Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:33 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson

Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne passed out handouts to the Supervisors. Thompson noted that the numbers in Horne’s handout are marked "final." Horne said the final numbers also include changes to MH/DD’s revenue, as the group discussed yesterday. Thompson asked what the ending balances were, and Horne pointed out they are given in the "fund balances" column. Horne pointed out that MH/DD’s ending balance was $1.5 million. Thompson asked if that number is up compared to last year, but Horne said no, it is lower.

Horne said the ending fund balance of the Debt Service Levy is also included on the handout. Horne explained that there are no revenues showing on the Debt Service next year, because the revenues will be received this year. Horne noted this will be reflected in an unusually high General Fund balance at the end of this fiscal year. Thompson pointed out to the group where the bonding revenues are going to come into the General Fund this year, so instead of the usual General Fund balance of about $2 million, it is going to be $9 million. Horne agreed, saying the money is spent out of the Debt Service, but the revenues come in this year into the General Fund. Lehman noted that they are borrowing the money this fiscal year, will be recouped through taxes, and then paid back out next year, all within a 12-month period, but over 2 different fiscal years. Thompson said that the ending General Fund balance will go back to $2 million, which is about where it should be. Horne agreed, and said that is about at the 10% level that they try to shoot for.

Neuzil asked if the re-estimate for FY 02 factors in the 99% request the Board made to the departments? Horne said yes, it does. Horne explained that most departments don’t go up to 100%, so he could not factor the entire 1% into his estimated ending balances. Instead, he estimated that he would get about 1/3 of this amount, and thus factored in .3 of 1%; the numbers on the current worksheet are the re-estimated numbers times .997. Horne said this raised the County’s ending balance for this year by about $130,000. Thompson asked what they budgeted last year for this year’s ending balance? Horne answered they had estimated about $2.1 million in the General Basic. Horne said this is about 10% of the County’s budget, and should be sufficient to get them through the first 2 months of the fiscal year, until the County starts collecting tax revenues for the next fiscal year.

Thompson asked if, from this point on, the Supervisors can reduce the budget, but not raise it? Horne said they could raise a budgeted amount for a certain line item, but would be required to cut a corresponding amount from another line item. Horne said they could not have an overall increase in the budget. Thompson noted they also couldn’t make any changes before Monday, and Horne agreed.

Neuzil asked for an explanation of the different tax bills. Horne explained that how taxes vary in different locations and for homes with different valuations. Horne said that generally, this shows the effect of the Assessor’s revaluation. Horne said that there were large increases in valuation in several categories; the Iowa City Residential went up 10.5%, and the Rural Residential increased 11.5%. He explained that this contributed to the overall higher tax rates. Horne said that Rural Ag Land’s valuation increase was small. Horne pointed out that there were also jumps in the large commercial valuations, and said this is caused by rollbacks pushing taxation off into the commercial category. Harney wondered if there would be a large spike in valuations next year; Horne said this could occur, because valuations change every other year. Thompson noted that equalization could offset this, and Horne admitted this could occur. Lehman said equalization is based on productivity. Horne said the rollback factor could increase a couple of percentage points, as well.

Neuzil asked if, technically, the County is not at its taxing limit, because of the bonding. Horne admitted that bonding creates some space, but said it’s not really there. He reminded the Supervisors that the economic situation could change, so that bonding is no longer profitable; for example, increases in interest rates make bonding less attractive. In this case, Horne continued, if they have filled in the budget space created by the bonding, moving items back into the General and General Supplemental Funds would be extremely painful. Thompson likened this situation to not paying off credit cards. Neuzil said that the valuation numbers would be higher if the Supervisors had not bonded; Horne and Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan agreed. Lehman asked if the bonding and the higher levy rate are already factored into Horne’s worksheet, and he said yes.

Thompson asked Horne if any expenses have been included in both the General Fund and the Debt Service Levy, and he said no, they decided to handle this situation in a different way. He said this is why the Debt Service money is coming in this fiscal year, instead of next. Neuzil asked if this is the final sheet, including the bonding? Horne said yes, these are the final numbers.

Harney asked why other cities increased by 19%? Horne said part of this is because of a 10% valuation increase, and the rollback on residences pushes more tax burden on the commercial areas. Harney pointed out that Iowa City only had a 7.5% jump; Horne said that Iowa City also has experienced decreases in valuation, making properties worth less. Lehman asked if TIFs also impacted this, and Horne said this is possible. Lehman noted that industrial property in Lone Tree does not have TIFs, so they will feel the full impact of tax increases.

Horne said that near the end of the budget process, the State ordered Johnson County to adjust their rural valuations downward, because of the Tiffin annexation. Horne said the County-wide value stays the same, but the rural value decreased. Thompson pointed out that none of the numbers on Horne’s sheet can be applied to an individual’s tax bill, because they are based on averages. She said a person’s tax bill also includes school tax, township tax, miscellaneous taxes, and, if they live in a city, also the city tax.

Neuzil asked about the total amount of the County budget? Horne said excluding the Debt Service, the County’s budget would be about $42.7 million dollars. Neuzil said the numbers on the sheet look deceptively high, because of the bond income that the County will receive this fiscal year. Horne agreed. Neuzil noted that this year’s budget was $44 million, so County government is getting smaller. Horne noted that a higher percentage of the total County’s revenues shifted into property taxes; the previous year’s property taxes were 51% of County revenues, while this year it was 54%. Neuzil asked where the rest comes from, and others in the group answered grants, inter-governmental payments, State and federal monies, user fees, licenses, etc. Horne noted that property taxes are, by far, the County’s largest revenue source; about $23 million of the $42.7 million overall budget comes from property taxes. Thompson noted that on another page of Horne’s handout, the total County revenue excluding property taxes is down to almost $2 million. Horne said this also partially accounts for why property taxes went up. Neuzil said he is trying to envision next year and the following year. He said because the Board is currently taxing at the limit, unless revenues go up, the budget situation will stay tight. Horne said the State rollbacks and local valuation changes are large factors. In response to a comment from Lehman about possible cuts to County services, Thompson said the Board should address this issue in its Strategic Plan.

Neuzil asked if the Board is at its taxing limit on the Rural Fund side? Horne said no. Neuzil said if there was an opportunity to find other things to put in the Rural Fund, that could occur? Horne said that most of what was allowed in the Rural Fund was already being paid from there already. Stutsman asked about the limit on the Rural Fund; was it $2.50? Horne said he didn’t know, but currently they were not even close to the limit. He said there is also a lot of room left in Secondary Roads, and the libraries. Horne said the Supervisors cannot pay expenses from the Rural Fund unless it is a strictly rural service. Neuzil thought there are going to be a lot of counties that are going to be trying to move expenses from the General Fund to the Rural Fund. Horne said if the County didn’t provide police service to the small towns, they could probably fund patrol cars from the Rural Fund. Thompson thought if they made the revenue match expenses, and show the revenue on the rural side, then they could fund patrol on the rural side. Thompson said that right now, the cities are not paying exactly what it costs, so it wouldn’t be fair to rural residents. Neuzil thought that the Sheriff might be interested in charging. Stutsman cautioned that the Board should approach the Farm Bureau first, as they have pretty strong feelings about funding patrol out of the Rural Fund. Horne thought this was challenged; Stutsman and Harney said yes, and Harney didn’t think this course of action was allowable. Stutsman said they are working on legislation that would allow it, but the Farm Bureau opposes this, and doesn’t want patrol funded from the Rural Fund. Horne said it would be a huge hit to the Rural Fund. Neuzil said he is trying to be creative in finding other potential revenues. Horne said funding patrol out of the Rural Fund is the option that has been talked about the most. Lehman said if they tax higher out of the Rural Fund, the rural taxes could raise, because they are shifting tax burdens to the rural side. Neuzil said he is not suggesting that all of the patrol costs should come from the Rural Fund, but perhaps part of it. Neuzil noted that it is a service being provided to rural residents. Neuzil said that Johnson County’s rural expenditures strictly consist of: Secondary Roads, libraries, the Conservation District, and the landfill.

Horne asked if he should walk the Board through the budget presentation, and the Supervisors agreed. Horne said at the beginning he would give the County’s mission statement, and showed that the 2nd page highlights the County’s budget process. Page 3, Horne said, sets forth the course of the presentation: summary of the budget, expenditures, revenues, and impacts on taxpayers. Horne said he would cover all of this information, as well as the County financial summary. Horne said this section includes an explanation of the factors that most impacted the budget this year: the change in the rollback (including examples), the change in valuations, and built-in expenditures such as the Jail and health insurance. Next, Horne said, he would explain the County’s fund balances, which, he said, will be artificially high at year-end, because of the bonding revenues.

Horne said the County priorities will be much the same as they were last year, and asked for the Supervisors’ feedback on this issue. The priorities include: safety and upkeep and maintaining commitment to Human Services. Thompson thought they should add prisoner transport; Neuzil said the list should be rearranged, because safety and upkeep was at the top of the list last year in order to show support for the 4 new deputies. Stutsman wondered about including something about how the Board used its Strategic Planning process to identify priorities. Neuzil thought Sullivan could do a page on the Board’s Strategic Plan, including priorities. Thompson thought that this year’s priorities were to try and figure out ways to make the cuts as equitable as possible, to all departments. She noted that the County was not in a growth mode, as it was last year. Stutsman said they are simply interested in providing basic services, and maintaining what they do have. Stutsman couldn’t think of anything new that they added. Neuzil said one priority had been to avoid layoffs. Stutsman said that funding equitable salary increases and health insurance were priorities this year, as well as transporting prisoners. Horne asked if last year’s priority of being committed to accountable and open government should also appear on this year’s list, and Thompson said yes. Thompson noted that the Board made some changes and cuts to a couple of last year’s priorities, such as the 5-Year Road Plan, Space Needs, GIS, and Capital Projects, so perhaps these are not accurate priorities for this year. Neuzil thought that the priorities page should begin by saying that these are the priorities identified in the Board’s Strategic Planning, and throughout the budget process. Thompson and Stutsman said that overall, the priority was to address the challenge of a diminishing budget and a slowing economy. Horne said he might break this page into 2 separate pages. Thompson said one priority from last year that could remain would be keeping taxes at a minimum. Stutsman said she isn’t interested in glossing the situation over; the fact is that the County is not providing the same level of service that it was a year ago. Thompson summarized what priorities remain on her list: transportation of prisoners, keep tax increases at a minimum, provide equitable salary increases, commitment to open and accountable government, address the challenge of a slowing economy, maintain basic services, avoid layoffs, and provide health insurance. Horne said he would make these changes.

Horne said the next section of the presentation would give a breakdown of each service area in the County’s budget, including the percentages. For example, Human Services account for 37% of the County’s budget, he said, while Public Safety and Court Services are 25%. Stutsman asked if these percentages are the same as last year, and Horne said the proportions are very close to the same, but with slightly lower dollar amounts. Thompson said it is good to see that the Board’s Human Services cuts were not disproportionately large.

Next, Horne said, there will be an expenditures summary for each service area. Each area will be discussed by a Supervisor, starting with Human Services, Neuzil’s area. Lehman said that Neuzil should stress Thompson’s point, above, about how the Human Services budget was not cut a disproportionate amount. Horne said the presentation is much the same as last year’s, with updated numbers. Horne said that Neuzil’s Human Services discussion will include mental health, social services, and physical health and education. Neuzil said he is planning to follow a similar format as last year, where the Supervisor reads the information off of the screen, and then perhaps highlights or embellishes the information on the screen with an example. Horne said last year they discussed a highlight from each section; Neuzil joked that they could call them lowlights, this year. Horne said this year in Human Services, Horne said he had the highlights listed as: loss of State funding, Senior Dining program switched to Elder Services, continued support of children and families, and continued attention to the public health needs of the County. Thompson asked Horne if he is taking out the Nutrition Program, and he said yes. Thompson also suggested that Horne add that the County tried to focus on the mandated client groups for whom it is responsible, such as MH/DD and the poor and needy. She thought they could also mention that the County tried maintained its commitment to prevention, such as juvenile crime prevention programs, in an attempt to hopefully keep future detention costs down. Neuzil said he will mention the preventive efforts with block grants.

Capital Projects, Horne said, is assigned to Stutsman. He said this begins by detailing the 5-Year Road Plan, the construction expenses from the Secondary Roads Department. Horne said he would like to mention the loss of the State Road Use Tax, which greatly affected the County’s budget. Next, Horne said, Stutsman can discuss Space Needs; Thompson and Horne agreed that there were very few projects in this area, this year. Stutsman wondered why it is even be included, and Thompson said they had moved some money in the Physical Plant budget, for maintenance. Neuzil noted that they had purchased the Fisher Building this fiscal year, and this could be mentioned. Lehman suggested that they highlight what the County was able to do last year, in the area of Space Needs, as compared to what they were not able to do this year. Stutsman and Thompson agreed with this plan. Horne said $298,000 is all they have in Space Needs for this coming year, and this includes the Mall Drive payment. Capital Expenditures, Horne said, were also small this year; the Supervisors did approve an ambulance for the Ambulance Department, a patrol car for the Sheriff’s Department, and a van for Information Services. The last part of Capital Projects budget is the Technology Budget. Horne said this includes software licenses, networking, PC replacement program, document management, and GIS. Neuzil said this is sending a message as well; even with budget cuts, the Board doesn’t want to fall behind in the area of technology. Stutsman agreed, and said this is still a Board priority.

The next section is Carol’s section, Intergovernmental Programs, State and Local Governments; Thompson said these are the services that the County provides to citizens. Horne said it also includes some of the State services that the County provides, such as license plates. Thompson asked if this includes cleaning snow off of the road, and Horne said no, this task fits under a different section, Roads and the Environment. Horne explained that one part of this section includes State and local government services: the Recorder, Treasurer, Elections, and records management. Inter Program Services, Horne continued, is another part: Attorney, Auditor, the Board, Human Resources, Information Services, and the Physical Plant, all internal services to other departments. Horne said that the County Attorney is spread out across a few service areas, including public safety and Inter programs. Thompson said one important item in Inner Program is the 17% increase in health insurance; Horne concurred. Thompson thought they could also include the stunning 119% increase over 4 years; Horne said he would add this. Thompson noted that the 17% increase was actually good; the Supervisors had been relieved that this number had been under 20%. Thompson noted that they had taken out another employee out of the Treasurer’s Office; Horne clarified that the Board had not eliminated the position, but Kriz had chosen not to fill the position, to make the 4% cut the Board requested. Horne said no one had been laid off in the Treasurer’s Office. Thompson said they could mention that the Board discussed the need to replace the County’s old voting equipment, although they didn’t fund it this year. Thompson said this could prepare people for this expense in the near future.

Neuzil asked about the financial software; Horne said this would be included in Technology, in Stutsman’s part of the presentation. Neuzil suggested adding this into this section; Horne agreed. In answer to Stutsman’s query, Horne said he didn’t think they would spend the money saved for financial software this year, but they would roll forward to the next fiscal year. Horne said they have saved $150,000 set aside right now, and another $150,000 was approved for FY 03; the Supervisors will have $300,000 saved for the financial software, by July 1st.

Horne introduced the next category, Roads and the Environment, which Harney will discuss. Horne said this includes the maintenance aspects of the Secondary Roads Department, the Conservation Department, and Planning and Zoning. Horne said the self-sufficiency of the Building Inspection Unit and the loss of the Road Use Tax revenue are important items to note in this category. Neuzil wondered about mentioning the 5-Year Road Plan, but Horne said this belongs in the Capital Projects section, as it a construction aspect of the Secondary Roads Department. This category includes the maintenance functions of Secondary Roads, such as snow removal, oiling chip-sealed roads, road maintenance, and managing roadside vegetation. Thompson thought they should mention they increased the amount set aside for the Conservation Department from $.22 to $.23; Horne agreed. Thompson noted that the Conservation Department is the only department that got much of an increase. In Planning and Zoning, Horne repeated the highlight that the Building Inspection Unit is self-sufficient. Other Supervisors agreed that this was positive. Horne noted that the Planning and Zoning application fees have decreased, but the Building Inspection revenues are increasing. Neuzil said they could also promote the Land Use Plan in this section of the presentation.

Horne wondered if the Board would be interested in a breakdown of who got hit the hardest in this budget year? Horne said Secondary Roads got hit the hardest, of any County department. Stutsman said she didn’t want the rural residents to think that the Board is balancing the budget on their shoulders, when they didn’t understand the full situation. Thompson said a lot of the Secondary Roads loss wasn’t the County’s fault, but was tied to the loss of the Road Use Tax revenue. Stutsman said they could have taxed for more on the rural side, and put more money in the Secondary Roads budget; they chose not to do this.

Neuzil suggested that one of the budget highlights in the Roads and Environment side could include some of Conservation Director Harry Graves’ accomplishments, such as the acquisition of the Tomash property and purchase of new playground equipment. Harney said he didn’t want people to think that the County purchased the Tomash property; Stutsman agreed, and said that this was a Heritage Trust purchase, not a County purchase. Stutsman said the other side of this issue was the question as to why the Conservation Department is choosing to buy property in such a tight budget year? Horne noted that the funds came from the Conservation Department’s trust, and Stutsman acknowledged this. Thompson said they could mention the Conservation Department’s partnership with Secondary Roads in the creation of a wetlands mitigation area. Stutsman and Harney agreed. Harney said if they are going to mention the Tomash acquisition, they should emphasize that it was a purchase of the Conservation Trust Fund, not the County.

Horne said the final service area, to be discussed by Lehman, is Public Safety and Court Services. He said this includes the Ambulance Department, County Attorney, Medical Examiner, the Sheriff’s Department, and some of the block grants. Thompson noted that Juvenile Crime Prevention is no longer a pass-through grant. Horne said this category also includes the block grants given to Emergency Management. Lehman asked if the Court Services budget would include some of the high-priced prosecutions in this budget year? Horne said no, the court services budget is in a different budget than the Court Services Service Area. He said there are 2 court services budgets, one under the County Attorney and one under the Sheriff’s Department; both of these are within this category. Horne said there are not a lot of changes or things to emphasize in this area, but did note that the Memmer trial was expensive. Stutsman cautioned to keep the discussion focussed on next year’s budget, unless they want to compare some things. Stutsman said it is easy to confuse people if they to talk about expenses from both this fiscal year and the next. Horne asked the Supervisors if they want to mention anything about courthouse security; Lehman said he could say the Supervisors were asked to provide better, more permanent, official courthouse security, but were not able to do so. Thompson said they could mention that the Sheriff’s Department sends people over there, when requested.

Thompson asked if Horne was going to talk about the revenue side of the budget, and he said yes. He showed the Board a revenue summary, including net current property taxes, charges, interest, and license and permits. Neuzil asked if Horne had a pie chart, or another kind of graphic, breaking down the revenue sources? Horne said he will do this. Stutsman wondered if Horne included the bonding revenues as County revenues? Horne said the revenues will actually appear in this year’s budget, not next year’s. Horne said he will also give a breakdown of net current property taxes, and where they go; this is going to look a lot different than last year. He said 42% of property tax revenues go to the General Fund, 10% to the Rural Fund, 12% to the MH/DD Fund, and 36% goes to the Debt Service Fund, to retire debt. Last year, Horne noted, they didn’t have a Debt Service Fund. Horne explained that property taxes go to roads, but this is done via a transfer from the General Fund. This is in contrast to the Rural Fund and MH/DD Fund, which both have direct-link tax levies. Horne said he will give a description of what some of the interest, charges, licenses, and permits are, and a summary of funding the County receives from Federal, State, and other local governments.

The final category, Horne said, shows the impact on taxpayers, which Sullivan will do this year. Horne said he asked the Auditor’s Office if they wanted to participate this year, and they declined. Horne noted that County Auditor Tom Slockett presented this part of the budget in last year’s budget presentation. Horne said he needs to update some numbers in some of these categories.

Stutsman asked if any other Supervisors would be interested in having a chart that shows what the County’s levy rates have been over the last few years? Thompson asked if this would be tied to a selected piece of property? Horne thought no, Stutsman wanted the total, County-wide levy rate. Horne said he could do this, if the Supervisors wanted. Stutsman said she’d like to see what it looks like, and asked Horne to do this.

Neuzil asked if Horne had information from Iowa City as to the breakdown of how a person’s tax dollar is split up? Horne said that the Auditor’s Office has all this information, and he needs to include the new numbers. Thompson asked if Horne also will do comparisons with other government, and he said yes. Horne said he used Iowa City and Newport Township as hypothetical examples last year, and wondered what he should use this year? The Supervisors agreed that he should again use Iowa City, and Thompson suggested that he use Penn Township this year, since it is the most populous. Neuzil suggested that Horne still include a truly rural Township; one Supervisor suggested using Newport, so they could compare the change from last year. Horne noted that the main levies for townships are the County levy and the school levy; other levies were smaller, such as the 911 levy.

Horne showed a tax bill comparison with other governmental entities, and said he needs to update these numbers, in cooperation with the Auditor’s Office. Thompson said the County’s tax increases are still somewhat bigger than last year’s. Lehman said this is true on a percentage basis, but again noted this was partially due to other factors, such as the rollback, and decreased valuations. Stutsman wondered if they should include a page explaining fund balances; Thompson cautioned that they will have to explain the artificially large fund balance that will show up as a result of bonding. Stutsman said she anticipated questions from the Farm Bureau about fund balances. Horne said he could factor out the bonding, and show the projected ending FY 03 fund balances, after the bonding has finished. Thompson said Horne could compare the FY 03 ending balances to the actual fund balances in FY 01; this would be an accurate comparison, as the bonding will occur in the middle, and can be excluded. Overall, Horne said, Johnson County runs a tight ship, and does not tax in excess.

Neuzil asked Horne to go over a graphic titled General Fund tax asking increases. Horne explained that tax askings are expenditures minus revenues. Thompson and Horne agreed that although the numbers are going to be lower, the percentage will be about the same. Thompson didn’t think they needed to include this; it is confusing. Horne said this page was from last year’s presentation, put together by Slockett. Stutsman said they could ask Slockett what this graphic is trying to say; maybe they do want to include it in their presentation. Horne said the jail and health insurance are the biggest expenses for tax askings. The group agreed that because some departments had increased expenses this year, while others decreased, this chart should be eliminated, because it is impossible to show both positive and negative pieces of a pie on the same chart. Thompson said that another big increase was in the Physical Plant, but this was an artificially high number, because the Supervisors moved money formerly in the Space Needs budget into the Physical Plant budget. Horne said besides the Physical Plant, the only other departmental budget increase is in the Sheriff’s Department, and is due to prisoner transport and housing to the Linn County Jail.

Neuzil asked about the conclusion to the presentation; Stutsman said they would ask for questions. Neuzil summarized that Sullivan would wrap up the presentation, with the charts comparing the taxing of different governmental entities. Thompson said since they are preparing for what is a public hearing, the Supervisors should try and keep their comments pretty short, in order to allow time for public comment. Stutsman agreed with Thompson that this was going to be a public hearing, and the public is supposed to inform the Board whether or not they agree with the Board’s decisions. Horne agreed that brevity is important; each Supervisor’s section shouldn’t be more than a few minutes long. Harney suggested that Sullivan give closure to the presentation by asking for questions or comments after his discussion of the comparison of other governments. Horne pointed out that the Chair of the Board has to be the person to open the floor for questions. Thompson said she would do this, and explain that people should say their names for the record. Neuzil asked if the Board encourages department heads to attend the hearing? Stutsman and Horne said they usually come. Lehman and Neuzil agreed that they had good attendance at the meeting last year. Neuzil said the Board would like department heads and elected officials to attend the hearing; Horne said he would send an email reminding these officials about the hearing.

Thompson suggested that Horne have a couple of sheets ready in case of questions: one on a 2-year fund balance comparison, and another on the total wage and salary increases. Horne noted that he had already given the fund balances on an earlier page. Stutsman added a request that Horne also prepare a sheet on levy rates. Horne asked if he should include something about the Compensation Board’s recommendation? Horne said he has prepared a resolution for the Board to vote on next Thursday, adopting the overall budget. In response to a question from Neuzil, Horne said he would include in his introduction an explanation of how the Board cannot increase the budget any more after the hearing has been completed. In response to another of Neuzil’s questions, Lehman clarified that the Supervisors can answer questions.

Thompson summarized that there was an actually a 14.6% increase in the County-wide tax askings this year, which is mostly accounted for by the fact that other revenues have been dropping. Horne said there are no more General Supplemental funds; basically they have been faced with the Debt Service Levy. Horne reminded the group again that although the County’s levy rate is again under the $3.50 maximum, the Supervisors really do not have any room in the budget, because of the bonding situation.

Horne asked the Supervisors to let him know of any changes by Monday. Thompson thanked Horne on behalf of the Board for all of his work. He said he gets a lot of help from other people, and this budget year has been an educational one for him.

Adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary