thompson thought yes, or at least they should have to seek special dispensation from the Board. Harney asked about summer or part-time help; Thompson said the Board could fund 70%-80% of these positions. Horne noted that the Board doesn’t have to amend, because they haven’t released the 4th-quarter funds; Horne said they are not bound to release all of these funds. Lehman asked about releasing a partial amount of these funds; Horne said they could do this by changing the resolution. Harney asked how much the County would save if each department went back and cut 5% from its budget? Horne said 5% would save $1,177,000. Thompson said because of the revenue-expense adjustment, this number would not be quite accurate. Neuzil reiterated an earlier point that 6% can mean very different things to different departments. Stutsman thought the Supervisors should set different percentage amounts for different departments, so the departments are treated fairly. Stutsman thought the departments should make the cuts themselves, in the areas they thought most appropriate.

Thompson suggested that the Board should try to make some additional cuts to reduce the $1 million, and then get the rest from an across-the-board cut. Harney asked what percentage tax increase was going to occur, even if the Board does make the necessary cuts? Neuzil said they are still talking about double-digit tax increase. Thompson asked what Iowa City was, and Horne said it was 14.6%. Thompson said people are getting the message that this is going to be a bad year for taxes. Horne said there is a rollback factor, in residences, of 5% more this year. Neuzil didn’t think that rural voters are going to be very happy about a double-digit tax increase. Thompson said residents won’t see these numbers in their tax bills, because of the rollback. Horne said last year’s tax bill for residential in Iowa City for a $100,000 home was $311; this year it only jumps about $12. Horne said the rollback distorts this increase, making it look bigger; Thompson said this is similar to what equalization did last year. On ag land, Neuzil continued, it was $841 last year; Horne said there would be a $77 increase per $100,000. Neuzil said they are close; if they cut another $1.5 million, the increase will be close to single digits.

The group again discussed the possibility of a hiring freeze. Though Horne pointed out that this would not produce a quantifiable amount of savings, Neuzil said it would send a message the departments about the seriousness of the budget situation. Neuzil said Horne could identify what jobs are open, and compute how much the County would save. Stutsman asked if they should make exceptions for seasonal workers? Horne said he could go back and look at budget data over the last 3 years and identify departments that do not spend close to 100% of their budget, and then ask them to cut. The group discussed what was the best way to treat departments equally and fairly. Horne said the County only has so many departments that are big enough to take a lot out of; he noted the Department of Public Health and the Sheriff’s Department as the 2 largest. Neuzil said the departments over $1 million are those 2, plus SEATS, Ambulance, Attorney, and Block Grants. Harney and Neuzil said they are going to have to take a close look at block grants. Stutsman suggested they look at block grants, and the decisions they make there will help the Supervisors decide how much they are going to ask the departments to cut. Stutsman said she didn’t want to enforce a hiring freeze, currently, but just ask the departments to cut. Thompson suggested they ask the departments to create a budget 4% less than their 3-year spending average. Thompson asked if they should tell the Health Department to even out their loss of revenues; Horne and Neuzil said yes. Neuzil said if a department head comes back with a suggested cut, and the Board doesn’t feel he/she has done enough, the Supervisors can add additional cuts. Horne agreed. The group agreed, in summary, that they would ask the department heads to review their FY 03 budgets and reduce them by 4% from their 3-year average. Horne said it would hit the DHS budget very hard, because they’ve been only at 85% of their budget every year; this would then mean a 20% cut for them.

Thompson asked if they should pin down Conservation at a certain percentage as well? She said they were at $.22 last year, and he is asking for around $.27. Thompson suggested they give him $.23, which is about $847,153, or $9,000 less than what Horne had on his budget page. Thompson said this is not an unreasonable amount to absorb if other departments have to absorb 4%. Neuzil said Graves has requested $962,000; the current budget is at $856,000, which is last year’s budget plus salary increases. Thompson said that $.23 would give him around $847,000, $9,000 less than what he asked. The group discussed this further, and Thompson noted that it would be difficult to get away from amounts not based on whole penny amounts. Horne clarified that any extra revenues from Conservation revert to the General Fund, and the Supervisors historically have transferred these extra revenues to his Trust Fund. Thompson wondered about giving him $.23 and asking him not to cut the 4%, a better deal than the other departments got. Stutsman asked why Conservation should be treated any differently than anyone else? Horne responded that they have to be set at at least $.22 to qualify for REAP funds. The group decided to set the Conservation budget at $847,153, the $.23 level, and, for now, exempt the department from the 4% cut.

Thompson mentioned that a lot of departments did not calculate the budget package correctly; they didn’t re-estimate their current expenses, and then work these out. Also, Thompson mentioned, many did not include incidental items in the 03 budget column, but instead included them as decision packages, so decision package 1 includes some people’s projection of bigger phone bills, and such items. She did not know how the Board should address this. Harney said they should have to redo these; Stutsman agreed. Horne said there has been confusion as to how the FY 03 column is to be used. Thompson said the ones that used this column correctly were reasonable.

Thompson asked if the Supervisors had agreed to a sick leave buyout for non-bargaining retirees? Horne explained that Shramek had listed the total liability, but not all the employees who qualified would retire in the same year. Horne said he could put a figure in the budget that assumed 3 retirements, as an example. Neuzil said if the non-bargaining employees were getting a smaller increase than the bargaining unit employees, at least the Supervisors could point to the sick leave buyout as a positive benefit for them. Harney said the Supervisors also needs to decide about block grants and the Senior Center; those dollars could affect how much needs to be cut from each department. Others in the group agreed; Neuzil said they would discuss these issues next Thursday.

Horne said he would bring the 3-year departmental spending averages to the Supervisors next week, and send a note to departments within the next day. Stutsman asked if the Board is serious about this? She said she didn’t want department heads spending hours redoing their budgets if the Board later discovered they didn’t need to make these cuts. She asked if there is anything else to cut before going to the departments? Horne reminded the Board that the block grants budget is completely at their discretion. Thompson said they could take the $500,000 from the Jail money and return it to the General Fund. Stutsman said this would only be a one-time fix.

Horne said that Shramek informed him that the County currently has 9.5 open positions, which includes the Ambulance Director. Thompson reminded the group they had decided not to institute a hiring freeze, but instead remind departments that keeping a position open is one option to cut part of the 4% from their budget. Horne said in the departments asked to cut 4%, there are only 6.5 open positions.

Horne said if the Supervisors decide to pay for some expenses by bonding, he could adjust an upcoming transfer, perhaps that for financial software or voting equipment. Horne said that Linn County bonded for their financial software.

Adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary