Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 8:35 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

University of Iowa Institute of Public Policy Strategic Planning Facilitator Tim Shields said he is aware of some of what the County is going through in the way of budgetary problems. Shields said if there are any specific areas they want to deal with, he would like to know about those so he can plan for them. Shields said in this strategic planning session, they will look at what the last year has been like, go through the Board’s Strategic Plan and update or refine it. Shields said he understood the Board would also like to discuss a broader strategic planning process, to better involve the other elected officials and department heads. He said he is happy to lead this discussion and give his professional perceptions about what other organizations have done, and what might be useful.

Shields asked the Board if this agenda needs to be refined, or made more specific? Thompson said that during the budget process they discussed the need to look at all areas of the County’s budget and see which are required, and which are optional. She said this would allow them to make a plan for future budget cuts. Shields said he always wants to give them the Supervisors to identify emerging issues, such as budget analysis. Stutsman suggested the group have a related discussion about the role of County government. She said the Board cannot fund everything that it wants to, and needs to define mandatory and discretionary services. Thompson said the County funds a lot of things that are nice to have, but maybe can no longer be supported. Shields suggested they have a general discussion of these budget issues.

Shields asked the Supervisors to help him list the County’s accomplishments in the past year, things they feel good about. Stutsman noted that they hired an Executive Assistant and redefined that position’s job description. She explained that the Board made a conscious effort to move towards a county-manager style of government. She noted that she is not advocating for this, but said the Supervisors recognized that the Board needs a point person, someone to give direction and leadership. Thompson said they have a good start on a plan for the County Farm; JCCOG is doing a study and is going to get back to the Board in March. Harney said the County has continued to pursue the possibility of acquiring the National Guard property next to the Administration Building. Stutsman added that the Board reacted well in the budget process, making some difficult decisions. Stutsman said that the elected officials and department heads have extended office hours, providing better service to the citizens of the County. Thompson said they are getting closer to having their new financial software; RFPs have gone out, and they completed the extensive planning process that involved departmental cooperation. Stutsman thought that technology is probably the County’s strongest area, with GIS, document management, upgrading equipment, and adding public County information to the web. Shields asked where the County is with GIS, and Thompson replied it is set up as a function of the Information Services Department, to serve all of the other departments. Shields said he knows of a number of other situations where counties are taking the lead in developing GIS infrastructure. Harney said another improvement over the past year is that the Budget Coordinator has improved the way the County handles the budget process, and improved communication with departments. Thompson noted they hired a labor negotiator, and said this was a sacred cow put to rest. Lehman said they temporarily addressed the jail overcrowding. Stutsman said the hiring and transition of a new Ambulance Director went well. Thompson said they have begun discussing and studying for 2 things that have not been done in Johnson County before: bonding, and condemning property. Thompson said the Board has had 20-30 years without debt, and has said for many years that it would not condemn. Thompson said it is entirely possible that they will decide not to do either of these 2 things, but they are talking about them. Harney mentioned that the County hired a Facilities Manager who is finally getting a handle on maintenance costs for County buildings. Lehman said they made adjustments to handle State budget cuts in Mental Health and Human Services. Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne said a large shift has occurred this year, as he has prepared the budget and numbers this year, the first time this has been done separately from the Auditors Office. Horne explained that he now knows the technical aspects of it that he didn’t know so well previously. Stutsman noted the completion of the addition to the Administration Building, and Thompson added the replacement of the jail roof. Thompson said they also have a much better handle on the Physical Plant needs. Horne said they have a maintenance plan. Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said they made a significant property acquisition by purchasing the Fisher property, next to the Ambulance Department. Shields asked if this was for possible expansion, and Sullivan said yes. Shields asked if the Supervisors are pursuing a goal to acquire the National Guard land? The Supervisors said they are still looking at options; Stutsman noted they still don’t have a well-defined land plan for the area. Harney said they have come a long ways, by doing an appraisal on the property. Thompson said the Board has started talking to the unions about taking on some of the increased cost in health care, because all of the County’s union contracts are up for renegotiation next year. Horne said the projected increases in health insurance costs for next year are near 20%. The group agreed that the health insurance costs are going to continue to increase, and thus will become a larger and larger problem with the County’s budget. Horne said they have tried to change some things, and the changes have resulted in some modest savings, but have not arrested the sharply rising prices. Thompson noted that the Board also reorganized the process for reviewing department head performance and included time for the Supervisors to make site visits to the elected officials’ office, which has greatly improved the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the various elected officials. Thompson said they did this by reducing the amount of time they spend with department heads. Harney said that the Planning and Zoning building inspections are going really well, in their first year of existence. Stutsman said another big accomplishment was the restructuring of the Medical Examiner’s Office.

Shields noted that this list of accomplishments was a long and impressive one, and urged the Board to stop and recognize the kind of accomplishments that have occurred. Shields said that citizens need to realize that the Board has been able to accomplish things. He cautioned the Board that the State budget crisis is real and it is not going to go away anytime in the next 2 budget years. Shields surmised that the State will continue to partially solve their budget dilemmas by passing some costs on to local governments. Eventually, Shields said, things are going to get better, but for a time there is going to be budget uncertainty and difficulty. Shields said he is worried about local governments’ budgets not so much for the coming 02-03 budget year, but for the one after that, the 03-04 fiscal year. He said that uncertainty is hard on decision-makers such as County Supervisors.

Thompson said the main budget problem for Johnson County is that the Board has reached its taxing limit. She said they have spent the $3.50 per $1,000 of valuation in the General Basic Fund and moved everything that is immediately allowable into the Supplemental Fund. Horne elaborated that the biggest problem is that expenses keep going up, so much so that even a good year in valuations won’t help very much. Horne said they are taking on an additional $1 million in built-in expenses each budget year. Horne said even a good valuation year will only add $400,000-$600,000 to the tax base, which will not be enough unless the County can reduce some of its expenses. Shields suggested figuring out what a 1% increase in salary cost the County’s budget, and what does a 10% increase in base valuation actually yield? The Supervisors said they have done this. He said the Supervisors’ role is to look at these kinds of aggregate numbers, and be able to set policies based on them. Shields noted in years where there is a large growth in base, the rollback doesn’t feel as painful, whereas if the increase in valuation is small, the rollback is very painful. Thompson asked if the rollback goes up every year, and Shields and Horne said no. Shields said there are variations in the rollback, it is computed based on an arcane formula. Shields said the long-term trend for rollbacks is downward. He noted that the whole system was put in place to protect the value of farmland, because there was tremendous inflationary pressure on farmland in the 1970s. At this time, he said, the tax burden was shifting toward rural property, and the rollback held the ag value steady, and shielded it from inflation. Shields credited the system, and said it worked then, but said they had not anticipated the impact on the residential base valuations. Shields said that this year, the County was also looking at a 3% reduction in commercial valuation, which is a big number. Shields noted they had not had that last year, and didn’t know if it would be a trend.

Harney said that apartment owners are now getting their properties changed to residential, rather than commercial; this loophole costs the County tax monies. Horne agreed with Harney. Neuzil noted that most of the growth occurs in the cities, since the County stopped growth by passing the Land Use Plan and Road Performance Standards Ordinance. He said the County loses a lot of tax base because of this. Stutsman challenged Neuzil on this, and said they are not stopping growth, but managing it. Stutsman gave an example of a new development along Prairie du Chien Road, Westcott Acres. She said the County is not stopping growth, but putting growth and housing developments where the County is able to manage them. Neuzil said that Westcott Acres was allowed only because the County recently upgraded Prairie du Chien Road, but said that the County is limiting growth, and then is not able to develop the rural tax base at all. He said that instead of getting 37% or more on that tax base, they get less. Thompson said that they are spending less, too, though since they don’t have to provide services to the areas. Neuzil said this issue is an obvious, fundamental disagreement among the Supervisors, and said he believed this is one reason they are having a difficult time. Shields said that in a certain sense both Stutsman and Neuzil are right. He said that cities are the engines of development in the State of Iowa; Neuzil said he agreed, but thought that Johnson County has limited development so much that all the cities are booming, and the County is shrinking. Neuzil said he didn’t see where services are decreasing, as Thompson had said. Thompson said that the County no longer has to pave Court Street, or provide policeman for Iowa City. Harney said that Iowa City and Johnson County are much the same, in that both entities are about $1.5 million short of being well. Stutsman didn’t think the County could get out of this situation by building houses; commercial/industrial is what pays the taxes. Neuzil said that the County’s Land Use Plan channels commercial and industrial development into the cities. Lehman said the cities are using the Fringe Area Agreements to prevent commercial and industrial development from occurring in the County. Shields asked if that is the only purpose of the Fringe Area Agreements? Lehman said the purpose is to plan growth, and said the County is responsible with its policies, but the cities are using the Fringe Area Agreements as leverage.

Stutsman asked what Shields thought about this issue? Shields said he is proud of Johnson County’s Fringe Area Agreements. He said Johnson County was the first in Iowa to have them, and others have followed. Neuzil said the Fringe Area Agreements are great for the cities; Shields answered that they are great for the counties too, because they don’t have to provide services. Thompson said that Johnson County’s Fringe Area Agreements have recently begun to fall apart. She said that where cities overlap, the County made individual Fringe Area Agreements with the various cities, without addressing the overlap. Now, Thompson said, the cities are fighting amongst themselves, and some don’t want to participate anymore. Thompson thought the County should totally rethink the idea. Neuzil said they are also failing because the County has no leverage, because the County’s Land Use Plan already says that the County won’t grow within a 2-mile limit of a city, anyway, and the cities know this. The cities know, Neuzil said, that the County isn’t going to build within that limit, whether or not the cities agree to sign a Fringe Area Agreement with the County.

Lehman said the County is in competition with Iowa City for tax dollars. Shields gave an example of a factory built inside Iowa City; the County will still get an increase in valuation base. Neuzil said this was true only in 20 years, after the TIF is over, and all the properties are TIF’d. Shields gave some numbers about his hypothetical example, excluding the presence of a TIF. Horne said the County gets $.17 on every tax dollar in Iowa City; in the unincorporated areas of the County, they get about $.50. Shields said the Secondary Roads Levy is also enriched if a business locates in the County. Shields said the Secondary Roads Levy is the major differential; Horne agreed, and said it is the biggest part of it. Shields said that county governments in Iowa have not been in the business of sewer and water, which is why there are not large industrial parks in rural areas. Neuzil said what will ultimately happen is that there will be no tax base for the County, especially with TIFs. He said he didn’t know of a business that has come into this community and County that hasn’t been incorporated into a TIF. He said there are $320 million in TIFs right now and the County gets zero. Shields didn’t think that the City of Iowa City TIFs commercial property; Horne and others in the group disagreed, and said they do. Horne said there is a TIF for Proctor and Gamble, and NCS. Shields said these are industrial properties; his point was that Iowa City was not TIFing commercial businesses, such as Burger King; some places are doing this. Lehman thought the County could support a distribution center, near an interstate interchange; this would not require a lot of services. Shields said in other counties, county development is occurring around airports, but noted that the Iowa City Airport does not lend itself to this type of development.

Shields said the issue of land-use decision-making and TIFs are important issues to the Board’s overall Strategic Plan. Thompson said that equalization should be included, though it wasn’t a factor this year. Horne said the jail is an issue, and Stutsman said rising health care costs also contributed. Stutsman said the County’s budget crisis was at its most basic level reductions in revenues and increases in expenses. Neuzil noted that lower interest rates hurt the County’s revenues, and Thompson said that State budget cuts also contributed. Neuzil said that the Treasurer’s investment of the County’s money is no longer generating $1,400,000, but only $400,000. Thompson said that last year they had 6.8% growth in the valuations and this year it was only 2.8%. She said for the first time in anyone’s memory, departmental revenues are going down. Shields said that the recession finally hit Johnson County in the last couple of months, and noted that the economy contributes to the problem as well.

Shields said they need to discuss the purpose of County government, as Stutsman had suggested. Stutsman said they should specifically consider Johnson County government’s role, because the populace here likes a lot of services. She said that in the area of Human Services, Johnson County deals with issues that other counties in the State of Iowa do not have. Stutsman said the first responsibility for the County is to fulfill the mandates as required in the Code. Shields said the mandated services look simple, but asked if the Code mandates the level of service provided. Thompson said it isn’t simple, because Johnson County has provided the mandated services for so long, and have added so much to them, that now the edges are blurry. Thompson said the issue is very complex; Shields agreed. Stutsman said that people have forgotten what is mandated and what is discretionary, because the service has been there for so long, at such a high level. She said this is going to be tough to explain to the public. Thompson said the Senior Center is a perfect example; the people think they have a right to that service and that the County should provide it, when it never was a requirement. Neuzil said they need to look at every single department with these specifications in mind; Stutsman agreed. Neuzil said that Johnson County does more than any other county in the State of Iowa. Shields said the rich array of services provided to Johnson County citizens are partly in existence because those citizens have been more willing to pay for some of these services than residents of other counties. Others in the group agreed. He said Johnson County seems to withstand a higher level of taxation than other counties in the State.

Shields said there are parts of county government that are really sub-State services, like auto licensing, which is mandated. The group agreed, and added driver’s licenses, Clerk of Court, the City and County Assessors, and the maintenance of vital statistics to this category. Shields suggested that another major purpose of County government is to provide facilities; no one disagreed. Thompson said that equipment is a big issue; she said it used to be fine to equip staff with a desk, chair, and typewriter, but now there are additional, more expensive items, such as a computer, GIS, training, a County web page, etc. Thompson said as the County’s employee numbers have increased, their costs have increased as well. Stutsman thought that this all falls under facilities, because people have to have a roof over their head, and a desk and updated equipment to work with. Harney thought a large part the County’s role is to provide the basic services to the community, such as the elections, Recorder, Treasurer, etc., as well as providing for the indigent and the poor. Thompson said the County is responsible for the poor and needy; Shields agreed, and said that in Iowa, county government is responsible to provide human services. Thompson said the Code is fairly narrow in what the counties have to provide, and because of Social Security, the federal governments have taken over some of those services. She said some of that responsibility might be returned back to the County, because of the 5-year limitation on welfare. Thompson said if the responsibility for those basic services is returned to the County, the Board will have to cut some of the other, non-required services that were nice to have, in order to make room for the mandated care of the poor and needy. Shields thought that there is some absolute, mandated requirement for the counties, in the area of general welfare; the group agreed, and Thompson said the county is the safety net. Thompson said the Public Health Department has done well, sticking to basic services and providing other services with grants. Stutsman noted that the County has a Planning and Zoning Department.

Harney said Johnson County also has legal services. Shields said that sometimes he sees the County Attorney function as being State, and sometimes as local. Thompson said Johnson County calls it public safety, and puts it in with the Sheriff. Shields said that the Board has to fund that area, because every county has to have a County Attorney. Others in the group agreed, but Stutsman pointed out that some County Attorneys are part-time, in smaller counties. Regarding Planning and Zoning, Shields said that if the Board adopts planning and zoning policies, then they have to enforce them. He said that is the purpose of county government. Thompson added public safety, including the Sheriff and Jail, as a purpose of county government. Neuzil suggested ambulance as another reason for County government. Stutsman said the County isn’t required to provide ambulance. Neuzil expressed surprise at this, and wondered why, then, they are doing it? Shields noted that Secondary Roads is a core purpose, for which the County is responsible. The group discussed the pros, cons, and efficiencies of private vs. governmental services; Neuzil said he thought private would be more efficient in every case. Thompson and Stutsman disagreed. Shields said a few years ago, the City of Phoenix had put out all of their services for bid with private industry, and within 3 years, 85%-90% of the services had become city services again. Shields said the process had created efficiencies within city departments, who responded and competitively bid with private companies. Shields said the citizens wanted a higher quality of service that the private sector could provide and still make a profit.

Next, Shields asked the Board to list all of the things the County is doing that are not on the current list of mandated services. Stutsman named ambulance and SEATS; Harney added transportation, and Stutsman said there are a variety of MH/DD services that also are not mandated, such as brain-injury funds. Thompson said they give block grants to United Way agencies, and Stutsman said the County also supports all of the libraries in Johnson County. Shields said there is an interpretation of the Code that says the County has a mandated responsibility to the libraries; Thompson answered that Johnson County sends a lot more monies than the required minimum. Horne said their mandated amount would be $240,000, but they pay about $400,000. Shields said that in many of these areas, the level of service is what goes beyond the core, mandated purpose. Thompson said they also pay 20% of the Senior Center cost, and this is not required. Horne said block grants in general are not required. Stutsman said the County funds a position at the Soil and Water Conservation District, and Harney added that they also fund a position in Human Services. Stutsman asked if they are mandated to support the County Fair? Horne said no. Thompson said they pay for 3 social work positions at the Department of Human Services, and Neuzil said they also provide longer office hours than what is required. Neuzil said the Department of Human Resources is something the Board established only 5 years ago. Thompson said the County provides parking for County employees without charging them very much. Stutsman said that some departments don’t charge anything. Neuzil wondered about Roadside Vegetation; do they have to have an employee? Thompson said no, they need a manager and plan, but not a full-time employee. Shields thought the County might be mandated in this area. Neuzil clarified that he isn’t lobbying to get rid of the services being discussed, but trying to define what is mandated, and what isn’t. Thompson thought that the Human Resources Department is mandated, once the County reaches a certain level of staffing. Shields said that internal services are gray areas, as is equipment; Stutsman said technology is an example. Thompson said that Johnson County subsidizes health insurance costs for retirees over age 65. Shields added that the health insurance costs for current employees, as discussed earlier, are not necessarily a purpose of county government. Stutsman said they should add benefits, in general, to include longevity as a part of that. Thompson said the Sheriff provides patrol for the small cities, and the County subsidizes this, by not charging back the full fee to the small cities. She said they could also probably raise fees in Planning and Zoning and Ambulance Departments, to the point where fees covered the actual cost. Thompson said this is another issue; if the County provides a non-mandated service, they need a policy saying that the fee has to cover the cost of the service. She said they don’t always have a good way of calculating what that fee would be. Neuzil asked if Veterans Affairs is required? Thompson said it is, but not the way Johnson County does it; again, the level of service is the issue. Horne mentioned Juvenile Crime Prevention. Neuzil said there are many prevention programs, but none are required. Shields asked if all of the block grants they are doing are outside of the mandate. The group said yes, except maybe one. Horne said they have to do Emergency Management, and they choose to call it a block grant. Stutsman said that under MH/DD services they have chosen to fund the Court Referees. Neuzil said that for MH/DD services, there is a chart that shows what is mandated and what is not, and Johnson County goes well beyond what is mandated. Thompson said that in the County Attorney’s Office, they collect child support and there is one attorney that does things just for the Board of Supervisors; Shields noted this is part of the internal administrative commitment. Neuzil said they could look at every County department in this manner, and noted that Planning and Zoning has to do certain core things, but don’t, for example, have to have an inspections unit. Shields countered this by saying if the Board of Supervisors passes the laws, they have to enforce them. Thompson said that a lot of the Information Services Department’s services, such as the County’s website, go well beyond the mandate. Stutsman said the County carefully maintains its vehicles; Thompson added that County vehicles always have good trade-in value. Sullivan spoke to the fact that the County has a well-equipped Ambulance Department. Neuzil said they have a lot of money sitting in the bank for possible land acquisitions, and the Reservoir Roads Trust Fund also contains a lot of money. Thompson repeated that the County stopped providing the Senior Nutrition Program, a non-mandated service which they had been providing for years. The group agreed that the County wants to, and should, provide adequate services; the difficulty is in the definition of "adequate."

Thompson said that making the list is a good idea, because they haven’t done this before, but the hard part is deciding where to cut, once the list is put together. She noted that they don’t have to cut everything, so the problem is evaluating what to cut first. Lehman said the Supervisors are going to be forced to prioritize. Stutsman read from the Board’s Strategic Plan from ’97, regarding the purpose of county government: to provide services to the public, to manage resources, to identify and respond to the needs of Johnson County residents, to protect the health, safety and welfare of Johnson County citizens, to ensure the quality of life in Johnson County, to set policy for Johnson County government, to implement the administration of State rules and regulations, and to provide information to the public and promote their involvement. Shields said that is a description of a full-service government in a county framework. He said some would argue that it is not the County’s job to ensure the quality of life, but to ensure the opportunity for a quality life. He said this is an important distinction.

Shields said the Board has a choice to make. He said they could work from the lists they have created so far, about the purpose of Johnson County’s government, and from them modify the goals set forth in the Strategic Plan. Another option, he continued, is to move the development of fiscal policy: the process, strategies and methods and philosophies they use as a decision-making group to move towards taking this information and trying to create a plan and a strategy. Stutsman said it would be helpful to have Shield’s assistance in setting forth a process by which the Board could begin to make budget decisions; Thompson agreed, and said she wanted to avoid balancing the budget on the back of one department. Lehman brought up the 4% cuts that the Board had requested this year; Neuzil said that some departments shouldn’t have had to make 4% cuts but the Board did it anyway because there was not a process in place. Stutsman thought it was important to put a thoughtful, deliberate process in place. She said the Board has not yet solicited community opinion, either, and said both the elected officials and the community should both have some input. The Board noted that they have no control over how elected officials spend their budgets. Shields said the Board can’t tell the departments what to give up, but they can sit down and intelligently dialogue with them about mandated and non-mandated services. Horne said he is especially interested in the Ambulance and SEATS Departments. He said that Ambulance could become its own government entity, and tax under its own levy; SEATS could be folded into a regional transit authority with the 2 overlapping systems already in existence.

Shields said he thinks one of the Board’s short-term goals should be to develop a comprehensive review of County services. He said the discussion they just completed starts this process, but the issue needs further analysis. Shields said this is a major undertaking; Stutsman suggested that they have a plan to work progressively on a limited number of goals or issues--such as libraries and public health, for example--per year. Shields noted that it is too late to complete this project for this budget year, but in 12 months the County should have an objective analysis of mandated and non-mandated services in various areas. This would be a big project, Shields acknowledged, but he thought it is an attainable goal. He said that a couple of years from now, when the budget situation has improved, this is still going to be an important analysis to use and help in making decisions.

Recessed at 10:01 a.m. Reconvened at 10:12 a.m.

Shields said he is presuming that the major issue of concern to the Board is regarding financial management. He asked what the Board’s budget would look like next year if they do a good job? Thompson said the budget would be 10% smaller, which amounts to about a $500,000 cut. Stutsman said they would have community buy-in, and a thoughtful process to identify the consequences of the budget cuts. Neuzil said the Supervisors use the word consistency, but he didn’t think they are going to be able to be consistent, in terms of impact. Shields agreed, and said consistency didn’t mean that everyone is going to be affected in exactly the same way. Thompson suggested the term "even-handed," so that no one area takes a predominant hit. Neuzil said if it isn’t a priority, or an essential purpose, then why fund that it at all, displacing essential services? Shields summarized that one of the outcomes of a successful budget next year would include a process driven by priorities. No one in the group disagreed. Harney said to do it right, the Board needs to look at the overall picture and acknowledge the political realities of working with elected officials. Harney said the Board should set its priorities and make budget cuts accordingly. Thompson said that a budget cut at the County Attorney’s office might well eliminate the attorney that works with the Board. Neuzil agreed, and noted that the Auditor’s Office had cut its 4% from the minute-takers, who are directly involved with the Board. Also, Neuzil continued, the Sheriff made budget cuts from an area he knew the Board was mandated to fund. Neuzil said another thing that would happen if the Board did a good job at the budget is to affect the least amount of people possible. He said some services are very expensive, but affect only a small number of County citizens. Shields said that part of what Neuzil was talking about was informed analysis of each department; Thompson added that there are no sacred cows. Stutsman said another outcome of a good budget process is for the community to realize that government can’t solve all problems, and the community could fill in the gaps. Shields said this issue is about enhancing community partnerships. Lehman said this could also involve agreements with other government bodies, such as 28E agreements.

Shields said they are talking about creating a paradigm built on a structure of objective analysis, which needs to lead the County to mandated and non-mandated services, which ties into the earlier discussion about a County-wide analysis of services within each department. He told the Board it is impossible for them to get through this totally objectively, but the process will be based on an objective analysis. He referred back to the conversation the Board had earlier, regarding the purpose of county government. Shields said that an outcome they might want to strive for is having a longitudinal process, a multi-year perspective of where they are headed. Fiscal forecasting is important, though some of it is guesswork. Shields noted that if the County had engaged in this process 3 years ago--to prepare for the possibility of lower valuations, County revenues, and State funding, higher expenses, and a difficult economic environment-then the Board would already have a plan in place.

Horne suggested another outcome as being a 3-year financial management plan. Neuzil said as far as outcomes, the toughest part of the budget was that the County cannot cut 10%-15% from its budget without laying off employees, and it is very hard to tell someone they no longer have a job. Neuzil said there are psychological implications to employee cuts. As services are cut, he continued, employees have more responsibilities, and it doesn’t take long for there to be real problems. Sullivan said some of the psychological impacts exist at agencies funded by the Board, as well. Shields summarized that a successful budget process should create a way for them to genuinely have a sense of the overall impacts on the County, both short-term and long-term. He said there is no way to do this without an adverse impact on morale. Neuzil said the problem with government is that it’s difficult or impossible to reward the department and elected official who is the most efficient. Shields said in a successful budget process, the Board will have explained the process and outcomes to voters and citizens. Shields continued by saying that it is very difficult for the Supervisors to go through the budget process honestly and successfully while simultaneously thinking about their reelection. He thought the process could cost some Supervisors their jobs. Lehman said the Supervisors need to be responsible about their budget decisions, and explain it with confidence. Thompson said one strong argument for this year’s budget is to tell people that the total County budget this year is less than last year. Neuzil said at the same time, they are going to be criticized that they have raised taxes to the maximum allowable amount.

Shields said one thing that has come out of the discussion so far today is the goal of developing a comprehensive review of County services, in an attempt to define mandated and non-mandated areas of service, and how this relates to the level of service. Shields said he would like to discuss the Supervisors’ concerns and questions about how to do this review, and how to proceed. Neuzil wondered if they could have teams of 2 Supervisors talk to each department and report back, or possibly have a work session with each department, or have a committee process that brings in community members to work with a couple of the Board Members? Shields said part of the process is going to involve number-crunching, and Thompson added this data should then be reduced to a document they can all understand. After the data collection, Shields said, what comes next? Thompson said this is where the Board involves the department heads and elected officials, and let them digest the data. Neuzil asked about going to individual departments and asking them to imagine a 10-12% budget reduction, to discover their priorities? Or, he continued, does the Board have it in mind that each department will be cut differently? Thompson said it would have to be the latter method, because some departments, such as Court Services, have a larger percentage of mandated services. Lehman said they could also have them do the opposite of decision packages, showing how their budgets would look when reduced by varying percentages.

Stutsman asked if they need to first discuss the County’s priorities, since what one department sees as important might vary from what the Supervisors believe? Thompson said once the Board looks at the data, they could cull the discussion about County priorities out of that. Neuzil said if the Board brings in the community, the loudest voices are the ones that get the most attention. Stutsman said she understands that, but bringing in the community is part of the education process, and it at least makes people feel that they are being heard. Neuzil agreed, but cautioned that if the community has too large a role, then whoever comes to the meetings are the ones that are saved. Thompson said they also need to figure out how to manage 2 types of department heads who deal with budget cuts differently: one type complains to the Board, often with positive results, and the other does not. Thompson said this becomes a bad morale situation, because the department head who cooperated feels penalized. Though she understands that the Board can’t stop this from happening, Thompson thought there has to be a better way to manage it. Shields said there are no easy answers on this issue. Neuzil said this is related to his earlier point about how difficult it is to reward efficiency in government. Shields said that collecting data is a part of the process, but the Supervisors will also need a genuine understanding of the mandates, and service levels. Thompson said they have enough money to do more than they are mandated to do; Thompson said if they have to go all the way back to basics, the decisions would be easy. Stutsman disagreed, and said that a 10% cut next year would be substantial, and they might not have enough money, even for mandated services. Thompson estimated that at least 25% of the budget isn’t mandated. Shields said the Supervisors will also analyze some individual services. Neuzil said there is a large difference between a mandate and the desired level of services. For example, Neuzil said, in the Treasurer’s Office, if the public has to wait in line for 2 hours, the County is still providing the mandated service. He noted that the Treasurer would not be reelected in this case.

Shields said that part of developing the service review is analyzing individual services, and reminded the Board that, earlier in the meeting, they had mentioned Ambulance and SEATS as 2 major services that are not mandated. He said that this process should yield an analysis of those. He wondered if some parts of the solutions to the County’s budget problems will come in big chunks? Neuzil noted that the County budget would have been in even worse shape if they had kept funding the Senior Dining program. Thompson agreed, saying that the Senior Center and Senior Dining, combined, reduced the County’s budget by $100,000. Shields acknowledged that this was a big chunk. Shields said the service review would be incorporated into the County’s budget process from the very beginning. Neuzil said he imagined that instead of the Board asking departments for their priorities and goals for the upcoming fiscal year, they could instead ask departments what is it going to cost to keep this mandated service?

Harney asked how to control community discussions, when different groups support different things? Stutsman said they have to hold community discussions, but ultimately the Board has to show its leadership, and say that they have heard and considered what the public has said, and make the decisions. Thompson said the best process would be to duplicate some of the County’s past successes in the area of community involvement, when they brought diverse groups of people together, and they ended up agreeing with one another. Shields said they could try to inform citizens along the way so that it is not a big surprise. Harney thought that educating the community and involving them in the process are 2 different things. Neuzil said each Supervisor looks at community involvement differently; he said he thought that since the community elected him, he is the community. Stutsman said she didn’t think the Board should make these decisions in a vacuum, and Neuzil and Harney said they were not advocating this.

Shields asked the Board to come to a consensus about the element of community involvement. He asked if everyone accepts Stutsman’s assertion that the community has to be a part of the process; the Supervisors agreed. Shields said it is then a question of whether the public is going to be given information, or involved in decision-making? Neuzil cautioned against forming a citizen committee to advise the Board on budget decisions. Stutsman does not want to convey to the public that the Board is just going through the motions, and not really listening. She said she wants to hear from the community what they think about various budget issues, such as the County’s ambulance service. Thompson thought they need a broader response than just those people who come to the meeting; she mentioned sending out a survey, and Stutsman suggested focus groups. When Thompson and Stutsman agreed that the focus groups formed to discuss the building code had been successful, Neuzil disagreed, saying that 99% of the people in those meetings disagreed with the idea of a building code, but the County passed it anyway. Stutsman said the Board of Supervisors heard from a committee that reviewed the building code; Neuzil thought that committee had been completely stacked with people who were in favor of the building code. Harney said the Board will get the most feedback from those affected the most, and the Board needs to listen, but they should base decisions on what is best for the entire community. Shields said that for the review of County services, a task force involving the interested parties could be helpful, especially if the Board is considering making large changes to County services (such as the elimination or privatization of an entire department). He said the broader issue is to try and develop a strategic method of managing County finances, which might not lend itself as well to a task force; on this issue, the Board of Supervisors is the task force.

Neuzil said MH/DD uses a great decision-making process, through a planning council that includes citizens, clients, and mental health professionals. He said this council has faced and is going to face some very tough decisions, and has had trouble agreeing on how to allocate budget cuts. Shields said that he thought that the County will need to have community discussion about specific, drastic changes to County services, but perhaps not to the broader process of comprehensively reviewing County services. Shields asked if the Board could find agreement on this issue? Neuzil said that work sessions are going to be public, unless they begin the process with 2 Supervisors talking with department heads, and then having a work session. Stutsman thought they should delegate the task of gathering the initial data to Horne and Sullivan. Stutsman asked Shields for his opinion about involving the public. Shields answered that he wasn’t sure, but said that the Supervisors are the only 5 people in the process with the total responsibility to look at everything. This is what the Supervisors are elected to do, and nobody else is charged with the responsibility to look at the big picture. He said this responsibility is not one that can be delegated.

Shields wondered if the Board could agree on some goals for the whole process of fiscal management. One, he said, was to balance the budget. Thompson said they don’t really balance a budget because none of their numbers are financed. She said they are able to raise taxes, sometimes, and cut expenses. Shields said another implied goal is to continue to provide mandated services; the Supervisors agreed. Shields said there are places in the State of Iowa that do not provide mandated services. Horne said another goal should be to protect the financial integrity of the County; this involves the carryover balances, which is a big issue for him. Horne said that the County’s rating with various agencies, such as Standard & Poor’s, depends on this, and other financial data. Neuzil said a priority for him is to pay bills on time, and make sure employees receive their paychecks. Stutsman thought another goal for the Board, ultimately, is to set good public policy, and don’t get so caught up in budget-cutting that they make decisions not in the best interests of the County. Shields said the Supervisors need to maintain some discretionary authority, to deal with situations or problems that arise in the County.

Neuzil brought up the Jail issue; Stutsman said the County is going to pay for a jail one way or the other, either by building a new one or maintaining the current facility. Other Supervisors noted, though, that a bond issue would have been a separate tax, from the Debt Service Levy; currently, large jail expenses were paid from the General Fund. This is part of the reason that the County has reached its taxing limit from the General Fund. Shields said the jail is an example of a long-range plan being pursued by the Board. Shields wondered if fairness to the taxpayer was another goal for the Board’s fiscal management? No one disagreed. He said another goal is to have a justifiable process when and if reductions become necessary.

Thompson asked if a good way to get the elected officials and department heads into this process is by involving them in how the Board makes these decisions? Harney thought they could be present at the Board’s Strategic Planning sessions, such as this one. Thompson said they have discussed this in the past. Stutsman thought that the first Strategic Planning session might be more valuable for only Supervisors, but said department heads and elected officials should be included in future sessions.

Shields summarized some guiding principles from the previous discussion, and asked if all the Supervisors agreed on them? One, he said, was the idea of trying to adversely impact as few people as possible in budget cuts. Stutsman thought this principle is too simplistic; Thompson said they would need to do a cost-risk benefit analysis. Shields wondered if the Supervisors could agreed on the principle that there are no sacred cows. The Supervisors agreed. Shields said another guiding is to try and reward efficiency. No Supervisor disagreed, though Neuzil again noted that this is very hard to do in government. Shields asked if they could rephrase this guiding principle, stating that the Board doesn’t want to penalize efficiency? No one disagreed. Stutsman said a guiding principle for her was that government has a role in the process. Stutsman disagreed with people who think that government is not necessary; she said there are some things that government does very well. Shields said that this was a guiding principle; that some of the County’s services exist for a reason, and have value to someone.

Shields asked the Supervisors to further discuss the idea of not penalizing efficiency, which he had listed as a guiding principle. Thompson noted that Neuzil had stated this as a positive statement, that they should try and reward efficiency. Shields said he, too, preferred to state it positively. Neuzil again asked what could be the rewards of efficiency in government? Thompson said reelection was a reward. Harney said that the Board’s recent across-the-board 4% budget cut had penalized departments that had been recently cutting their budgets and becoming more efficient. Neuzil and Thompson agreed. Lehman said some departments had come to the Board to state their case, and in the future the Board was going to have to prioritize, and request cuts based on its choices. Stutsman said there is an element of trust implicit in the process; some departments put a little extra into their budget because they don’t know what the Board is going to do next year. The Supervisors discussed the fact that they do not control how elected officials allocate their departmental budgets. Shields summarized that a guiding principle is to involved department heads and elected officials in the process of budgeting. Thompson said they have to figure out a way to do this; Neuzil agreed, and said they don’t want to micromanage. Harney said he did not want to micromanage, but commented that the Board should be prepared to step in and make decisions, if necessary, when involving departments not run by elected officials. Shields said that the comprehensive review of County Services will give the Supervisors guidance in this area.

Shields summarized and discussed the Board’s work so far in the meeting. The Board is going to try to develop a strategic financial management process that will incorporate the guiding principles as they had just discussed. He said they have talked about 3 basic areas: develop a review of Johnson County’s services, develop some goals of what a successful budget will look like, and discuss some principles to guide the budget process. Stutsman asked how they are going to accomplish the comprehensive review of County services? Thompson said that Sullivan and Horne are going to be responsible for the data collection. Shields suggested that Sullivan consider these discussions and come to the Board with an action plan. Thompson said they need to prioritize this work so that they can decide what can be completed next year that will cut the required amount from the County’s budget. Shields said he is assuming that most of this work is going to be done in the next 12 months; Horne and the Supervisors agreed. Shields noted that they need to have both short-term and long-range goals. Shields said that long-range goals were 2-3 years in the future, not 10. Thompson said that some of what they do next year might not be the most important things, only the things that could show immediate cost savings for next year’s budget.

Shields asked for Horne’s and Sullivan’s comments. Horne thought it is a good idea for he and Sullivan to do the groundwork, generating an initial report from which the Board could build. Horne said that some of the data was going to be very difficult to compile; in MH/DD, for example, it would be difficult to quantify how much time a social worker was spending on mandated and non-mandated services. Shields said the process would identify some places where it was going to be impossible to get answers; MH/DD might be one of those. Stutsman asked about the time frame for the services review? Shields said the first step was an outline process, a plan of what needed to be done; he asked Sullivan when this could be completed? Thompson thought the time frame could be when they do their Strategic Plan in March or April. Sullivan said they could have the outline by early April, but said the data collection is going to take the majority of time. Shields said he understood this, and asked if Sullivan and Horne could complete the action plan by early March? Sullivan and Horne said yes.

Thompson reaffirmed that the data collection was the largest item. Neuzil asked about defining the data collection process. Shields said the first level of the process is to define what is mandated; beyond that, they should attempt to describe levels of service. Shields said that data collection is describing reality, not attempting to define how it could be changed. Shields said the Supervisors need to start to consider short-term and long-term goals are. He said a clear short-term goal is to develop a budget process that allows them to balance the next budget, and a long-term goal is pursuing some long-range solutions. Shields noted that he didn’t think there was agreement in the group regarding community involvement, which is why he skimmed over it. He said that Horne and Sullivan cannot resolve that element for the Board. Thompson said they might be able to base some of their decisions about community involvement on what kind of response they get about this year’s budget. She noted that they have cut some programs that have been in the budget for years, and so far there has been a vast silence, with little comment or public outcry. Horne said the newspapers have been publicizing the budget cuts, so the community has been prepared for them, and is expecting them.

Shields said there are 2 items left to cover in today’s meeting: to review the goals outlined in the existing Strategic Plan, to see changes are needed, and talk about the broader process of Strategic Planning with department heads. Stutsman said she suggested putting the latter item on the agenda, because she wanted to discuss a process that produced better involvement with the elected officials. Stutsman said her concern was more with involving elected officials than department heads; the Board manages the department heads, she noted, and could speak for them in the strategic planning process. This is not the case for the elected officials; if the Supervisors want the elected officials to buy into the County’s Strategic Plan, these autonomous elected officials need to have input into the Plan. Shields noted that the review of County services is going to be touchier with the elected officials than with department heads. Others in the group agreed. Harney suggested that they could sit down with the elected officials, ask what they could do without, and then let them make some suggestions. Harney said the Board could give them X number of dollars to operate their department. Neuzil said if elected officials don’t provide the services the community wants, they will not be reelected. Thompson agreed, and said that elected officials are reelected on certain issues; the Auditor is reelected by holding open elections, the County Attorney for aggressively prosecuting OWI and domestic violence cases, and the Treasurer for being open until 5:30. Shields said that the Board’s relationships with department heads, and those, with elected officials, have different rules; this is about authority relationships and how much authority the Board has in dealing with particular areas. Thompson noted that the Supervisors also have a different relationship with departments that operate under their own supervisory boards, such as the Conservation Department and Health Department. Shields and Sullivan agreed that the comprehensive review of Johnson County’s services should also clarify these types of authority relationships. Sullivan noted that Johnson County is one of the few counties that participates in this type of strategic planning; Stutsman noted that this process is discretionary, and not mandated. Regarding community involvement, Stutsman added that she doesn’t have all the answers, and getting input from such a knowledgeable community can be helpful. Neuzil agreed, citing a citizen who had compiled some very helpful statistics about the jail population. Neuzil said the public has to play a part in the process.

Recessed at 11:37 a.m. Reconvened at 11:48 a.m.

Shields suggested working until 1:00 p.m., and then scheduling a follow-up session at a future date. He suggested reviewing the goals set forth in the Board’s current Strategic Plan, to see if they need updating or changing. Shields asked if the Technology goal remains a priority for the Board? Stutsman thought that this goal is on automatic pilot, and maybe doesn’t need to remain as a goal. Shields and Thompson said it could be removed, since the County has an institutionalized, administrative process to deal with technology. Horne said that purchasing the financial software is the last large, remaining item in the area of technology, as GIS is already underway. Shields asked if there is a commitment to getting the software working. The Supervisors said yes, and Sullivan explained they just over a third of the way through the process. Stutsman noted that the Board has money set aside for financial software.

Shields said the lengthy discussion they have had so far supplants the existing goal in the Strategic Plan, called financial management and planning. Shields asked if the finance work group is still an action area; Horne said the group never meets. Thompson said it is still important because it is the one way for the 3 elected officials to deal with the money. Horne said the Board needs their involvement. Shields asked if there is still a commitment to meaningfully improve the budget process? The group said yes. Horne said this has gotten better, and will improve even more next year, since he is more familiar with the process.

Shields asked about the budget goals concept? Horne said the board gave department heads and elected officials the option of writing an executive summary, instead of listing their goals. Horne said this had received some favorable feedback; Sullivan added that they had received more narrative descriptions than benchmarks and lists. Thompson said the narratives had included some good goals, and Sullivan agreed, saying they were also well-written. The group agreed to take this goal off the plan, as it has been completed. Shields asked about the training program? Horne said that when they get the software, this will again change. Thompson said training goes on forever.

Shields asked who is responsible for inventory analysis in the County? Horne said the Auditor’s Office, working with the County Engineer. Neuzil wondered if MH/DD is going to be included in the new financial software? Shields asked about other technology issues? Horne said this is yet to be determined. Harney wondered about the possibility of citizens paying their real estate taxes online. Shields wondered if these items have been institutionalized, and built into the County’s existing process, allowing for the removal of technology from the Board’s Strategic Plan? Or will these individual issues be lost if technology is taken off the Board’s Strategic Plan? Horne thought that they could rely on the individual departments to remind others of their technological issues. Stutsman thought that the Board has accomplished, though she acknowledged that there will always going to be new technology and things to look at.

Shields asked if a long-range facility plan has been adopted? Neuzil asked about a 5-year plan Bulechek created, but Horne said that plan is for the maintenance of current facilities. Stutsman said her feeling is that they still don’t know if they are committed to the county campus concept, or will they build out at the County Farm? Neuzil agreed, saying there is still disagreement. Stutsman said they still have the Mall Drive property, also. She said they are improving, in that they now have a committee to deal with this issue. Thompson said they held a work session, and looked at the Space Needs assessment, which, according to Dwight Dobberstein, didn’t need much updating. Thompson said they discussed the campus concept and did the building maintenance needs assessment. Shields asked if they have turned that into a plan? Thompson said yes, for current buildings. Thompson said they don’t have a long-range plan for new buildings, and despite discussions about the jail all year long, they aren’t any closer to a plan for that, either. Lehman said they have named a committee, a Land Acquisition Group. Stutsman asked if the Board has voted to approve the building maintenance schedule? Is there a document for this? Thompson said they looked at a document from the Space Needs Committee. Horne said they voted on it by approving his budget for this year; the projects identified by Bulechek as those most needed are the ones approved this year. Stutsman said she doesn’t have a clear picture of what that plan is; Horne said he would get this information to her. Shields summarized that the goal is still the same, in that they need a long-range facility plan. Thompson said yes, but they could stop worrying now about the maintenance of the current buildings.

Neuzil said he thinks they are stuck on the idea that they can’t do anything until they get the jail issue solved. Thompson said she doesn’t necessarily agree. She said that with the money they saved, they could go ahead and add on to the Administration Building, or pursue other possibilities. Neuzil said his argument with the purchase of the Fisher Building, despite the fact that it was a great purchase, is that it was listed as the 8th or 9th on the priority list. Thompson noted that the building had been for sale for an amount of money they could afford, in an area they wanted. Stutsman said she agrees with Neuzil, and wondered if the Fisher property is going to be like the Mall Drive property; when the County shifts its focus, the property is no longer needed. Stutsman said they don’t have a plan providing clear direction; she suggested that they do a thorough analysis comparing the feasibility of moving all County facilities to the County Farm, with an actual cost analysis selling all of the buildings. Sullivan and Horne said this is a good idea, but didn’t think they could conduct that study without help. Stutsman summarized that the Board still does not have a clear picture of what it wants, and it lacks a plan for future facilities needs. Thompson thought that the Supervisors have tentatively committed to pursuing a campus around the Administration Building, and are "within smelling distance" of getting the armory. She wondered why they would now change their whole plan by talking about the County Farm Plan? Thompson said the Board had agreed to look at property around the Administration Building. Stutsman and Neuzil asked what plan Thompson was referring to? Stutsman clarified that they seem to be going in the direction of a campus concept but she doesn’t feel she has all of the information to survey all of the options to know if this is the way to go or not. Neuzil said there is a question as to what would be included in a county campus; would the campus include a building for Human Services, and/or a jail? Stutsman noted that the Board is still discussing the possibility of adding on to the Courthouse. Harney thought it is definitely cheaper to build on bare ground, at the County Farm, than to try to attain properties here. He said the Board needs to decide if they want to continue working to buy properties in the area of the Administration Building, or move? Thompson said they have to commit themselves to something; there is no perfect plan, but they should pick the best one and commit to it. Horne asked if the Supervisors want some type of a cost-benefit analysis to be done? He said he could have Dobberstein and Bulechek help with this project. Stutsman said she is reacting to what people in the community are saying; she reported that constituents have wondered why the County doesn’t simply relocate on the County Farm land? Neuzil and Harney agreed, saying they have heard this as well. Thompson noted that the public hadn’t liked the idea of moving the jail out there. Stutsman thought that people hadn’t liked the jail itself; most people--excepting those on Mall Ridge--had thought that the County Farm was a good place for the jail.

Shields asked the rest of the Board what their feelings are on conducting an analysis of the County Farm property? He suggested they should first discuss what would be going there, and the group created this list: Administration Building, a Justice Center (court and jail), Health and Human Services, Ambulance, and SEATS. Shields asked if the Board would support a good study of this option? Stutsman said that for her, a study is a tool necessary to develop a long-term plan, and would help answer questions from constituents. Thompson said that if they relocate to the County Farm, they wouldn’t need the Mall Drive property, or the Administration Building. Horne said another issue is the urgency; the University is coming closer and closer to the Administration Building, regularly acquiring properties. Horne said if the County intends to stay in this area, they should decide sooner rather than later, or the University will have purchased all the property in the area. Thompson thought that this was a good reason to move. Sullivan said since the University is a potential buyer, the County properties in the area will bring a good price.

Shields concluded that the major action step, which the Board supports, is to study the full utilization of the County Farm property. Neuzil said that they should study both sides of the County Farm property; Stutsman clarified to Shields that the County owns property on both the north and south sides of Melrose. He asked about the time frame? Lehman thought it should be done within 6 months, at the latest. Shields clarified that the goal of the study was to get this information in front of the Board in an objective way; it does not commit the County to building on the County Farm property. It will, he said, provide real numbers to help the Board with its decision. Thompson wondered about rolling this study together with the one being conducted by Jeff Davidson, from JCCOG; Harney thought the studies were too different to be combined. Shields said that in the next year they can omit the item on the Strategic Plan regarding a reanalysis of the jail; this can be folded into the County Farm study. Shields said that if they are going to develop or adopt a long-range facility plan, they will need to develop a capital funding strategy. Harney said if the County builds a new jail, it should have social services programs on-site.

Shields asked if the Economic Development goal of determining economic development roles and strategies should be retained? Thompson said yes; she and Neuzil are working on this. Neuzil said they have a draft to show to ICAD, and then they are going to open it to a committee process. He said it ultimately is going to be that the County doesn’t want economic development to occur, except at a few key intersections and in the villages; everything else should occur in the cities, where the infrastructure is. Stutsman said before the Neuzil and Thompson present a plan to ICAD, all of the Supervisors should see it and have input. Shields summarized that this goal should remain for the coming year; Thompson agreed.

Shields asked if there are other issues regarding Economic Development? Neuzil said the TIF issue is great for the cities but it is killing county government. Stutsman wondered about working legislatively on this issue. Thompson commented that even if they could TIF someone, it wouldn’t help the County, because they only get rural taxes off of rural areas. Stutsman said she is talking about working legislatively to address the County’s problems with TIFs; she agreed with Thompson, that the County is not going to offer TIFs. Harney and Neuzil didn’t think that working legislatively is going to make any difference, because TIFs work well in other parts of the State. Stutsman said she doesn’t have a problem with TIFs, except when they are abused. In these cases, she said, there needs to be legislative changes. She said when the TIF is expanded and extended, this is not fair. Lehman agreed with Harney, that there would not be support for this in the Legislature, because TIFs are not affecting other counties as much as they are Johnson County. Stutsman and Thompson thought that in a few years, other counties are going to be similarly affected. Neuzil said that for a legislator, voting against a TIF means that they are against economic development. Shields said from an outside perspective, a TIF is an economic development tool for cities, and noted that there is public good that comes from a TIF. This public good is sometimes not factored in when discussing TIFs. Shields hoped that the Board of Supervisors will not overreact to one situation; he said the mall in Coralville is easily recognized as an incredible cash cow. Thompson said the harm to the County is the collection of TIFs. Shields said the County’s arguments against TIFs are predicated on the fact that the development would have occurred without the TIF; without this supposition, the County has no argument. Harney said there is also an argument that left an un-TIF’d section of Johnson County and moved to the mall, where they are TIF’d. Harney said this is a double blow. Thompson said as profitable as the mall has been, she thought many businesses would have relocated there even without the TIF.

Stutsman said different cities handle TIFs differently, and this is the problem; Stutsman compared the different ways North Liberty and Coralville handles TIFs. Thompson said the Supervisors are upset because they thought they had a handshake agreement with Coralville, but now realize this didn’t mean anything. Shields said he can see all sides of this issue; Coralville’s argument, 2he said, is that they are going to take advantage of the positive environment now, while things are good. Thompson repeated that the harm to the County’s budget is the collection of TIFs, not any single one. Stutsman said the only thing the County can do is to use the Debt Service Levy to recoup a small part of the lost revenues from TIFs. Shields said a similar situation regarding TIFs is occurring in the Des Moines area, and he would like to compare the Des Moines situation to that of Johnson County. He said both the City of Des Moines and the suburbs have a variety of kinds of TIFs. He said that what ultimately matters to him is the long-term, greater issue of good government. In summary, Shields suggested that the Board include an item in its Strategic Plan about determining the County’s role in TIFs and TIF strategies, and work with ICAD regarding the County’s Economic Development Plan. Neuzil said he and Thompson are still trying to determine if the County’s Economic Development document should be called a plan or a policy. In answer to Shields’ question, Neuzil said the Economic Development Plan/Policy is mostly concerned about targeting growth in the County.

Shields asked Neuzil if he wanted to further pursue his earlier comment that the County was not allowing growth. Neuzil said he has a fundamental problem with some ordinances in effect in the County, mostly having to do with chip seal roads. Neuzil said the County has so tied its road policies to land use that no development is now being allowed. Neuzil acknowledged that he is outvoted on this issue. Shields asked if the policies are a barrier to commercial, retail or industrial development? Neuzil said they are a barrier for any development. Neuzil said they have a Land Use Plan identifying 3 areas of growth, that he believes are good. He said the problem is that there is also an ordinance preventing growth in those 3 areas, unless there is a cement road there. Thompson added they could also grow if the road was on the 5-Year Road Plan. Shields asked if there are 2 other Supervisors that want to revisit this issue? Only Harney spoke, saying he wouldn’t mind looking at it. Stutsman replied that they are going to revisit the Road Performance Standards. Shields summarized that the item on the Board’s Strategic Plan could read "Develop targeted growth strategies and review land use policy issues."

Shields asked Harney and Stutsman to talk about transportation planning. Harney said there are 3 areas that he would like to see the County take action on: bus service, ambulance, and communications with City Police, Fire, and the County’s Sheriff Department. Harney noted that the final item is not related to transportation. He said to save taxpayers money, the communications center for all of the area police and fire departments should be combined. He said he is also interested in creating a County-wide transportation authority, which would include SEATS and the Iowa City and Coralville public transit systems. This authority would be run by a commission, rather than each community separately, and would have its own, separate levy. Harney said that although Neuzil thinks this would be a new tax, Harney said did not think it would be so, if used correctly. Harney said a similar situation could occur with the Ambulance Department; it too could run separately. Harney said it would help everyone’s budgets, and would better distribute the taxes to all residents of the County, all of whom are served by the various services. He said that the tough budget time has created a time of opportunity. Harney said the city managers for Coralville and Iowa City are in favor of this, and would like a letter of support from the Board of Supervisors. He said the cities would then place the item their city council’s agendas, and gauge the level of public support, or the lack thereof. Thompson favored adding this to the goals set forth in the Board’s Strategic Plan. Shields said this goal could read, "Analyze a shared County-wide transit system." Neuzil said he thinks the idea is great, as long as the County is disciplined to lower taxes an equal amount; he didn’t think the Board would be willing to do so. Sullivan said this would not be a wholly subsidized operation; there would be a fee-for-service in the Ambulance component. Another benefit, continued Sullivan, is the cost savings resulting from the economy of scale. Neuzil agreed, but doubted that the Board was disciplined enough to cut out of its budget an amount equal to whatever cost savings accrued from the change. Thompson said the County has been disciplined, since the County has not ever reached its taxing limit until this year; Neuzil disagreed. Harney said he is looking at the system as a service to the County, whereas Neuzil is seeing it only as a taxing authority. Neuzil said it wasn’t fair to call the proposed system more efficient if the County simply spent whatever cost savings accrued from the new system. Shields noted that there have been 2 issues under discussion: one is making the ambulance service into its own taxing entity, and the other involves a Johnson County mass transit system. Shields asked if the Board is interested in studying a County-wide mass transit system? Tentatively, the Supervisors agreed.

Shields asked the Board if they are still committed to working on a County-wide trail system, and the Supervisors said yes. Stutsman asked if they want to add the reworking of the 5-Year Road Plan process to their Strategic Plan? Shields asked if there is inclination in the group to rework it? Neuzil said yes, as far as defining their criteria. Shields added this item, "Reviewing the 5-Year Road Plan process." Neuzil said they had recently had some debate about the trail system, about some areas and roads that don’t connect to anything now, but might in the future. Should they spend the money to put shoulders on that road now, for the sake of a possible future trail system? Shields summarized that they do want to continue to work on a County-wide trail system, but also develop some construction policies. Neuzil said yes, adding the real debate lies in whether or not they should pave the shoulders.

Shields said that ambulance is a separate issue and it is going to be an emerging issue, to discuss in the next session. He asked about the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policies. Thompson said they didn’t meet their goals there. She said they need to start over on Fringe Area Agreements, and still do not have an ordinance for the sensitive areas. Thompson said the County needs to get all of the communities involved, and to agree on each parcel of land. Neuzil said the problems are in the overlapping areas, where Coralville, North Liberty, and Tiffin all touch one another, and Iowa City and Johnson County are between. Neuzil said they have seen Tiffin engage in serious sprawl, simply to try and beat Coralville to the areas. Stutsman said the County needs to take the lead in cases like these; somebody has to be the catalyst to get the discussions started. Shields said that while the County already has Fringe Area Agreements in place, and a Sensitive Areas Ordinance in progress, an action area might be to facilitate the resolution of land use conflicts among cities. Neuzil said that the County doesn’t have any leverage in negotiating with cities about Fringe Area Agreements, because the cities know that the County’s Land Use Plan already prevents the County from irresponsible land use policies. Neuzil said the cities don’t need to sign the agreements. Shields summarized that an action area, then, would be to facilitate discussions amongst the cities about overlapping areas. Shields said he hoped the County could find a way to keep all the parties involved in discussing land use planning, to prevent irresponsible land use policies.

Shields asked how the Board feels about building code implementation? The Supervisors said it could be removed from the list; Neuzil adding that this could occur as long as it is paying for itself. Thompson said it is paying for itself, so far. Shields asked if they are still reviewing the North Corridor Plan? The Supervisors said yes.

Another item on the Strategic Plan from last year, Shields said, was conducting a strategic analysis of the human services in the County. Thompson asked who is doing that this year, and the group answered Stutsman and Lehman. Shields wondered how this related to the earlier-discussed comprehensive review of County services? Shields summarized that the human services review would identify priorities within this area, with a goal of helping the Board identify which of the items that they voluntarily fund will remain. Shields and the group said that when they first discussed this item, they had not known the full extent of the budget cuts. Thompson said the Supervisors talked with Linda Severson about the United Way funding process and the County’s participation in that; Thompson said this was a sacred cow. Neuzil said there are some questions regarding the oversight of the money the Board contributes to various causes, such as United Action for Youth. Linda Severson, from JCCOG, noted that historically there have not been agreements for the block grants, so there hasn’t been any accountability if someone misused funds. She said they developed agreements for the remainder of this year, and are planning to continue this process, for accountability and access. Neuzil asked who manages fund 45, Human Services? He said Cheryl Whitney from the Department of Human Services used to, but her job position has changed, and Neuzil wondered who was going to officially managing this, now. Should a County employee be managing this budget? Neuzil said another issue that arose throughout the year is the County’s role for providing services to senior citizens. He said this issue has particularly arisen since the County eliminated the Senior Dining Program and reduced funding to the Senior Center. Thompson wondered if Severson could make a pie-chart showing which constituencies are getting the County’s human service monies? Neuzil said the question is whether or not the Supervisors are committed to senior services? Shields said this gets back to the issue of priorities, and to the broader concept of fiscal management analysis.

Shields said the Human Services budget management appears to be a different kind of issue. He asked the group for other comments regarding this issue? Harney said the Board isn’t sure who they are going to put in charge of Human Services. Neuzil said they didn’t know; Stutsman said this is an administrative decision that the Board is going to have to make. Severson said there have been a few meetings about this issue, at JCCOG, trying to see if they could help. She said there have been funding shifts, such as the elimination of Decat funding. Severson said there are also management issues about Empowerment dollars and grants that have historically passed through the County. Severson said another long-term question is who is going to assume responsibility for grant management in County Human Services? Neuzil said another idea is to put some of the block grants into other departments, such as the Health Department. Another option, Neuzil said, would be to use a purchase of service arrangement, instead of the block grants; if they did this, who would manage this arrangement? Neuzil said they discussed creating a separate department for General Assistance. Neuzil said there are a lot of unanswered questions in this area. Shields agreed. Shields summarized that the issue that should be placed on the Board’s Strategic Plan was: "Develop a funding management and funding strategy mechanism." No Supervisor disagreed. Shields said the issue would need further discussion, as well.

Shields asked about the goal regarding health care benefits. Thompson said they have accomplished this goal; they could take it off. Shields asked if the Board is OK with taking this goal off; no one disagreed. Thompson said the decision for the Board will come if it gets into the bargaining contracts. At that point, they will have to decide whether or not they want to extend the same plan to the non-bargaining employees? Shields asked the Board about this issue? Harney said there are 2 arguments. On one hand, he said he wants to be fair and equitable to everyone, whether or not they belong to a union. But, Harney continued, some items in the contracts are things that the Board of Supervisors doesn’t necessarily approve of; they will be trying to bargain some of those out next year, when all the contracts are due to be renegotiated. In those cases, Harney wondered, should the Board give the benefit to some employees (as a new benefit), and then try to bargain it away the next year? Thompson said it is harder to take a benefit away than to give it in the first place; Harney agreed. Shields asked the Board what they would do if they could get the unions to agree to partial payment by union employees of their health cost? In that case, then, would that policy be extended to non-bargaining employees? The Board said yes.

Regarding a final, already existent teamwork goal, Shields said that they had included this in the earlier discussion about better involving elected officials in the strategic planning process. Thompson thought that overall, the Board can be very proud of its progress. Shields agreed.

Neuzil asked if there should be a Supervisor assigned to Conservation, Public Health and Veterans Affairs, the 3 departments that have their own board? Stutsman said the Board is able to appoint themselves to the Board of Health. Neuzil wondered if they should have a Supervisor on each of these boards, even if it were only as a liaison and not a voting member. Neuzil said the County gives a lot of money to those boards, but he didn’t feel that the Supervisors have a good idea on what they are actually doing. Thompson said the Supervisors were free to attend the meetings, and noted that each of the boards in questions sent their minutes to the Board of Supervisors. Shields asked the other Supervisors to comment on Neuzil’s point. Harney said he agrees with Neuzil, but said he is on too many committees already. Stutsman agreed. Thompson said the Health Department Board asked if they could meet jointly with the Board of Supervisors annually; she wondered if this would be a good way to improve communications? Neuzil acknowledged Harney’s point about being busy, and noted he is on 26 committees already. Horne and Sullivan agreed that this year’s Board of Supervisors is very busy, and the public doesn’t understand this. Shields suggested that these boards exist independently for a reason, and the Supervisors should be satisfied if they receive the minutes. Stutsman said any Supervisor could always go meet with a department head, if they feel this is necessary. Neuzil said he still doesn’t feel the relationship is strong between the Board of Supervisors and the individual boards; he noted that the Board of Public Health manages a $2.271 million budget, but he only can name about 5 or 10 things they do. Harney disagreed, and Thompson said Neuzil could review their budget at any time. Neuzil said there is no accountability; Stutsman and Thompson strongly disagreed. Shields summarized that he hears the Board acknowledging Neuzil’s concern, and encouraging him to go to these departments to check on the accountability and validity of the departments’ finances.

Shields identified some emerging issues to be discussed in the next meeting: Harney’s communications center idea, the ambulance service, and the Human Services budget review (Department 45). Shields asked about other emerging issues. Harney wondered if the Board should re-evaluate all of its committee assignments and limit them to those they felt are most important. Neuzil said another issue is about travel budgets. He said for next year, the Supervisors will only be able to attend one ISAC meeting. Right now, Neuzil said, he has 3-4 meetings per month that are out of Johnson County, either in Linn or Iowa County. Next year, he said he will no longer be able to do these meetings because of transportation cuts. Stutsman said they could be efficient and carpool in the County van, even though it might not be efficient. Neuzil said there is also a problem if 3 Supervisors travel together, because of the open meetings laws. Neuzil said the reduced travel budget also affects Horne, who cannot go and learn more about GFOA.

Shields summarized that they could re-evaluate Board committee assignments, and the time involved. Shields said that 26 committees is too many. Stutsman noted that not all of Neuzil’s committees are Board-appointed; some he has chosen to be on. Neuzil acknowledged this was true for a few of the committees. Shields said the Board could simply take a look at this issue; perhaps the creation of Sullivan’s position also was an opportunity to re-evaluate the issue of Supervisors’ time commitments.

Shields asked if there are other emerging issues? Neuzil said library funding. He and Shields agreed that this would be part of the comprehensive review of County services.

Shields invited Sullivan to attend the Iowa Municipal Management Institute, a seminar over Spring Break that was being co-sponsored by the Iowa City County Management Association and the Institute of Public Affairs. Shields offered Sullivan the chance to attend for free, compliments of the Institute of Public Affairs, since he knew the County’s professional development budgets were lean. Sullivan thanked Shields and said he would like to attend.

Shields said he is going to call Sullivan with a couple of dates to meet again, at the most within a month. Shields said he planned to meet for no more than 2 1/2 hours. Stutsman asked if this future session would only include the Supervisors and Shields? Shields said yes; Sullivan added that in the future meeting they would talk about how to include the elected officials in the strategic planning process. Sullivan noted that there isn’t a Board meeting the week of Spring Break.

Adjourned at 1:04 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary