Bolkcom: Item A on the informal meeting this morning is business from Bob Welsh. Chairman of the Johnson County Board of Social Welfare/Cluster Board. He has a report for us this morning. Good morning.

Johnson County Board of Social Welfare/Cluster Board Chairperson Bob Welsh: Good morning. Let me begin by expressing appreciation to you for the fact that you appointed me to the Board of Social Welfare/Cluster Board and other areas and it's something that I enjoy doing very much. I spent the last 2 days in Des Moines at the Council on Human Services. You might remember that we made 2 recommendations to the Council on Human Services. One had to do with childcare rates and increasing the childcare rates. Unfortunately that was not even discussed. It was not a part of the consideration. The good news is though that the childcare funding for the coming year is being recommended to be increased overall and the eligibility limits increased from 125% of poverty to 140%. In the case of special needs it would increase to 175%. So there is funding for more childcare. They did not address what we think is a problem, namely that there is a flat uniform rate for daycare throughout the state and the fact that it costs more in urban areas than it does in rural areas with Iowa. The second recommendation we had presented to them was to increase the FIP cash grant which has not been increased since 1991. This did make it into the booklet for consideration but was not a part of the director's recommendations. And contrary to our recommendation which suggested that the increase be tied to the consumer price index. Staff had just put in a 5% increase. Our feeling was that that would not fly and it did not fly. The good news on that though is that the Council on Human Services did direct the director to put that item in the budget so that it would be revisited next year. There was several persons there that really supported the idea and even quoted from our presentation saying that the present FIP grants only worth about $.76 of what they were back in 1991. So that's to bring you up to date on those 2 things. As a Board Cheryl shared with the Board an information booklet that has been produced on the State Has My Child, What Can I Do? You might remember the Cluster Board last year had expressed the hope that this kind of information would become available Jonathan you remember that. There now is a very nice booklet on that.

Stutsman: Excuse me Bob, who put that booklet together. Was it the local office or was it the State?

Welsh: State.

Stutsman: OK.

Welsh: Cheryl had a copy of the Empowerment Area application and there was some positive comments made about that by members of the Board. Let me say I found out at the meeting of the council on Human Services that they have received letters of intent on the Empowerment from 98 of the Counties. Idaho county evidently did not want in.

Duffy: Ida.

Stutsman: Which County Bob?

Lacina: You mean Ida County.

Welsh: Ida, Ida. Idaho.

Lacina: That's the potato state.

Welsh: I didn't know where that was. All of the letters of intent are from Counties except 2 are from school districts. They have received 28 applications covering 51 counties requesting 9 million dollars in dollars and they plan to distribute approximately 3 million at this time. Mr. Palmer who is the director of the department indicated that there is real interest in shifting the process and moving to block grants for the Empowerment Area. Other items that we discussed at our last meeting was a questionnaire to the candidates for Governor. I showed you all of that before. What we decided was we would send those out subject to any possible revision in light of the meetings that I attended Tuesday and Wednesday in Des Moines. There is one item that I am going to be recommending and Sally I would appreciate your suggestions as to how this could be worded. Because again the whole question of legal settlement came up as it relates to the care for persons in the MH/DD and so how that could be worded is something I would like some help on. On the transition, Empowerment Area Board application again we were pleased that in that application it was noted that there was a request for $20,000 to assist with startup expenses for 20 childcare homes and offering incentives and technical assistance and support to existing and new day care providers. It was noted that there were 37 applicants for the membership on the Board. There was agreement on our part that if there was a desire to add other citizens who did not apply that they should be added but that all citizens who applied should be appointed. The Board agreed that 2 items on the steering committee agenda for this afternoon should be on an agenda for the Transition Board rather than on the steering committee's agenda. That's namely the development of a work plan and establishing a meetings schedule. It seemed to me those activities should be done by the Board and not by the steering committee. We reviewed the information that Cheryl Whitney had provided you on the space needs. There was sure agreement on the part that we would convey to your our conviction that the department of Human Services is in need of additional and more accessible space. Also our offer to help provide citizen input in that process. The whole idea of collocation with the department of Health, promised jobs, Human Service complex were mentioned. In relation to the budget, Cheryl informed us that you all have requested department's budgets by October 23rd. The procedure that we have set in motion is that any of the Board members that have items that they wish for Cheryl to consider in her draft will e-mail those to her. And that Cheryl then have a proposed draft that we'll consider at our October 12th meeting and then make recommendations to her and in turn to you concerning budget items. We did not have the opportunity to discuss the downtown multipurpose social service center since Bob Simpson who's working on that was not present due to a health problem. On the Johnson County Working Parent Child care Provider's Project, we have asked Susan Lawson who has been the lead person on that to make contacts with the legislators in the name of the Johnson County Board of Social Welfare Cluster Board. Some contact that she has had with some of the State legislators indicate there is an interest in seeking to get the legislators to approve a pilot project of that nature. We would hope at that point when you all meet with the legislators that if there could be a 5 minute time slot where Susan could collectively remind all of them of this need that would be appreciated. Those are the things we discussed. If there's any of those things that you don't want us to do or if there's other things that'd you want us to do, please let us know.

Bolkcom: Very good. Any questions for Bob or comments?

Duffy: Appreciate the report.

Jordahl: Do you have a copy of this booklet, The State has my Child, What can I Do?

Welsh: I do not. Cheryl had some and it was...

Jordahl: I'll talk to Cheryl.

Welsh: It's a very appealing looking book.

Stutsman: I think that's good. Put that together.

Jordahl: We should have it for reference here in the office. Try and get one.

Welsh: This grew out of... I'm not saying we're responsible for that. But we're ones that did raise a real serious concern when Jonathan represented you all on the Cluster Board. We had meetings that we involved a lot of citizens. This quite frankly was the issue that really surfaced. Much to our surprise was, what happens when the state comes in and takes my child. What rights, some real sense of confusion. At least our feeling was at the time that that occurs, persons are in such a traumatic state that they often don't hear what is said and they need all the help and support that they can have, because that's a very traumatic experience.

Bolkcom: Thank you, Bob. I appreciate it.

Bolkcom: Item B, reports and inquiries from members of the public. Is there anybody wish to address the Board on any topic of interest.

Welsh: May I say one thing? I appreciated the meeting that you all had last night with the County (inaudible). I hope that all the persons heard what I heard (inaudible) said. Which is, that the sales tax would have far greater chances of passing if it was very clear that the nature of many of the projects that would made possible by that sales tax. I hope that all of (inaudible) including you all will take that in to account. To move that process in the next month.

Bolkcom: Good point, thanks. All right.

Bolkcom: Item C is reports and inquiries from members of Board of Supervisors. Jonathan do you have a report this morning?

Jordahl: I attended a meeting yesterday afternoon with a number of department heads at the County Attorney's Office to prepare for a negotiations to the Administrative Unit Labor Contract. If members of the Board would like to discuss items of interest there, I'd be happy to meet with individually. Other than that, I assume you'll report on the many interesting matters discussed with Coralville and the Iowa City so I'll pass at that point.

Bolkcom: Thank you. Charlie?

Duffy: Well the joint meeting with Coralville and the Iowa City City Council, School Board. The room was filled up, there was a lot of people there. I agree with Bob, when you talk about one cent sales tax, people would like to know just what it's being spent for. And it has to be for the right thing, if not, forget it. I'm sure that the rest of you have comment. Steve and I met, we're on the world policy Board for the Chamber of Commerce with Economic Development Committee this morning. I thought it was a well attended meeting. A lot of this is value added agriculture. Some of these things were talked about in the past. What we're trying to do is, the farmers have had a rough time and if there's other ways they can hold on to their farms, have some income other than farming, that's the way it looks to me. Steve might have a different idea. I'm continuing my trying to visit the different departments that we have in the County. I did take a little time yesterday, up at the courthouse that used to be as you walked in the west door, where we stored all those records, and the thing was fallen... You ought to see it now...

Stutsman: The new court room.

Duffy:...that is beautiful. What I like about it is it's a smaller court room, and I think it's for juveniles mostly, isn't it?

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: I think they're going to use it for a variety of things. It just kind of depends. Right now, it's an overflow court room.

Duffy: But the judge is really close to the people. It's just beautiful. If you have a chance maybe you could stop look at it.

Stutsman: Did you get upstairs to the 2nd floor turret room? They've really done a nice job with that room too.

Duffy: Yeah. A lot of people thought when this building's built there goes the court house. But it's busy up there, you couldn't faint and hit the floor. It's real good job done.

Bolkcom: Anything else?

Duffy: I don't think so.

Bolkcom: Thank you Charlie. Sally.

Stutsman: Went to an Empowerment Meeting yesterday morning and afternoon. Joe and I were there for that meeting. The first part of the meeting was devoted to how to get citizens involved in Empowerment process. We talked about first of all the positives of getting citizens involved, the barriers that are encountered, then strategies on how to address those barriers. I thought there were some good ideas that were exchanged. Then the afternoon they talked about how to get the business community involved. There again, just talking about some strategies about how to approach businesses and how to get them involved in that full Empowerment process. Attended the annual Farm Bureau meeting. Charlie was there and Joe and I and Steve. And that's always a good meeting to go to. I heard their discussion on their resolutions for the year and things. Had MH/MR/DD Tuesday night. And had a good presentation about the impact program Johnson County. I guess it was the recommendation of the planning council to bring that contract before the Board for consideration. Jonathan and I met again on the budget sub-committee and we'll be talking about that in our informal meeting. That's it for right now.

Bolkcom: Steve.

Lacina: I agree with Sally. I think Doctor Clancy did a fantastic presentation at the MH/MR meeting and it sounds like an interesting program, had some interesting results as far as his charts showing amounts of inputs and the reaction time and that. I was pleased this week to receive a call from the Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, Dale Cochran. The State has appropriated between 14 and 18 million dollars which will be used for start-up companies and economic development and value added production in Iowa. They way it's set up, David Lyon, who's in charge IED, Iowa Economic Development Commission is going to appoint 5 people, and Dale will be appointing 5 people, and I'm one of the 5 on his side. They'll be 10 of us that'll take grant applications and look at companies and at a state level, try to decide which is the best and which has the greatest and then allocate this money.

Jordahl: That's quite an honor.

Lacina: He said he would be sending more information if I would do it and I said I would be honored to do it. So I really am pleased that he would think of me to do that.

Duffy: That's great Steve.

Jordahl: Congratulations.

Lacina: That's all I have.

Stutsman: Who else was appointed?

Lacina: He didn't say yet. They're just in the process. David's going to put in 5 and Secretary Cochran'll put in 5 and then they'll set up a meeting for us. Finally made it on that.

Bolkcom: I had a couple short reports. As Rick pointed out, our Planning Zoning Administrator, we continue to discuss with the City of Coralville Fringe Area Agreement, there was a meeting yesterday. There's a map being put together so that we can begin to talk about what the areas are, and some really skeletal details about general provisions. Something that hopefully in the next 3 or 4 weeks we will be able to schedule a public meeting for residents on those areas to get a sense of what this draft idea's about. But as you recall as we talked about this we were going to try and seek some public input early in the process. But as we talked about it it seems apparent that we need to at least have something on paper about the various provisions that might be involved so people can react to something as opposed to try and create something from scratch. That's evolving and that'll be coming to the Board. Also attended the Planning and Zoning meeting on Monday night on behalf of the Board. It was interesting, I haven't sat at that table for a while, I found that I was nervous and a little anxious sitting in the audience, coming up to the table. It was a good lesson for me and us in that we kind of sit up here, we're doing this, we're not so nervous after you do this for a while. But people that come to that table, even those that are doing this, coming and speaking before the public a lot, can be nervous and anxious, and it's important I think that we try and make this as informal and comfortable as possible. That was the message I got.

Duffy: Especially on television, Joe...

Bolkcom: That too.

Duffy: A little more nervous about it.

Bolkcom: That too. Good point Charlie. It has been pointed out the Board of Supervisors met with Coralville, Iowa City and the school district last night, had quite a discussion about fringe area. The Board talked about that earlier in the week, and it's our feeling at least at this point, that our County space needs are highest priority in our discussion about any use of any sales tax money, in particular concern about the need for more jail space in the next few years. Space at the Department of Human Services, Courthouse, Health Department, Ambulance. We just have a lot of unmet space needs and that was presented as... We discussed the question of joint projects and the like. I think we articulated that if the County were to spend money on building more jail space it would clearly a project that would benefit all the residents of Johnson County in meeting our law enforcement needs. We need to continue to talk about that. We are meeting again on October 28th at 4:00 and we probably need to have another discussion about the local option tax between now and then to see where we are at.

Stutsman: Do we need to schedule that meeting with Secondary Roads before the...

Bolkcom: We probably do. I know the JCCOG committee is meeting to talk about Deer Creek and Mormon Creek. There's some question about when that report might be out in relationship to this.

Lacina: I think we need to meet with Al and Mike specifically on these 2 roads just the Board. Not the 5 year plan but let's just set off some time and sit down and say what is our intention.

Stutsman: I think we should talk about it in context of the 5 year plan. Doesn't it seem like that makes sense so we know...

Lacina: No. Not in terms of tax asking. If we're going to use local option. Did the question that Ernie asked last night... If we don't get the local option are you committee to fix it? At that point it better be in the 5 year plan, better be in the tax levy. If we're looking at the local option tax as the primary source, when we roll it into the 5 year plan we can do that when we have the meeting later on his fall. But I think first we need to just discuss what is our position on this road?

Jordahl: Could we not collapse those 2 meetings and have our discussion on the 5 year plan earlier?

Lacina: I think everything else would be pushed to the back burner, then.

Bolkcom: I think we can only talk about Deer Creek and its relationship to all the other priorities that we've developed in the 5 year plan. (Inaudible) don't think we can separate it. Because if we say Deer Creek which is not currently in the plan is in the plan, something in the plan is not going to get done. The question for all the entities is what's the priority of this road. Clearly it's high priority for Coralville, Deer Creek that is, appears a little less of a priority for Iowa City.

Lacina: OK. I saw it not as bumping other projects. I saw it if the option tax passed that would be included, and that if we had to outsource for that it would not affect the rest of the 5 year plan for secondary roads. But if your intent is to have it be ranked then right, it needs to be in there.

Jordahl: Things have changed, even since we last looked at the 5 year plan. The mall is built. Traffic is happening out there. The intersection has gone from being 2 lanes going each way to 6, 8, I mean it's quite an intersection out there. The question of viewing it in the context of the 5 year plan is an important part of this and we've got a pretty aggressive time table if Iowa City's putting the local option sales tax initiative on the ballot for March. The question of how that ballot is going to read, this is really what our discussion was about yesterday by way of reporting at the joint meeting, and to pick up Reverend Welsh's point that he's quoting (inaudible) member of the School Board. It is something we've heard with regard to the local option tax and something I believe if there's evidence of joint work of cooperation on issues of public benefit and mutual concern between the various taxing bodies on the ballot that says we are working together and this money will be spent not for continuing expenses but for capital projects that are of clear benefit to people across the County, people will be more supportive of it. And Joe mentioned, for the County, our space needs the jails a primary example of that, is a major priority. But if we can get Coralville, Iowa City, and the County to cooperate on a project like Deer Creek Road and make that part of the initiative I think among other things that will serve as a model for future cooperation. I think it's a real positive direction to take. It isn't to me an either or, the jail or Deer Creek Road. I think we can and should look at doing both as part of what we talk about in any presentation we make on a ballot item talk about space needs and joint cooperation of transportation projects to include possibly Deer Creek Road.

Bolkcom: I don't know if I agree with that or not. We should probably put this on as an agenda item again. We're moving to discussion here. Yes (inaudible).

Welsh: On the sales tax option. I'm a resident of Iowa City and live in Johnson County. How do I vote what the proposition do I vote on? Do I just go on the Iowa City propositions? People in the unincorporated areas vote on the County...

Bolkcom: That's correct. That's right. It would appear to be the case.

Lacina: So if the rural area, say we do have this collaborative project, the rural area is voted it down for the County, and the others are linked, then we need to get our heads together and figure out... And that was one of the questions that came up last night, with the one municipality wanting to enter into 28E agreements so that one link wouldn't kill the project. If 2 signed on and got it passed and the 3rd didn't would they step in and do it with property tax?

Bolkcom: Or road tax.

Lacina: Or road tax?

Bolkcom: All right. That's all I have.

Bolkcom: We are down to item number D, Discussion of the fiscal year 2000 budget. Sally and Jon?

Stutsman: We've continued to revise forms.

Jordahl: We've made some good progress.

Stutsman: Yes we did. We did, we did. We got some good (inaudible) as far as the computer technology and the capital expenditures budget and it was agreed that we will have 2 separate forms.

Jordahl: 2 separate but identical forms. How about that?

Stutsman: Right. So that there won't be as much confusion. Jean will be getting the computer technology budget and will be making those expenditures out of the computer technology budget trying to get away from some of the bookkeeping nightmares down in the Auditor's Office and trying to keep it as simple as we can. Anything to add to that Jonathan?

Jordahl: The idea of the 2 separate but identical forms is that the capital expenditures is a multi-year (inaudible) lines of depreciation where there's a column on here that talks about expected life or useful life of the item. Generally refers to bigger ticket items that might have a longer life span. The technology budget in some cases we need to include smaller items that wouldn't typically occur in a capital budget like printers modems and so forth that are smaller cost. But we do want to track those items. Rather than out those small items into capital expenditures which takes a lot of work down in the Auditor's Office, if we just put them all in one budget and continue to track them for each individual department in terms of looking at the total cost of what that department's operations are, then we'll accomplish both goals: we'll be able to have the long term projects (inaudible) capital expenditures and then deal with any additional money that may be remaining in the computer technology budget at the end of the year as to whether to move into capital expenditures or not.

Stutsman: We just met this morning, so Tom is revising those forms and he'll get...

Pillard: (Inaudible).

Stutsman: Oh, he has the revisions?

Pillard: I don't know he's working on them.

Stutsman: The other discussion, oh I'm sorry...

Bolkcom: Before we leave this. In terms then for the department that has some computer technology in their budget proper they'd continue to do that?

Jordahl: Those items should be requested in the computer technology worksheet. They'll be an instruction sheet with that. But the computer technology items other than consumables, paper, labels and so forth... 100 dollar cut off I think was mentioned should be on the computer technology worksheet and not in the departmental...

Bolkcom: So the information services is going to approve any expenditure over 100 dollars? Is that what we're saying?

Stutsman: I guess...

Bolkcom: The other question is: In terms of the instructions about base year if we're making a change here...

Stutsman: The (inaudible)?

Bolkcom: No.

Jordahl: No. The 1% increase on the base.

Bolkcom: No. I'm talking about, we have currently departments budgeting some computer stuff in their budgets, and now you're saying they're going to budget on these sheets. We've given instruction that people come in for no increase for next year, those dollars are already in the '99 budget, or the 2000 budget, we're working on the 2001 budget. How does it relate to those dollars?

Jordahl: That's a good question. I guess there wouldn't be any problem with listing them in the general department request, so long as it would ultimately fund them into the separate fund where we intend them to be. That didn't get accomplished this year through misunderstanding. But our intent is to accomplish that.

Lacina: So a dollar amount will still be within the deportment for computer equipment, appropriation would still be made for the department. But it would be tracked through his technology?

Jordahl: Right, tracked through the technology budget. When you ask we come again to next year, what's the base for the following year's budget process. It would draw upon the items that were highlighted for the department in the (inaudible) technology fund. That would be reflected as the cost of the department.

Bolkcom: We need to make sure the departments are clear on that.

Stutsman: They'll be instruction sheet that will go out with that.

Lacina: Otherwise you're right. There would be confusion. They could submit a zero increase budget and have what they perceive as the technology dollars in there and then we would try to pick up the technology dollars somewhere else and have a double...

Stutsman: As far as approving everything, I think Jean just wants to make sure that if somebody buys a software package that it's compatible with what we already have and that she is able to maintain it if that's what they're asking to do or provide support for it. I don't know if it's necessarily approval just to make sure that's compatible.

Jordahl: That's kind of the perception problem. If people having to go to Jean and ask for things. I think if something is compatible with the 5 year plan it should slide through automatically. It's not a question of coming and begging for something.

Bolkcom: OK.

Jordahl: The other item that I think is important and was really a successful piece of work and I hope you agree with us on this, is regarding this very question of what is the base budget and how do you request a one year increase on it in view of the amendments that have occurred within this calendar year? Within this fiscal year. The idea of people getting ahead of the line, was struggled with. We came up with a solution with saying, as we've suggested before, start with the certified budget from March, your increases are based on that, include then all of the amendments that were made during the year as part of your increase. There would be a column for the amendments. These are the amendments that occurred during this year. Those will be viewed as part of the percentage increase which the department is receiving for the next fiscal year. Additional increases that they want on top of that would then be listed as additional percentages of increase over their certified budget. We will then see in our paperwork before us, all of the amendments that were made.

Lacina: You lost me.

Jordahl: All right, well let's back up. Here's your certified budget for March of '98, certain number of dollars. During the year, amendments were made.

Stutsman: You would have to have...

Jordahl: There will be a column on the form that we don't now have unless Tom's here with it.

Slockett: Actually we do.

Bolkcom: OK, great. I didn't see you.

Slockett: Only one, though.

Bolkcom: You may want to chip in here, Tom. Tom, do you want to come up to the table and you can run through...

Stutsman: And Deana, why don't you come on up to.

Slockett: It just came off the printer as I came up the stairs.

Bolkcom: So the increase is figured off the amended amount, or no?

Jordahl: No. The increase is figured off the base amount. But the amended amount is there as past of an increase. It's basically viewed as an increase for the following year. So it will be listed as a percentage increase.

Slockett: Or is the requested increase for the following year. The idea is when people amend their budgets in the middle of the year, they're getting a head start on the available funds for the following budget process. This recognizes that. If they've gotten a 4% increase since the last time taxes were levied, their amended budget is already asking for a 4% increase from the viewpoint of the taxpayers they're already asking for a 4% increase, and if they're asking for 3% more than that, they're asking for 7, they're not asking for 4. That way, with the percentage increase lines have meaning. The way we were doing it before, say if you approved already a budget increase for 5%, then they're filling out a form 1, 2, 3, 4 % those are already obviated by the fact they've already received a 5% increase if you're going to approve their budget. This way they're doing meaningful work when they fill out these forms. It's recognizing what percentage increase they have already achieved through their budget amendment process; and then if they're asking for additional funds over that, it'll be a 1%... This isn't clear because this is the Auditor's Office example that was printed out. We didn't have an amendment big enough to increase the bottom line 1%. If we had, then column C would say up to 2% increase, and the % increase in column C there would be 1% for the amended amount. This doesn't show the last page, either.

Lacina: Tom, let's say that column B was amended and you just throw a zero behind all those numbers.

Slockett: Let's look down at number 9. Because that line item did happen to be amended. So you can see it shows the amended amount and that it's the 4% increase over what was original.

Lacina: OK. In this example we would put in 0 for grants, and under column C 1% of column A?

Pillard: The 1% columns would be based on the total, 1% increase (inaudible).

Slockett: Remember, we're not doing line item budgeting here.

Lacina: OK. Just in this scenario...

Slockett: If that was the total...

Lacina: ...if that were the bottom line number.

Slockett: If that was the bottom line number then column C would say 5% instead of one %. Because it's one more than the 4%, yes, so it'd be 5, 6, 7, 8, 8 and 10.

Lacina: Are the departments expected to do this, to make that change to 5, 6, 7 %?

Slockett: No, it'll be done automatically for the department.

Lacina: OK. Then in column C the 5 % would be multiplied against column A?

Slockett: Correct.

Lacina: All right. So that's giving them...

Slockett: It's not giving them anything. It's recognizing what they're requesting. That if they're requesting 3 % over the amended amount and that was a 5 % increase that they're actually requesting an 8 % increase over last year's certified budget.

Stutsman: The whole idea is to make sure it's a level playing field for everybody when we start the budget process so that we know up front what these amendments what kind of impact they had on their next year's (inaudible).

Slockett: And to be aware of precedence. If departments figure out that the way they amend their budget is come in in the middle of the year and get a 5 % increase and then ask for a one % along with everyone else in the budget process you'll have a long line of people trying to amend their budgets.

Bolkcom: The goal here is to have people budget when the Board does its budget for the year, not come in off budget ask for things.

Slockett: When an emergency occurs that's legitimate to recognize what has happened in the next budget process.

Stutsman: We know those are going to happen. There will be budget amendments. But this is just making sure that they're documented, that the Board is clear...

Slockett: That everyone understands exactly what happened.

Pillard: Just so the Board realizes, myself as well as you guys, that the budget amendments some of them will be one time, so we will have to make sure that we keep track of each departments (inaudible)

Slockett: This won't adjust for that.

Pillard: I don't have the list with me. At least a fourth to half the budget amendments in September are one time ones, the rest are (inaudible) reoccurring ones. Just so you are aware of that.

Slockett: Deana were talking about that. We thought you might want to consider in the future when you approve budget amendments, and I think we talked about it in one of our meetings, you might wasn't to approve them as one time expenditures and as ongoing expenditures at the time you approve the amendments and then it would be clear to everyone what was approved and what wasn't.

Jordahl: Then the amended budget might be the ongoing amendments. The percent increase would not presume, as this column does, that all the expenses would be ongoing.

Slockett: Are amendments less one time expenditures, that idea.

Lacina: Under the grants in the amended budget, you might say grants and one time expenditures. Over several years to track, for example grants, if you have a 10,000 dollar grant one year and you factor that in, where does that ripple through and come back out so that we don't tax for it; second question is over time the grant goes from 10,000 to 5,000, have we gotten that far yet to note that drop so that we now that that is an increase in the tax asking?

Slockett: The grants are also budgeted in the revenues. If there's a grant in the expenditures and they're receiving income that'll be included in revenue. That's how you keep from taxing for it.

Stutsman: On the last page too, we said last grants for the bottom line, on that form.

Slockett: There will be totaled on the bottom line and you'll be able to compare that to previous year's sheet.

Bolkcom: Shouldn't the grants be on the revenues page?

Slockett: Not the expenditure portion. This is the expenditure portion.

Lacina: What you're saying is subtract column 4 before you do the one % because you'll want a one % on top of the grant.

Stutsman: That's on the last page.

Lacina: But it's not implied. We don't have that.

Slockett: Yes, you don't have the ;last page. There will be instructions that go with each form too.

Bolkcom: This is going to be crystal clear to everybody.

Slockett: Hopefully. If not we'll improve the instructions.

Lacina: I think we need more meetings on the subject.

Bolkcom: They're going to meet some more, I bet.

Stutsman: Oh yeah, we're on a roll.

Lacina: Maybe we could reschedule meetings for that (inaudible).

Stutsman: We've got everybody used to getting up at 7:30 in the morning.

Lacina: We found a new meeting time, 7:30 a.m.

Slockett: Sally's figured out how to deal all the time problems just meet earlier.

Bolkcom: Charlie.

Duffy: Once I started out with this performance based budgeting

Lacina: Or meet around meal time.

Duffy: Once you started out with this performance based budgeting, I really wasn't for it because over a period of years we kept the County out of debt. No bond issues, things like that. When we have our meetings, I don't think to certify the budget, knowing the Auditor's part, especially you Tom, handle that for us. Over the period of years I don't think I heard anybody object to the budget. Now and then somebody will say you did a good job. But I'm beginning to see the light. I'm a little stubborn with some of this stuff so I congratulate Sally and Jonathan.

Stutsman: And Deana and Tom.

Duffy: And Tom and Deana and who else.

Jordahl: Carol.

Duffy: I hope I didn't leave anybody out.

Jordahl: Thanks Charlie.

Duffy: But only one question. One % increase. Some budgets are larger than other budgets and so we have to keep that in mind dollar wise.

Pillard: The idea is to generally provide a grouping so the Board can see (inaudible) your still going to have the flexibility within that to take out certain items within certain columns as just a way of grouping things for the Board to deal a little bit easier.

Duffy: Well I liked the percentage thing so thanks a lot for your hard work.

Bolkcom: Any other items. Committee? Does that cover it for now? Will this be on again.

Stutsman: For right now we still need to do some discussion on clarifying Deana's role and things. But I think we'll save that for another time. The only other thing that I had on my list was information from the public but I think we're going to be dealing with that because we're going to do the budget sessions during work sessions so there will be an opportunity for public input at the end of those work sessions.

Peters: Correct.

Jordahl: In view of the deadline that we've given departments for having budget information to us I'm wondering about our distribution of these forms. I mean we could work on defining these forms indefinitely. I'm wondering what the deadline for ourselves is to hand stuff out. I guess we maybe shouldn't be wondering that as maybe reporting that.

Slockett: Well right now we really think it would be a good idea to have individual instruction sheets for each form. Those are just finalized this morning so doing that and printing them out is going to take us to the middle or the end of next week I would guess.

Bolkcom: All right. We need to get clear on this technology question. As it relates to...

Slockett: I think we've got it pretty well sorted out.

Bolkcom: Well we talked about it briefly and it wasn't clear.

Jordahl: Well the idea to try and clarify this, maybe we should meet on it again and discuss it on Tuesday.

Stutsman: You know I think it would help when we had that form too in front of us. Maybe that's what we need to do is discuss it on Tuesday.

Jordahl: Well yes.

Slockett: The basic idea that I'm advocating is that the capital expenditure fund be used for funds that are being accrued for later expenditure. When there is an expenditure made in the current budget year for technology that is a lot of extra work for us, for our office to transfer that into a separate fund and expend it from there. It requires journal entries and a lot of other routine activities that aren't necessary. It's also misstating the activity of the general fund a little bit when you do an ongoing annual operations out of a separate fund that a really general fund operations. It's just not accurately accounting for it in my view. So the idea is to do everything that we're doing now but to do account for it in a different way. To have a fund that is in the general fund for annual expenditures that aren't being accumulated for the future.

Bolkcom: OK.

Slockett: My preference would be to put it right in Jean's budget, in her Information Services budget in a certain section of that budget and they would be clearly identified by line item and so forth.

Jordahl: And by department.

Bolkcom: By department.

Slockett: By department right. And if that's not acceptable then put it in a separate department that is administered by Jean. But I think we can work that out.

Bolkcom: Very good. Maybe we can finalize things and have the instructions and that ready by Tuesday, Wednesday of next week.

Slockett: Rosemary is going to talk to Jean about it too.

Bolkcom: OK.

Slockett: They're trying to get together on it to.

Lacina: One suggestion. We might run it past a couple of the larger departments to get some feedback. Once we go out with a packet, if we have to make changes it's going to be confusing, the information packet that's going out. If we start making changes it's going to become a nightmare.

Slockett: it would be best not to make any changes.

Stutsman: Yes and I think...

Lacina: I think if we run it past maybe Major Lewis, Graham Dameron or one or 2, I think we're going to help Health given their cost allocation approach on that budget. And then it also gives them a little heads up as to what's coming.

Slockett: Maybe we could start doing that right away. Just give them what we have and get their input on it.

Bolkcom: Absolutely. Good point. Anything else.

Jordahl: We need to set a meeting time but I think we can do that separately from this meeting.

Bolkcom: OK. All right. Any other business? Move to adjourn.

Adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins and Mark Kistler, Recording Secretaries

Sent to the Board of Supervisors on December 22, 1998 at 9:45 a.m.