MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 23, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order
in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:02 a.m. Members present were:
Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman; absent:
Joseph Bolkcom.
Stutsman: Review of the formal minutes for December 18th. Any questions or additions? We'll put those on then for formal action on the formal. Business from the County Auditor, discussion regarding fiscal year 98 budget amendment requests. Lynnette isn't here.
Lacina: Do you want me to call her?
Stutsman: Would you please. All right. Let's see, we'll go on to business from Jean Schultz, Director of Information Services and this is regarding the update of the HP 3000.
Information Services Director Jean
Schultz: Update of HP 3000 Computer
Stutsman: Good morning Jean.
Schultz: Good morning. The central computer that we have is an HP 3000-947. It's used for most of the County government applications. Parts of it are over 10 years old. Parts of it are like 5 years old. It varies and just like with a car the older something gets the more it costs as far as maintenance. What we did is we did an analysis, if we were to upgrade the system versus if we were to keep it as far as the maintenance costs. We looked at a 5 year cost of ownership and what we were looking at is a 968. The processor is twice as fast as the current processor that we have now. It has more storage space and everything. For an overall 5 year cost of ownership the only difference is about $8,000 because the cost of maintenance is so much less because of the newer equipment. It has more capability, more storage, a lot more potential. We also looked at the left hand column was... Also what this would allow us to do would be to absorb the COT System being used in the Recorder's Office. They have what is called a Micro 3000 and that system, I should have looked it up, it's like 10 or 12 years old. They will not be able to get support for it as of next summer because it's so old. It doesn't run the software that even the 947 that we have runs. It's very old. So it will allow us to move that application also onto the 968.
Lacina: It was really even limited when we bought it way back when it was new. We didn't have the input ports and stuff. It was really a stripped down machine.
Schultz: Right. So that would then combine that system with the other one. So the left hand column is keeping the current 947 that does not... Then the middle column is if we upgraded to the 968. The right hand column was estimates if we were to convert all of our software over to a NT Platform. This is something that was recommended by the Computer Needs Committee. It was also discussed many times and recommended by the Networking Subcommittee. It was discussed and recommended by the overall What/When Committee to the Board.
Stutsman: Their recommendation is to go with which?
Schultz: With the 968. To upgrade it to the 968.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: Well, to buy the hardware and to not buy the software to support it, means we're not going to get the punch out of the new machine as much as we could with the NT. Right? I mean with the conversion to NT we'll be able to better utilize the hardware.
Schultz: Not this hardware. The NT would be more of a network platform, rather than the mini-computer.
Jordahl: We are converting programs to NT though as we go.
Lacina: Right.
Jordahl: That's kind of the missing piece of this discussion is that in the past it's been an either/or scenario where are we going to either have distributing computing or a centralized model. I think what we're moving toward now is a kind of both/and model.
Schultz: Right. The Computer Needs Committee recommended using the strengths of each kind of platform.
Lacina: But why would we want to wait? I guess in looking back at history on some of the limited hardware we had, and using the Recorder's machine as an example, we got into the COT System which was DOS-based and didn't really convert it into Windows and then over time there were incompatibilities. Why wouldn't we go with the whole package now? I realize it's expensive, but just start building it in. Or with the $8,000 more, does that include the entire package or just the upgrade on the 968?
Schultz: It allows an even more staged conversion to programs to NT. This conversion to NT is basically taking the software as it exists and just converting it. In the conversion process what you'd really want to do would be improve it and in some cases redesign.
Jordahl: If I can speak to that Steve. I've been chairing this Networking Subcommittee and we've gone over and over this. The debate has been exactly the kind of point that you're raising. If this is a good thing to have things in NT then why don't we hurry up and do it? That's what this sheet here is supposed to speak to, is for 2 reasons that in order to do it we would have to employ additional programmers to make that conversion, so to accelerate this thing. That's part of where this fabulous cost comes from is the person hours required to do that. But additionally, as Jean was just saying, to go through that process quickly and just convert it to the new language would be both expensive and wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to look through the program and say how could this be better? Under the model that's proposed with purchasing the new HP 968 here, we would be continuing the NT conversion alongside, but our own programmers, without hiring additional staff would do it and have the opportunity as they go through this to look at OK, this is an old program how might we improve it and work with the departments on what improvements they might like to see and have more of a, I don't know what word I want to use here, more reason is not the right word, more maybe thoughtful, careful process.
Stutsman: Planned?
Jordahl: Yes.
Lacina: OK, so in other words we make the conversion as the demand warrants.
Jordahl: Right, it is underway. The conversion to NT. We have people working on that now. I don't know if you want to speak to what stage that's in.
Schultz: It would be a long process because there is a lot of programs there, but I know that one of the Programmer Analysts is working on some programs for Secondary Roads in converting from the 3000 to visual basic.
Lacina: We have some components of it in Health and other places with NT now.
Schultz: No, we're not using NT at Health. We're using some PC-based applications like individual programs that we got say from the State or the Center for Disease Control.
Lacina: Really? Huh.
Stutsman: The cost Jean, the way you have this spelled out, this is what it would cost each year?
Schultz: Yes. This is like over a 5 year period of time for the box and the software support from HP. The cost, if you remember right, last year when I did the budget we left in the money for a possible upgrade was in our budget. So this does not take any money out of the central...
Stutsman: So it's already budgeted in?
Schultz: Uh-huh. So it's not additional funds or anything like that.
Stutsman: OK. All right.
Jordahl: I think to pursue Steve's question at the risk of muddying the waters here, under your software line it says, under expedited conversion model it says Windows NT plus 120 site licenses and so forth. That's not reflected under the purchase new HP 968 line. I guess I'm wondering about our process of conversion. Do we not also need the site licenses under the 968 model? Wouldn't that be a comparable cost?
Schultz: We will eventually. We won't need as many. It will be more of a staged...
Jordahl: I see, not within the first 5 years for example, we wouldn't have all of that cost. But we'd have some of that cost.
Schultz: Uh-huh.
Jordahl: So I think that would inflate this figure in the second column to some extent. I think the major cost, if you look in the expedited conversion to NT in the right hand column at the bottom under other expenses, there's the chunk of it. $420,000 for consulting fees to expedite conversion. This is based on $70 per hour for 3 full-time individuals for a year. It is heavily underestimated however, but it does demonstrate the magnitude of the cost.
Lacina: So your recommendation to us is to go to the middle road, which is go with the 968 at this time?
Schultz: Right.
Lacina: Which is in the budget basically.
Schultz: Right.
Lacina: That sounds good to me.
Stutsman: Yes, I guess I would agree too. Especially since it's gone through numerous committee discussions and their approval of this or recommendation, I guess I would feel comfortable with that too.
Schultz: Like I said, it's been through the Computer Needs Committee. It's been through the Networking Subcommittee and it's been through the County Computer Committee, which was called the What/When Committee.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: We need to keep moving forward on this stuff a little bit at a time. So that sounds like a good plan.
Jordahl: Yes it's a very, very marginal cost for a significant benefit.
Lacina: Yes. For a lot of punch.
Duffy: Sally, I really got woke up there when Jonathan said consulting fees. A lot of that $420,000 were for consulting fees.
Stutsman: But we're not going to do that yet.
Duffy: Yes, but it woke me up, did you see me?
Jordahl: Yes. That's real money over there.
Duffy: Evidently what we're saying here is on a 5 year period go with HP 968 is $222,824 and the other would be $530,050. You've got my vote in a hurry.
Lacina: But with the maintenance on the old machine, if we don't do anything it's $214,000. So we're better just to go with the extra 8 and upgrade. The question in my mind is how soon are we going to actually physically get the box and make the conversion and... We'll have this done before we have to go out with the new tax lists and... Like in May and June and...
Schultz: Yes. Yes.
Lacina: All right. OK. Good.
Schultz: This is the hardware and software maintenance from HP that we pay.
Lacina: OK.
Jordahl: To clarify, we're not talking about spending an additional $200,000. We're talking about spending an additional $8,000. In order to get a significant bang here. So I'll make sure everyone has that clearly.
Stutsman: OK. Any other questions? Well we have this on for formal action later in the formal meeting.
Schultz: Do I need to come back for that?
Stutsman: I don't think so.
Lacina: No.
Schultz: OK.
Stutsman: If there are no other questions I think...
Jordahl: I would just add one point with regard to NT conversion, that if the Board wanted to put money into it to hire additional staff to expedite the conversion, that's certainly within our per view. But it would mean adding staff to information services and in the current budget situation I think we want to be a little cautious about that one.
Stutsman: I guess I would agree with that. I think there's going to be a lot of staff needs.
Lacina: I think you'll have to recommend us so that we don't push something on to you that you're not ready.
Jordahl: Yes, exactly.
Schultz: Well and also we've been using NT and NT isn't as clean as you might think either. Like the mini-computer, the databases are very mature and very reliable. Because we have some PC's that we are running NT on and we are having some problems. So this allows us to learn better, it allows the NT systems to become a little more mature.
Lacina: De-bug them and stuff like that.
Schultz: Yes.
Stutsman: OK. All right, well good. Thank you. Good process...
Schultz: OK.
Stutsman: ...to have that brought to us in a recommendation, so we appreciate that.
Schultz: Thank you.
Deputy County Auditor Lynnette Hultman: Fiscal Year '98 Budget Amendment Requests
Stutsman: Lynette, I think we'll go back up to the County Auditor and the discussion regarding the Fiscal Year '98 budget amendment requests. Good morning.
Deputy Auditor Lynnette Hultman: I'll just quickly summarize these requests for budget amendments for the current year. I think all of them have come before the Board at one time or another in the last few months. I think this will just be a review at this point. Department of Public Health is increasing revenues and expenditures for grants and for our permanent half time disease prevention specialist to assist with the communicable disease activities. The revenues are actually increasing more than the expenditures for this amendment. Recorder is increasing expenditures for a full-time permanent Clerk I to help with the additional work load from the Vital Statistics. Block Grants is to increase expenditures for our contract with Elderly Services for health services. That one is something that was previously covered through the Health Department, but now there's a contract for it so it's covered through the Block Grants Department. Insurance Department, increasing expenditures and revenues to cover the hail damage. That's exactly equal. $95,000 will cover the hail damage on that. However, the increase in expenditures is mostly off-set by reduced premiums that we have had premiums come in less than what we have budgeted. We've had some good experience going. So overall, our expenditures are only going to be increasing $1,800 and the revenues are increasing by the $95,000 for the insurance reimbursement.
Lacina: When we roll this forward to next year then, that would be an incident that would not reoccur, as far as, hopefully the expenditure side. But the premium hopefully will stay favorable for us?
Hultman: Right. Bob has sat down with me to go through the proposed budget for next year and they're down too, so you'll see a decrease.
Lacina: So that when you do the projections for next year and give that to us that, will ripple out.
Hultman: Uh-huh, yes.
Lacina: OK.
Hultman: There will be a decrease also for Fiscal Year '99. Juvenile Justice Department 27, increasing expenditures for detention and decreasing revenues due to less reimbursable expenditures. So we've kind of got a double hit on that one. Court Services, increasing expenditures for transportation for detention services. Capital expenditures, increasing expenditures there for SEATS vehicle purchased and this just reflects the actual amount that's already in that fund. So this isn't really, this is just to correct the budget to the actual amount that's available. So that money is already in there. Human Services, increasing revenues and expenditures there. Part of it is for grants that were received in FY '97 that weren't fully expended and part of it is for new grants. That's detailed out there in your memo. MH/DD Services, increasing revenues and expenditures by an equal amount here for the community services allocation. Senior Dining, we've got a slight decrease in expenditures and revenues just to get the budget matched up to what the final contract was approved with Heritage on that. Capital Projects, We had an increase in expenditures there for some Ambulance sidewalk repairs that weren't previously budgeted. Recorder's Records Management, increasing expenditures here. Again, this is also where the money is already there. We're just increasing the budget. They are looking at making some expenditures there to cover cost of marriage record conversion, some monitors, replacement copier fax machine, and some temporary help on indexing. On SIH Consortium Trust. Again this one is a separate fund and the revenues and expenditures are increasing by an equal amount. They've had some additional donations that we didn't know about at budget time, so those are going up equally. Overall expenditures are increasing $481,053. Revenues increasing by $358,982. I do have following the memo portion, there's a line item detail. If you go to page 6 on that, I have a breakdown by fund how this affects each fund.
Lacina: I do have one question and I'm a little sensitive about the State continuing this shedding. But under vitals, there's $4,500 in mileage and Deb is that a requirement that the State makes us go to the Health Department in Des Moines, or what's relevant for vitals in mileage for $4,500? Is that mileage for...
Hultman: I think that was a workshop that she attended.
Lacina: Oh, OK and doing the training to make the conversion maybe. OK, thank you. That makes sense. All right. So bottom line was, I'm sorry I missed it.
Hultman: At the bottom of page 6, there's a breakdown by fund, which that's a little more meaningful than looking at just the whole. General Basic, the increase, or the affect on the General Basic Fund is $87,468. General Supplemental is $2,200. MH/DD there's no effect, Capital Expenditures, $15,903, Capital Projects, $1,500. Recorder's Records Management, $15,000, and SIH Consortium Trust, $0. The total net effect is the $122,071.
Lacina: Increased in expenditures.
Hultman: Uh-huh. That's the net effect.
Lacina: OK. So we'll roll, in effect since we haven't levied for that, for FY '99. We'll have to take the reoccurring expenses as we go through the next budget round and roll it forward because we're authorizing these expenditures, so we'll have to allocate that against the tax asking for next year, with the exception of non-reoccurring like the insurance incident.
Hultman: Yes, when the department heads are making their presentations, they should be taking these kind of things into consideration when they're making additional requests to you. So those should all be taken care of in their additional requests.
Lacina: The other thing... Since we're only into the year 6 months, and we're doing this. Can we assume that we're going to see a similar amount come back at us next spring, from historical...
Hultman: I don't think so. I think this is probably. I know Health Department has said they might have something in May, they would have a better feel for the new personnel that they are going to having to deal with the pertussis outbreak. So they'll probably have something in relation to that. Other than that, at this point I really can't think of anything else that would be...
Lacina: And there are some expenditures...
Hultman: I think this should cover the problems we have at this point, the additional requests that have come forth.
Lacina: That's helpful. Then you'll advise us as we go through...
Hultman: Yes.
Lacina: Do you know, it's a little bit off the agenda topic, but January is going to be fast and furious on the budget. Will you be able to help us physically up here as we go through this?
Hultman: Yes, our office is going to try to have people up here while you're working in your planned work sessions that you have so far, so we'll be here to basically just be here to serve as a resource, or provide information when you need it.
Lacina: Yes, we're grateful for that.
Hultman: And then also, I just wanted to throw in too, at the end of FY '97 in the General Fund, we did have more money than we had budgeted, so in the General Fund overall, I think we ended up with about $300,000 more than we had planned for. So that might make this a little bit easier to take too. Another thing I wanted to mention, Kit, I was just going over his budget with him yesterday and he also had an amendment to throw in with this. Revenues and expenditures will be equal. What they're for is the City primary that we had in the summer or fall, I can't remember which one it was. But the revenues and expenditures he said would be equal and he said maybe there might even be more revenues than expenditures.
Lacina: When we went to purchase the service in the mental health area, I think it had an impact of around $329,000 less expenditure to Chatham Oaks. Do you think that's part of the general fund?
Hultman: No, that shouldn't be because that was all pulled out of there.
Stutsman: Yes, that's a separate budget.
Lacina: OK, so is that another $300,000 that potentially could ripple through?
Stutsman: That's a separate fund entirely anymore.
Hultman: Yes.
Stutsman: That's just...
Lacina: Well and those dollars can't be used for anything else, other than mental health too. All right, thank you.
Stutsman: Right. Any other questions or comments?
Lacina: Good job.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Hultman: If you want to go ahead and, I think there's something on your formal agenda if you want to...
Stutsman: Right, to set the hearing.
Hultman: That public hearing date. I just threw something out here. If you want to go ahead and set a public hearing date, I had one Thursday, January 22nd.
Stutsman: OK. I see no problems with going ahead with that. Probably at 9:00 then?
Hultman: Sounds good. Yes.
Stutsman: All right. Thank you very much, Lynette.
Hultman: Uh-huh, thank you.
Stutsman: Anything else from the County Auditor? OK. Business from the
Board of Supervisors. Any reports this morning? Let's see, Charlie do you have
anything?
REPORT (DUFFY): ATTENDED STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
Duffy: Well I've got some reports from the last week, but they're kind of old now, Sally.
Stutsman: OK.
Duffy: We met with Tim Shields about comprehensive planning for about 3 hours, last Thursday.
Stutsman: Uh-huh, right, Thursday afternoon.
Duffy: So it's a little late to report on things like that.
Stutsman: It was a continuation of our strategic planning session,
setting some priorities and goals for next year. Steve, did you have anything?
REPORT (LACINA): PENDING CHATHAM OAKS CONTRACT
Lacina: Contract is up from Attorney Sueppel for Chatham Oaks. That's circulating around.
Stutsman: I think that's on for is it next Thursday? Or next Tuesday, right for formal action.
Lacina: You'll probably refer to our interviews for the HR person. There was something else and I guess I'm blanking out on that now, so that's all I have.
Stutsman: OK, Jonathan? Do you have anything this morning?
REPORT (JORDAHL): ATTENDED COUNTY COMPUTER COMMITTEE
Jordahl: Well, the County Computer Committee, renamed, met on Friday. There was discussion there both of the situation in the Recorder's Office, where apparently Deb needs to switch over to a different provider because of a problem with the one who had been initially contracted with. So that's going to be a way of responding to the Vital Statistics changeover. We discussed at some length the, pardon me, I drew a blank there for a second. It was a lengthy discussion. Budgeting of the, whether we were going to have departmental budget lines as we have for departmental discretion for computer purchases, or whether this stuff is all going to be centralized. A variety of things were looked at, including putting the money into a capital expenditures budget, so it would all be under computer technology, but would be sort of encumbered by a department. There wasn't really a conclusion out of that in discussion other than that the department heads want to continue to have discretion. Importantly to perhaps not spend money on the computers for their department if they have other needs in their department. This is kind of the area where it's really a vital discussion for us. Is do we want to require that computer funds be spent on computers? Or do we want the departments to have the discretion to perhaps not spend that on computer technology if they see other needs, and that's I think a really important question the Board's going to have to address in this budget cycle. We do continue to have a centralized budget for the networking that we're going on, so centralized County functions, but there are ways in which the departmental computer purchase and replacement budgets overlap with the central idea of having a rolling replacement program, so that every 5 years we buy new computers and distribute those around to the departments. So there's a fertile area here and I think it's something we're going to have to resolve at the Board level.
Lacina: I thought we already went through all that and then the discussion, that's why we adopted the computer plan. How come we're....
Jordahl: Yes. We did, and it's difficult to tease out exactly how these things are distinct, but the computer networking plan talks about a 5 year replacement program and we have adopted that as a Board. So we're going to do that. The open question still is whether the departmental computer requests that they make for their budget for technology for a year is going to be something that could be kept within the department and spent on other things or on technology or whether we're going to control that either by requiring that it be spent on computer technology, or by centralizing those budgets as well. Now that we haven't done.
Lacina: Well Reverend Welsh in the past has wanted to put line item freezes on some of the areas, so that we didn't use payroll for employees and go out and buy machines. I thought we had this all decided and wrapped up and it sounds to me like we're opening it all back up again.
Stutsman: I wonder if this is something that we should...
Jordahl: We should put on an agenda.
Stutsman: Put on an agenda.
Lacina: Maybe they can discuss it and then bring it to us.
Stutsman: Yes, maybe even during the budget process, discuss this further. Anything else, Jonathan?
Jordahl: No, thank you.
REPORT (STUTSMAN): BOARD HAS COMPLETED HUMAN RESOURCES INTERVIEWS
Stutsman: OK. As Steve alluded to, we finished our interviews for the Human Resource Person on Monday. We had 3 excellent candidates that we asked back for 2nd interviews. We did make an offer to an individual and we'll be waiting to hear her final decision by tomorrow. So hopefully we'll have an announcement early next week as to who our new Human Resource person will be.
Lacina: When we sent out the letters, if the individual accepts, to the other 2 candidates, I really hope that we built in there the fact that they were the top 3 and how outstanding and professional they were. They really were outstanding individuals and I don't think we would have gone wrong with any of the 3.
Stutsman: Yes, we had a wonderful pool.
Lacina: The one individual with bonuses generated in the $90,000 range per year, but wanted stability to stay in the Midwest and had offers, a guy in Florida, we checked a reference said he'd hire him in a minute if the guy would move. That's the caliber of individual we had looking in Johnson County. There were some really, really good people.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: So it was fun to go through something like that because they
were so good.
INQUIRY (REVEREND ROBERT WELSH): PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Stutsman: I think that's all that I had for reports. So inquiries or reports from the public?
Welsh: Sally, just one thing. You all have your budget hearings and work meetings scheduled for hearing the budget requests from the various departments?
Stutsman: We're working on that, Bob. Carol and Destiny are contacting department heads now and setting up that schedule, so it's not been finalized, but it should be hopefully by next week.
Welsh: Because I think, when that is finalized, again I would encourage you to make that public and put it out in news releases, so that I know that a couple of groups that I'm associated with, members have expressed a desire to be present when you all discuss their particular budgets.
Stutsman: OK, we'll make a point to do that.
Lacina: And our Supervisors meeting in January I think is either the 21st or the 22nd. It's not a 2 day meeting, so we can go up and back in one day. So it's not going to take a lot of time.
Stutsman: The 20th?
Lacina: But, if we do, we may want to consider rescheduling... Well we'll see how it plays out. The other thing and brief discussion, we did discuss maybe while we're in Des Moines, just sitting down at lunch with some of the other larger counties to discuss mental health issues and counties not paying their bills and some of the shifting.
Stutsman: Issues we're dealing with that are unique to some of the larger counties.
Lacina: Yes. So if we can get that set up, that would be I think very, very helpful.
Stutsman: Anything else? OK, we will recess and go into the formal meeting.
Recessed at 9:32 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Melinda McCleary, Recording Secretary