Bolkcom: Item G: Discussion regarding, I guess I want to query the Board on where we are on the agenda at this point before we get into local option. We have an Executive Session planned. Is County Attorney going to be here for that? And is that really at 11:30?

Lacina: Deana is the one with the calendar.

Bolkcom: Pat is coming for that?

Stutsman: It's my understanding.

Bolkcom: OK. Do you want to do the budget, or do you want to do local option. How much budget time... I want to cut the budget short there's things that...

Jordahl: We're going to need to get Tom to come up for the budget, which he said he's ready to do.

Bolkcom: Do you want to call Tom? How much time do you need for the budget? Because if we go into Executive Session at 11:30, we're probably going to take until noon.

Jordahl: I really don't think that the budget's going to take a great long time, depending on how...

Stutsman: No, really. Yes. There's just some forms that we want to go through, and then got through those questions that were brought up at the...

Lacina: Department Head Meeting.

Stutsman: ...budget meeting last week. Depends on how much time everybody wants to put in. Maybe we should just do the schedule for...

Bolkcom: Let's do the schedule.

Stutsman: ...Deana can get that rolling.

Bolkcom: Why don't you call Tom and I'll grab Deana.

Lacina: Maybe we should get Jean Schultz to come down too.

Stutsman: Yes. I thought you said she said it was OK to do one form.

Lacina: Yes, she said she did it.

Stutsman: Is there any?

Lacina: No, probably not.

Stutsman: OK.

Lacina: Is that the last item?

Bolkcom: Joe, it's not the last item.

Lacina: Wishful thinking.

Bolkcom: We'll signal you when the meeting (inaudible).

Lacina: If...

Bolkcom: Deana come on up.

Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard: Oh.

Bolkcom: Good morning.

Pillard: Morning.

Bolkcom: We're down to Item H: Discussion regarding the calendar for the Fiscal Year 2000 budget and department presentations.

Pillard: I was just wondering what days, or if the Board would prefer their meetings with the departments in the morning or in the afternoons. And how long of a time you wanted to listen to those. If you wanted to see them in 2 hour blocks, or 2, or as long as 4.

Bolkcom: All right. So, we're looking principally starting the first week of December, is that right?

Pillard: Yes. Actually November 30th is a Monday.

Bolkcom: OK.

Lacina: To get it rolling I'm going to suggest we have hour and a half long meetings, per department, because much beyond that I think we're going to wear down, and they should be able to succinctly deliver, since we're going to have the static budget.

Stutsman: I think Deana's done a preliminary...

Lacina: Did you do 2's?

Pillard: Not all departments want over an hour and a half. Some only want to have a half hour. It's up to the Board if they want to go with a set hour for everyone or if you're wanting to let them choose. Some of the smaller ones are only wanting a half hour. Others ones obviously are wanting an hour.

Bolkcom: Sure. I think we should figure out the days we want to do this and give them to Deana. Deana can slot in the departments to come in.

Pillard: I'm thinking depending on the number, if you went 3 hour blocks you're going to need 7 to 8 hour...

Bolkcom: 7 to 8 days.

Lacina: Days.

Stutsman: I guess I would say 3 hours max.

Peters: I'd rather have you have too much time set aside than not enough trying to cram this all in. Because if you have some extra days and you have some further questions you could call departments back in if you feel you need more time towards the end.

Lacina: If we do mornings and leave afternoons open, we could have them back in the afternoon if we don't get completely through it.

Stutsman: We want to start on the 30th then, right after Thanksgiving?

Pillard: It's up to the Board, whatever they want. It depends, you know. Tuesdays and Thursdays mornings are full. If you want to go strictly Monday Wednesdays and Fridays, or if you do have some Tuesday Thursday afternoons.

Jordahl: Especially Tuesday the first, after we've had basically a 2 week hiatus in Board meetings.

Bolkcom: It might be good to try and look at the first, 2nd and 3rd week, try and get 3 times each of those weeks.

Pillard: Yes, it would be nice if we could done by the 18th or the 21st.

Stutsman: Why don't we just say Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings of that first week, and Monday, Wednesday Friday mornings of that next week. We have Board meeting on the 10th, at 5:30 at night, so maybe Friday morning wouldn't be such...

Jordahl: Yes, Thursday morning would be better that week.

Bolkcom: What about all day on the 2nd and 9th? What about thinking about morning sessions and afternoon sessions?

Lacina: For the initial context?

Bolkcom: Because I know...

Stutsman: That's fine.

Bolkcom: ...we're going to be having other meetings. My calendar looks pretty good right now.

Pillard: That's why I want times (inaudible) before it gets too full.

Bolkcom: We have a typical Friday morning meeting that we're going to...

Lacina: OK. So we'll start at what time on the 2nd, 9 o'clock?

Stutsman: Or are we going to start on the 30th?

Pillard: You tell me what you want to do.

Jordahl: Nothing. The 30th would be fine.

Lacina: Joe's idea though was...

Bolkcom: I'm amenable to what Deana's suggesting. I just think if Monday, Wednesday Friday. I would like to have a couple full days in here as well. I don't want to spread it all out to 9 3 hour meetings, I'd rather have a couple...

Jordahl: So you're saying lets pack the Wednesdays.

Stutsman: OK...

Lacina: But that doesn't mean not doing the Monday, that just means...

Stutsman: Morning and afternoon?

Lacina: Yes, let's do it.

Pillard: On the 2nd and 9th, you want 2 3 hour sessions?

Bolkcom: 9 to 12 and 1:30 to 3:30 or something.

Lacina: OK. And on the 9th?

Duffy: 2nd and the 9th, did you say?

Stutsman: 9 to 12 and 1 to 3:30?

Bolkcom: How about 1:30 to 3:30?

Jordahl: Yeah.

Lacina: OK.

Jordahl: That's only 2 hours. 4:30, you mean.

Bolkcom: I'm trying to break the rules here. I don't...

Jordahl: 8:30 to 11:30 and one to 4.

Lacina: Let's just pick up any spill over into another day if we have to. We can do it after...

Pillard: You want Mondays and Fridays in the mornings then also, or not?

Lacina: Just the 2nd and the 9th.

Pillard: You want to do everybody in those 2 days?

Lacina: If we can. And any spill overs that we can't...

Bolkcom: There's no way we're going to be able to do them in those... She's saying 7 3 hour blocks. We've only done 4 here.

Pillard: Roughly guessing you're going to need 15 to 20 hours.

Stutsman: How about the 7th in the afternoon?

Bolkcom: Sure.

Duffy: I'm going to have to check...

Jordahl: The afternoon as opposed to the morning? Or in addition to the morning?

Stutsman: No. I'm just suggesting the afternoon for right now. If somebody wants to...

Lacina: At 1:30 on the 7th?

Stutsman: How about the 10th in the afternoon too?

Bolkcom: Sure.

Lacina: I have a MECCA Finance Board meeting on the 10th. About 4:30. Now we could go one to 4.

Stutsman: 1:30 to 4.

Bolkcom: One to 4 on the 10th.

Stutsman: OK. That's one, 2,3,4,5,6. We have one more.

Pillard: Did you want to go the morning on the 10th or not?

Stutsman: No. We have Board meeting that night. That gets just to be too long (inaudible).

Bolkcom: How about the 16th?

Lacina: How long do you want to run.

Bolkcom: 9.

Lacina: 9?

Bolkcom: 9 to 12 on the 16th?

Lacina: OK.

Stutsman: OK.

Bolkcom: So lets start over (inaudible) and see how many hours we got. 9 to 12 on the 2nd. What's the afternoon?

Stutsman: One to 3:30, 1:30 to...

Lacina: 1:30...

Bolkcom: 1:30 to 3:30...

Jordahl: Nothing on the 30th then?

Stutsman: Doesn't sound like it.

Bolkcom: Not yet. Then on the 7th. 1:30 to 4. Or 3:30.

Pillard: 3:30 or 4?

Bolkcom: Lets say 4. Is that all right?

Stutsman: Yes.

Lacina: Yes.

Bolkcom: And then on the 9th, 9 to 12. And 1:30 to 3:30?

Duffy: (Inaudible).

Lacina: This is December.

Bolkcom: We're in December. We're on the 16th, 9 to 12. I'm sorry, one to 4 on the 10th.

Jordahl: 1:30?

Bolkcom: I'm sorry, 1:30. We'll, it could be one. because we're not going to meet...

Jordahl: Uh-huh. OK, one o'clock to 4 on the 10th.

Bolkcom: And then on the 16th, 9 to 12. I bet that gets us pretty close.

Pillard: Yes, I think so. I'll type all this up, and...

Jordahl: Is there nothing on the 3rd or 4th of December?

Stutsman: No.

Pillard: 4th, no. 3rd no.

Bolkcom: Does this include a work session on roads? Do we want to try and schedule...

Pillard: That would have to be separate I'm assuming because Secondary Roads I think he only said 30 minutes actually.

Lacina: Lets just tell Mike soon as he's ready we'll take (inaudible) work session.

Pillard: Unless you want to set aside some Friday mornings in case you need them fine, if not, it's up to you.

Jordahl: This 21 figure, Joe. If I'm counting hours in here we haven't got 21 hours yet.

Bolkcom: I didn't know that.

Pillard: I was just guessing because some departments didn't even give me time so that was just me guessing.

Lacina: But like McGinley for example, probably won't take a full block.

Bolkcom: That'll be 3 hours alone.

Jordahl: We may have a discussion with him yet.

Lacina: Leo's may not take a long time.

Pillard: He guessed about 30 minutes. You got to figure questions. I'm assuming in that 30 minutes 15 minute presentation. Questions from the Board.

Lacina: In the past, like the Treasurer hasn't taken a great deal time, I mean some of those are going to...

Bolkcom: Heck, we can do that out in the hall. All right. Well this is a good start. I guess start planning to (inaudible) those in. I guess we get into this, we see we need more time we can add.

Pillard: OK.

Bolkcom: All right.

Pillard:(Inaudible).

Bolkcom: Do we want to add and additional back up time, the 14th?

Pillard: I would (inaudible) to schedules (inaudible)...

Stutsman: I agree.

Pillard: If we need it fine, if we don't, a free afternoon.

Jordahl: It's either the 4th or the 14th.

Bolkcom: How about the 16th in the afternoon?

Stutsman: OK.

Lacina: Yes. 1:30?

Bolkcom: 1:30 to 3:30. Lets say that's the valve time. Leave that alone. If we don't need it we won't use it.

Pillard: All right. Thank you.

Bolkcom: We're going to talk the budget now, so stick with us. Good morning Tom.

County Auditor Tom Slockett: Good morning.

Bolkcom: We're down to item number I: Discussion regarding the FY 2000 budget. Sally and Jonathan.

Stutsman: Subcommittee met yesterday. We kind of made some minor changes to the forms. Tom, I don't know if you have those 2 copies to hand out to people. But I think we're pretty well set on going with them. We just incorporated some of the changes that were suggested at the meeting. Jonathan, you had just one change on the computer technology?

Jordahl: Yes, it's a fairly substantial one, though. The computer technology form you will recognize having a variety of columns specific to the concerns that came out of the computer implementation process. The simple change to this we changed this to a blank piece of paper here and put the computer requests on the capital expenditures worksheet. I talked with Jean about that this morning, and she's OK with doing that. If she needs further detail within her department she can certainly welcome to keep track of whatever records she needs to. But in terms of requests that the departments need to make they can make requests for computer technology on this form. Tom raised a concern with that this morning that the limit typically in capital expenditures budgets is $500 or more, so that would suggest such things as perhaps computer maintenance contracts should be budgeted within the departments budgets. But we could still have all of those things requested here, or we could write a memo clarifying that the maintenance contracts and other consumables or items that should be within the departments budget's as opposed to the capital expenditures budget. With regard to the form we can put everything on the existing form rather than complicating things any further.

Lacina: Did we put useful life?

Jordahl: Yes. Estimated useful life. It's a fine form. If you don't have a copy of that we should get you one.

Slockett: I think there might be some more changes. If we (inaudible) it here. For example, there is some useful information on this form that isn't incorporated that could be on the form. Such as whether it's replacing existing equipment or new equipment. There's actually this whole section here, is it funded by grant money. I think this is information that might be useful to the Board in making its decision on whether or not to approve it. That could be incorporated. I think that the subcommittee ought to meet and talk about the forms again.

Stutsman: OK.

Slockett: Before they finally go ahead with them.

Stutsman: Did the Board want to have a discussion about the cars in department budgets. Subcommittee talked about this a little bit yesterday. Basically it was a recommendation that the cars be put in the capital projects budget and taken out at the individual department's budget. I don't know how the Board feels about that. The main discussion centers around the Sheriff, the Roads and the Health Department their cars and where they put them in there budgets. If they include them in the regular or if they put them in Capital Expenditures budget.

Bolkcom: Tom, could you review for the Board how capital funds are expended?

Slockett: OK, well...

Bolkcom: Say we move all the cars in there and the Department's ready to make their purchase. Could you review for the Board...

Slockett: How it's currently done?

Bolkcom: How it's currently done and how it will be done if it's not the same as how it's currently done.

Slockett: OK, well do you want to use the Sheriff as (inaudible).

Bolkcom: You can use anybody you want.

Slockett: OK, well the Sheriff currently has ongoing expenditures every year in it's budget for cars and they consider cars as their operational budget because they regularly make the purchases. So that's how... They budget for it within their departmental budget. It's specified by a line item and so forth. It's clear how much of it is for cars and so forth. If we treated all capital expenditures the same, then that would be included on our capital expenditure worksheet, in which the individual cars are tracked and the money is accumulated over time. The replacement, estimated useful life, is included. It's tracked and the money would be accumulated, not in a general fund, but would be accumulated in the capital expenditure fund and expended. It could be handled either way.

Bolkcom: Right. So the question is for using the Sheriff's Department, the Sheriff budget is 100,000 a year for cars. They're going to spend 100,000 this year, next... We're not necessarily going to accumulate money here because they're going to have this constant expense.

Jordahl: That's true.

Bolkcom: OK, so now the money is in the capital fund. They report they want 6 cars. That's 100,000, just like last year and just like next year. Now they want to buy the 6 cars with the 100,000. They basically... They have a line in the capital fund for those cars. Does that come to the Board? I want to know the logistics of being able to spend the money. If it's in my budget as the Sheriff, I spend the money. Now I've put it in the capital fund. What's the logistical question there.

Slockett: Well, it would be the same thing. The Board approves the budget for expenditure each year. Then the department would submit the claim with the appropriate account numbers. Then when the Board approved it, it would come out of the capital expenditure fund, instead of out of the general fund. But the process would be exactly the same.

Bolkcom: OK, so for the department head there would be no change in their...

Slockett: Well I don't want to say there's no change. There really is a huge difference in flexibility and who has it. For example, the way it is now, if a tornado hit or something and the Sheriff had a priority to repair a shed or something like that, they could delay the purchase of the cars between fiscal years. It would be a substantial amount of money and then free up... They would have the flexibility to spend that in another way because it would be beneath their appropriated level, the level of appropriation they have. If it was in the capital project fund, they would need to go to the Board and discuss it with them and get the Board to approve it. So it's a matter of... So there's some individual discretion. Individual departmental discretion is increased a little bit when they can make those decisions themselves without conferring with the Board as opposed to needing to confer with the Board about it.

Lacina: Well, let's take the example of where they didn't spend it one year. They... hypothetical number, 80,000 for an ambulance. That Ambulance places 40,000 in that account. At the end of the year, instead of rolling into the general fund, it's encumbered so it stays there and they can actually save up for that second year. Then at that time, expend. But it says in the mean time, if there's something else... They want a van or something, they can't use that money. It has to go for that ambulance.

Stutsman: Right.

Lacina: So it helps like on a dozer or something that has a long life. We can build up instead of having it all hit us one year.

Jordahl: I think the example of the Sheriff's Department is important because they're already budgeting for cars and have been. They have this constant consuming of cars. Other departments... Auditor's Office has elections vans which have been around for a while, and there's no annual replacement of those. It's clearer in that case, that you'd have a slow accumulation of money over the expected life of a vehicle which really doesn't get very hard use. Then replacement would become possible. You'd want to accumulate this money each year. Take a department that had perhaps... Secondary Roads has a longer time between purchasing a large snowplow or something and you want to accumulate that money over time. The same thing would be happening in the Sheriff's department in the case of each individual vehicle, which might have a 5 year life expectancy. The money would be larded into the account in capital expenditures for that vehicle over those 5 years. Even though it might be a constant rate of expenditure for some vehicle each year, the savings would still be going on in that department, even though the balance might not change dramatically.

Lacina: It should smooth the tax asking.

Stutsman: Right and the Board just needs to make...

Lacina: Instead of seeing blitz, it would make it more gradual.

Bolkcom: A decision about it...

Stutsman: ...a decision how we're going to do this because there's just this confusion about whether we want to put all the vehicles in the capital expenditure fund or keep it in people's budgets. I think we just need to make a policy statement and go from there.

Jordahl: Now, with regard to the flexibility question... if the Sheriff's department had some expenditure that came up... we just had a big storm, but what ever it was, where they wanted some money and we didn't want to have to take it out of the general fund... The remaining question is could they retrieve the flexibility that they have now and tap into these capital expenditure funds. I'm not arguing that they should be able to do that, I'm just wondering, practically speaking...

Bolkcom: The Board would have to approve it.

Jordahl: Our policy would be, whatever it would be, would be determined by the Board.

Bolkcom: Right, it's earmarked for cars, it ought to be cars.

Duane Lewis Sheriff's Department Captain: I just have a question, almost the reverse of that. Are we guaranteed that money that we can spend at any time during the year? Someone isn't going to come with an urgent need and ask you to cut into this capital expenditures, which is actually cutting into our cars. I would hate to lose the fact that we had the flexibility. Where we send the voucher may not necessarily be the question. The fact that money is encumbered for our department and we have the spending of it for vehicles is very important.

Stutsman: I understand your concern, Duane. It's been brought up before. I can only speak for this Board but I think the Board has been very good not... To realize those are funds and this isn't just a source that when we get in a bind, we can just raid those funds. I would hope that future Boards would view those funds as the same way.

Lacina: Although Duane speaks from experience in that the Board, in the past, I think it was the year of the tax freeze, we did roll into your budget. We ripped the cars out and then struggled years to get back to...

Lewis: Actually it was almost the reverse. The Board came and ask us if we could do that because of problems they had.

Stutsman: Well it's not to say it could never happen but I guess this is one Board member that that would be the absolute last resort.

Lacina: When you do that what happens is you're then living off the depreciation of that equipment. When you go to trade everything is used up more. It costs you.

Bolkcom: All right, what about roads. Roads department.

Lacina: On rolling stock and on things, not maintenance agreements or contracts or service related things, but if it's a piece of metal or something that has a life expectancy or obsolescence date, I would like to see it all rolled into those areas.

Stutsman: Into the capital...

Bolkcom: Piece of metal?

Lacina: For example, a road grader, something that's solid, our trucks, anything that's depreciable, that we consume over time, should be set off in increments.

Stutsman: So we're going to say the same for the Health Department too, as far as their vehicles?

Bolkcom: And conservation...

Stutsman: OK.

Bolkcom: Everybody.

Stutsman: Everybody that has vehicles. OK ,we talked a little bit about multi-year budgeting and decided that it's a good idea. We want to do it, but this is not the year to do it. That's something that we want to keep talking about and pursue as...

Slockett: In effect, we're doing it in the capital expenditure of several projects.

Stutsman: But we're not...

Slockett: But not overall.

Stutsman: Yes.

Slockett: We're sort of phasing it in.

Lacina: You realize as Deanna sets up the initial base, this year is going to take a lot of work to get things set up by the different functions. Future years will be easier but her load this fall is going to be quite intense getting everything set up. Thankfully Tom and Chris are helping move some of that forward. This will be a tough year for her.

Slockett: (Inaudible).

Stutsman: Budget amendments... How do we want to handle those? There was just general confusion about whether they should be included or whatnot. We need to make a decision on if we're going to exclude the budget that the departments put those amendments that they just had approved or if we're going to include those in their base budget.

Jordahl: I suggested some distinction between something that the Board approves as an on going expenditure, a new position for example, and along with that, a grant that might have a given term, which we know is going to continue for multiple years and a budget amendment that we made for some purpose that was transient in some was. That was a one time expenditure. I'm not sure, I think there was some discussion last time we talked about this that it was not... There aren't going to be very many things in that category, that wouldn't continue to need to be expended. Anybody have anything to say about that?

Bolkcom: So the proposal was leave all the amendments out so we're comparing apples to apples from a tax certification stand point or budget certified stand point. But if those are just going to get added back in...

Slockett: Yes, the problem is then all the other considerations about incremental increases and so forth are made irrelevant if the amendments are then thrown in. One possibility would be to have Deana, or someone on your staff, check with the departments and find out if there's any part of the amendments that aren't expected to be on going and to continue. Obviously each amendment is different and it's difficult to capitalize. The other thing is, if you're pretty sure they are ongoing from the amendment process that you've gone through before to include them but otherwise people are making all kinds of distinctions about one % increments. It's information that's totally not useful at all. (Inaudible).

Bolkcom: Do you have a recommendation?

Slockett: Well...

Bolkcom: Is that your recommendation, to find out what's on going?

Slockett: My recommendation would be to look to include them if you feel already that they are going to be on going expenditures or to have every department who wants to have it included to call up Deana and give her the information as to why. Then she could bring that before you and you could decide whether or not you wanted to include it. That would be a way to look at them individually. There may be a department that has an amendment that is one time amount. I don't know. I'm not aware of it.

Lacina: That's really going to skew your performance measures though. Like Linn County when they look and they say we want a 3% variance, it's on what's certified. If you start letting departments come in an amend, then suddenly your comparing apples to oranges. You have skewed the whole process and over a time period, what you want to know is what your tax base is growing and the history of that department. I would suggest that initially you leave the amendments out and go off of certification. If you want to put it in there, you knowingly do that but then you're going to see that that department had a 5% increase in that time period. You've got something to measure it against. If you go the other way and you put the amendment in, then I don't know how you track all the different departments because, in effect, you've given them that freebee. You'll encourage amendments.

Stutsman: And that's my concern that people come in off the budget cycle and get increases.

Slockett: Except, let me throw in... What about the salary survey? This is something the Board has decided to do. It's clear that these are going to be on going. In many instances, it's going to be in excess of the 5%, which is going to mean that all the work of figuring out the one % increments will be for no purpose.

Bolkcom: We need to add that in. The salary survey needs to be in.

Lacina: I disagree. I think the tax payer has the right to know that we did, we took an adjustment. The reason is because we saw we were under the marketplace. I could defend that saying yes we gave an above the 3%, or whatever it was. But why would you not?

Bolkcom: We tax for that.

Jordahl: We tax for that. We budgeted the money for the salary survey.

Lacina: OK, then it's going to be shown.

Bolkcom: (Inaudible).

Lacina: But say that it's not. They come in and they amend for it. Then its coming out of your reserves and at that point, it should be shown.

Bolkcom: No it's not.

Slockett: I think we're getting... We're not being clear on the difference between the budget document as a planning document and the budget document as a historical document. If we're talking about what the departments are proposing for next year's budget and we're asking them to break it down into one % increments of their increases and then all of a sudden you throw in an amendment that everyone knows has got to be included, that's why you amended the budget in the middle of the year, then they'll have to do that work all over again to get the one % increments...

Jordahl: I have a suggestion.

Slockett: ...won't be relevant.

Jordahl: I have a suggestion that I think will shed light on this. It goes to the phrasing that you used about people getting to the head of the line by coming in in July and asking for a budget amendment. We could treat the budget amendments that occurred during the fiscal year as if they were part of the next year's budget consideration. We would not give any increment on top of those amendments. Say OK, fine. You've gotten to the head of the line. That's your consideration. That is your budget for that item for the following fiscal year. We will calculate the increase that we choose to give you based on your certified budget as of last March. Before they calculate what the items are that they can afford, they would add back in the budget amendments so they would know what the total dollar amount was they were working with for the departmental budget.

Bolkcom: I think that makes sense. I think that makes sense.

Slockett: The feedback you were getting from the department heads was not along those lines. Duane might be able to...

Lewis: That's what I'm here to speak for because every year it becomes a real problem. Just like Tom said, you send out forms that I have to make assumptions on and change the numbers to work with real dollars. My budget as amended, which hasn't happened very often, is all reoccurring. Everybody knows it's reoccurring. I can't legitimately fill out your forms without making all these assumptions and keep writing it in and every year come down and try to explain that it's not off of the print outs that were given to you.

Jordahl: What I am suggesting there is just that the calculation would be fairly simple. You would work with the budget as amended plus the additional % increments of the certified budget as of the previous March. You would just add to the total amount that % increase based only on the certified amount, not on the amended amount.

Bolkcom: Right, that makes sense. That way you don't get to take the benefit. Say your budget amendment was 150,000. If you use that to calculate your one through 5% increase for 2000 budget, then you're at an advantage over somebody that didn't have an amendment. That person is going to calculate their one through 5% on this old number. You've got a new base number, or in this hypothetical example, that would give you some advantage, if that's the concern.

Lewis: Well I can see for one time occurrences but I am assuming the Board doesn't make amendments unless they've already determined that this is a legitimate need, either reoccurring or not reoccurring. My only... Maybe it's statistical or trying to present it, rather than you folks trying to track it because I understand that too. But the forms that Tom gives me I have to change around in order to come up with a new budget proposal. Regardless, if that's been approved and in its reoccurring form, however you statistically explain it, it's still where I start from, because I've lived off that budget this year.

Slockett: Let me give it another shot. One way to look at it is Duane knows that his base line budget is that amended budget. For him then to go back and pretend like it isn't, that it was the other budget before it was amended and make all of his budget proposals based on that is simply busy work. It's not related to reality. It seems like a lot of extra work for no reason.

Lewis: I may have to come up showing you that the 3 or 4% increment you're telling me to protect next year's budget on is already gone.

Bolkcom: Yes, well I'm saying we should make a determination on budget amendments that are going to go forward, and most of them are. All right? But for that department that got that amendment on the real dollar increase for this budget, it would be based on the certified budget, not this additional money. Go ahead and fill out the forms with the new people and all that. Acknowledge that those things are in, but look at it from a raw dollar perspective. Give the %age based on the certified, not on the amended.

Slockett: On the spreadsheets and all of those things, all the other statistics you have it will show the whole increase because you've got to show what the impact is on the tax levies that you levied from the previous year. You levied at the original amount. That would still be there.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Slockett: But I'm just trying... I can see both arguments. You're saying if we gave you an increase in the middle of the year, then you should be willing to go into this extra effort to explain. You shouldn't consider that you'll get automatically 5% over that because you've already gotten something after 6 months.

Jordahl: Because it's in the middle of the year.

Slockett: Yes, it's in the middle of the year. At the same time, I can understand the other argument, which is this is the reality. We have the labor contract that went into effect. We have a new paradigm here. We've got new numbers and our proposals have to be proposed in that realistic light not based on pre-contract negotiation budget amendments. It seems sort of silly to base a budget on those considerations when they are, in fact, no longer valid.

Lacina: So you're saying basically that the %age of increase would go off of the certified budget but the labor in this example would not be counted against that.

Bolkcom: That's right.

Lacina: Well that makes sense.

Bolkcom: I say ripple all the amendments through.

Lacina: So it would be new money.

Bolkcom: Right. So if the budget's 1,000,000 and it went to a 1,500,000 as a result of the amendments, any increase for next year, that 5%, would be based on 1,000,000, not 1,500,000.

Lacina: But you'd still have the budget amendment of the 1,500,000, which is in there, plus we'd look at the 3% above that. But we're not factoring, say it was 3%, on the budget amendment because that would give them an advantage over the other departments. We want some type of thing to make them plan down the road and you couldn't on this one, but a (inaudible) for budget amendments. We want it all to come through the process.

Stutsman: Right. I think that's what the Board is trying to get at is to make a level playing field for everybody. That when we consider these amendments out of the budget cycle, it's not comparing everybody at the same time. I think the Board has some concerns about being fair to everybody.

Jordahl: Another way of saying the same thing is that your certified budget reflects a time when we, to the best of our ability, weighed all the department's needs together and said this is the way it should be spread out. To include the budget amendments would be sort of to second guess ourselves about what was fair then. Another way of looking at it would be to say that a budget amendment is a way of stepping in and saying let's look forward to the next fiscal year. We're going to need this, but we need it now. So it's a way of saying we really, in some real objectifiable sense, are funding things on our budget cycle. So in this case, increases are based on the certified budget. I think it's a nice incentive to budget things for the whole year and (inaudible). The Sheriff's department is problematic in 2 senses here because of these union negotiations this year.

Bolkcom: We need to draw this down, if you can with this.

Jordahl: Yes, because of the way that you've always been handling vehicles in a way that is in fact capital budgeting to begin with. I think all of the questions that we've been discussing would have been much more clear using any other department, as an example, than yours because of the anomaly this year because of the labor contract.

Bolkcom: All right, cars are in capital expenditures, budget amendments are in... We need to do a survey to figure that out and maybe for those departments that had budget amendments the first question, when they meet with the Board is, tell us about the amendment. I would also suggest that any budget amendments in the future, this is kind of off this topic, that people indicate is it on going or not on going so we begin to track these very early in the process for next time. All right. The forms are coming together. Do the forms need some sort of explanation, some narrative. Duane has raised some question about understanding. Others will too.

Slockett: We're working on explanations, on instructions, for each form.

Jordahl: Yes, we're going to have to have something specific to the computer part of the capital expenditures.

Bolkcom: In computer technology. All right, let's put this on again next Tuesday. The things about the cars and some of these things, we need to report out in the amendments as quickly as we can if people are working on budgets now. We need to...

Slockett: Well we haven't distributed the forms yet.

Bolkcom: All right. OK.

Slockett: Is there a way we could put it on for Thursday? We could possibly get the forms out...

Bolkcom: We could visit more Thursday if the Board would like to do that.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: That's a good idea.

Bolkcom: OK. We'll do it Thursday. All right, anything else on this?

Duffy: I would say for my vote, I'd rather have the cars in the individual budgets.

Bolkcom: OK. Thank you.

Jordahl: They can't accumulate money though in their individual budgets. It has to be in a capital expenditures budget to make that a multi-year process.

Duffy: But still, I think that way we can keep track by each department how much it costs every year. It's just my opinion, Jonathan.

Bolkcom: Thank you. Before we go to executive session, is there any discussion from members of the public? I'm seeing none.

Motion by Lacina, second by Duffy, to enter Executive Session at 11:40 a.m. to discuss collective bargaining strategy for the Department of Social Services under section 20.17(3), Code of Iowa: "negotiating sessions, strategy meetings of public employees... shall be exempt from the provisions of chapter 21 (Official Meetings Open to the Public)." Roll call: aye: Bolkcom, Jordahl, Stutsman, Lacina, Duffy.

Recessed at 11:40 a.m.; reconvened at 11:46 a.m.

Motion by Stutsman, second by Bolkcom, to leave Executive Session at 11:55 a.m. Roll call: aye: Bolkcom, Jordahl, Stutsman, Lacina, Duffy.

(Continued in Part 5)