Recessed at 11:15 a.m.; reconvened on September 24, 1998 at 9:21 a.m.

Bolkcom: Item a) this morning is discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 budget procedures and forms.

Stutsman: We're not ready to discuss this this morning. We're still doing some revisions to the budget forms and things. We will probably put this on for next week to hopefully have it finalized by then. We continue to revise and think through the budget. We're trying to do some changes this year and want to make sure that we're all clear of what we're doing and it's what we want to accomplish before we have a discussion on these forms. We'll continue to work on that and report back next week.

Bolkcom: Good. Thank you. Item b) is the time on the agenda for any reports and inquiries from members of the public that wish to address the Board. Anybody have anything they want us to know?

Welsh: Just a piece of information. There are 98 more days in this calendar year.

Bolkcom: Thank you Bob. That's what my Franklin says too. How many days have gone by already? 267. We're losing. Any other members of the public wish to address the Board. All right.

Bolkcom: Item c) is reports and inquiries from members of the Board of Supervisors. Steve do you have anything to report this morning?

Lacina: We're trying to make arrangements for the Quarry to come in and give us a report and that will happen a little later on. Yesterday I was in Des Moines with the Economic Development Board that I serve on. Out of 4 businesses we allocated a $200,000 forgivable loan to one that sells range and antibiotic-free pork to California. Upscale restaurants is doing a good job paying them a significant premium to producers, like 40 cents a pound versus current market of 27 cents a pound. The other one was a $30,000 forgivable loan. Then we had 2 other companies, one we denied because it wasn't a relative value added to an Iowa product and then another one that we need more information. It's going to be interesting to see innovative ideas and ways the State is positioning itself to move forward with our products. I guess that's all I have for now.

Bolkcom: Thanks. Sally?

Stutsman: I attended a Mental Health Center Board meeting on Tuesday night. Their audit is complete and everything appears in order. We continue to have discussion about the business end of trying to implement managed care for the Mental Health Center. There continues to be progress in trying to get everything sorted out and bills sent out and things like that. But there are still some things that need to be completed. It was a much more optimistic meeting than we've had in the past in trying to sort out these things. I think we're definitely making progress, there's just a ways to go on that. I had a Decat Executive Committee meeting yesterday. We approved a grant for funding for Hometies through the 4C's program. That will allow childcare for families in transition in the committee. They have done this program before. They submitted an RFP and everything was in order and so we voted to approve that grant. Also heard from Empowerment. We did not get the Empowerment application that we had applied for. We're very, very disappointed that that wasn't granted. My understanding that 3 grants were allocated during this first round to 7 counties total. Linn County received one and then there were 2 other clusters that got funding. I think our plan is probably to appeal that decision and see where we go from here. I attended a non-farmers guide to agriculture meeting last night at the fair grounds that had to do with what the future plans for ag land and land use in Johnson County. Some good discussion. Fairly well attended; I think there were about 40 people there. it was good to here what's on people's minds as far as ag, the future of ag in Johnson County. That's it.

Lacina: You know as we go through the United Way hearings, managed care, while it has accomplished some efficiencies, there are a lot of really negative, in some cases life threatening decisions being made on just dollars. Tom and I have got a MECCA Board meeting this evening and we're struggling as was the Mental Health Center. But I'm wondering as we go through the United Way Hearings if we ask the agencies for a brief review of how it's affecting them, it would just be a real short couple minute assessment, so we could see if there are huge areas where we've got to step in and address some of these problems, if we can.

Stutsman: Because that's the big question. We've got this in place, we're working with it and the question remains, is it really accomplishing what it's set out to do and what's the cost of putting it in place, the administrative cost.

Lacina: Well, profit to the management company I'm sure is substantial. It would be interesting to see just how much they are profiting which otherwise would go to clients.

Bolkcom: I had a couple short items. I also had an opportunity to attend Decat and the meeting last night with the Non-Farmers Guide To Agriculture. They've done a terrific job. Sally was one of the members of that planning committee with others and they had a good turnout. It was very well organized. Talking about what is rural Johnson County going to look like in 20 years. Also attended the volunteer appreciation picnic yesterday for the Senior Center at City Park. They had a very nice turnout, beautiful weather and great food and music. The newsletter committee out of our strategic planning process is continuing to meet and we're on track to try and put out the first employee newsletter here in a couple of weeks and I just wanted to update you on that. We're getting a lot of good support from a committee of County employees that are working to write the articles and organize that information and get it out. In response really to a survey of County Employees about what they'd like to see in a County newsletter, we see that as probably a quarterly publication, not very long, 4 pages in length at this point and give information about benefits and all of those other kinds of issues that employees have questions about. Finally the Planning and Zoning Commission next Tuesday night on September 29, at 6:30 p.m. in this room will be meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss the updating of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and we're going to be getting together in joint session to have a work session on that plan and hopefully move it forward to public hearings in the next couple of months. But people are welcome to attend that meeting next Tuesday night at 6:30. Maybe a word about empowerment, the Empowerment Zone legislation that was passed this session provided an opportunity for local communicates to get organized around how they wanted to provide services to children and families and we submitted a proposal, Johnson County people did, for about $300,000 and we've spent a lot of energy kind of gearing up for it. We've had a bunch of meetings, a lot of people involved and it's disappointment and it's disappointing that only a little more than a million dollars of the five million was actually granted at this point. I think there's a lot of expectations about this local community decision-making and how it can work and we've put a lot of energy forward and had a really good proposal. I hope that if we do appeal we're successful. But I think a million dollars to be spend statewide when you've got 99 counties is kind of a week first attempt to take advantage of that energy that we're seeing in other communities as well as our own to kind of bring things together and make those decisions. So stay tuned on Empowerment Areas and Empowerment Zones. Anything else. We're down to other business under D. Boy we have other everywhere. If nothing else we will adjourn.

Recessed at 9:30 a.m.; reconvened at 1:00 p.m. as a department head meeting.

Department heads present were: Ambulance Director Mike Sullivan, Conservation Director Rod Dunlap, County Attorney Pat White, County Auditor Tom Slockett, County Engineer Mike Gardner, County Recorder Deborah Conger, County Sheriff Bob Carpenter, County Treasurer Cletus Redlinger, Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney, Emergency Services Director Jim McGinley, Human Resource Administrator Lora Shramek, Information Services Director Jean Schultz, Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Craig Mosher, Nutrition Director Mike Foster, Physical Plant Manager Pat Langenberg, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Interim SEATS Director Burnell Chadek, Veterans Affairs Commission Director Leo Baier. Staff present were: Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters, Department of Public Health Disease Prevention Manager Kot Flora, Sheriff's Department Captain Duane Lewis, and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary Casie Parkins.

Chairperson Bolkcom opened the meeting and thanked the department heads for being there. He explained that the Board of Supervisors was not ready to discuss the Fiscal Year 2000 budget because the forms and instructions were not completed yet and they would postpone the discussion until sometime next week.

Bolkcom said that on July 1st the Board of Supervisors implemented the first phase of a 2 or 3 phase salary survey that they had been working on for about the past year. He said they were going to implement phase 2 on or around October 1st and they were there today to present the work that had taken place lately. He said they recognize how the new salary system is complicated, and any questions could be answered by Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek or members of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board of Supervisors was on track to approve phase 2 of the salary survey in the next couple of weeks.

Shramek gave a presentation on the salary survey using the computer software PowerPoint. She noted there were 3 handouts for the department heads on the Salary survey results. Shramek reviewed the process of selecting a consultant for the survey and the reason for the survey. She said the resulting pay plan is in addition to the existing cost-of-living adjustments determined by the Board and longevity payments. She reviewed the internal and external considerations in the pay plan development process: internally, the job evaluation, and externally, the salary survey. A job evaluation questionnaire and job descriptions were used to collect the information about the minimum requirements for the positions. Shramek reviewed the 10 compensible factors used to conduct the job evaluation which were broken down into 4 categories. Next she reviewed the determination team's ranking of the compensible factors. Then she listed the other public entities surveyed.

Shramek explained that one pay plan philosophy was the automatic step rate structure, and this was combined with the merit pay philosophy. She said the Board felt this combination was the way to go. Employees would receive increases on a step rate basis up to the minimum job rate and increases above the tenured step would be granted only for above standard performance. The result was the 8 Step Pay Plan with Merit Consideration over 15 Years. She explained management would have discretion on the beginning salary and then reviewed the time frame for the steps. Shramek noted there were 18 pay ranges, numbered 26 down to 9, with a 10% difference between pay ranges. The step increases will be effective October 5, 1998, if approved by the Board, based on years of service in the position rather than years of service with the County. All affected positions will be moved to the tenured step for their years of service in the position. Employees currently paid above their tenured step on the scale will not have their compensation reduced. Shramek underscored that the step increases consider the position and not the person's performance in the position.

Shramek reviewed the second component, the merit consideration of the pay plan, which would take effect July 1, 1999. It would coincide with the employee's service anniversary date. She said the merit consideration needs to be budgeted; and the July 1999 implementation would provide 9 months to solidify a performance evaluation form and allow time for department heads to establish objective criteria for rating performance and determining merit increases. She stressed that the merit consideration considers the employees individual performance and department heads could recommend up to a 2% increase for employees with an exemplary performance. Shramek said merit pay is not a guarantee for all employees; it does however provide an incentive for meritorious work. She said they believe the pay plan proposed will help the County meet its mission, encourage better performance, and reward outstanding performance among County employees.

Bolkcom asked if there were any questions. Slockett asked for confirmation that the Board of Supervisors would budget for the salary increases which might be granted for each department. Stutsman said that was correct. Shramek said the money the Board had set aside for the salary survey was already spent with the tenured steps and that's why they were waiting until next year to implement the merit increases portion of the salary survey. MH/MR/DD/BI Director Craig Mosher asked if they were going to have to use a standard evaluation form. Shramek said she would like to work towards a standard County-wide performance evaluation. She said ideally a committee with a representative from each department would draw up an evaluation form, but she also realized that all departments might not be able to use a standard form. She also asked for copies of any existing evaluation forms that departments might be using. Lacina said that the presentation was a broad overview; more information would be coming. He also said they were considering putting salary survey information into the employee newsletter. Shramek said once the survey was approved by the Board she would be available for any staff meetings that departments might have to help explain the salary survey and answer employee questions.

Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney asked if Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) would still be given. Shramek said yes. County Attorney Pat White explained that the chart of pay scales and step increases would only be good for a year, and the Board would adopt a new chart for the new fiscal year, and once they decide what the COLA factor was, they would adopt a new pay plan that would be effective each July 1. Lacina said the theory with COLA is that it just keeps one caught up with inflation but doesn't give the consumer any more buying power.

Slockett explained that everybody was included in the salary survey except for the Auditor's Office, Recorder's Office, and the Treasurer's Office and that meant that the deputies were left out. He said putting information on the salary survey out in a newsletter would be throwing salt in the wounds of those not covered by the salary survey. He urged the Board to take steps that might help the deputies of the elected officials. Bolkcom asked what the Board of Supervisors could do, if the consultant and Shramek should rate those positions for the Compensation Board. Slockett said that Shramek had data on all of the offices; given the time she could put it together and take it to the Compensation Board. He said it would be very helpful information for the Compensation Board. Bolkcom said that the Compensation Board would be the only group that could do anything with it. Bolkcom asked when the Compensation Board would be meeting. Slockett explained that last year the Compensation Board did not set the date of their next meeting and they could ask them to meet any time they liked. He said they were thinking of October to speed the budget process along, but if Shramek couldn't get the information in time they could meet in November. He said he had a form letter waiting to send to them and they need to decide soon.

Public Health Department Disease Prevention Manager Kot Flora asked if the Board had made a change in the comp time policy and if that would affect the salary survey. Bolkcom explained that professional staff could accumulate up to a maximum floating cap of 40 hours of comp time at one time and the Board is currently discussing that policy. Flora said the Department of Public Health management staff doesn't accrue comp time. Lacina said that there was a California court case where it was decided that professional positions can't keep track of comp time or the employer may have to pay overtime. Bolkcom said no decision on comp time had been made as of yet, but the Board was leaning towards a policy similar to that of the Department of Public Health. Flora said she agreed with the concept that management is salaried and they should stay at work until the job is done. Slockett said that it didn't preclude the possibility of informal time off, as long as they job was being done. Interim SEATS Director Burnell Chadek asked, if they were no longer filling out a time sheet when they took time off, how would they differentiate if it was sick time, vacation time or just an afternoon off because they had been working hard lately and their job was done for the week. Bolkcom asked Shramek to talk about exception reporting. Shramek said if somebody is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act and if the County is having them fill out time sheets that have them record the time that they get to work, the time that they leave, total hours worked for the day, that could jeopardize exempt status. Shramek said that for professional workers they look at exception reporting. She said that is keeping track of their paid time off, so they don't end up losing their vacation, sick leave, holidays, jury duty or bereavement leave. Bolkcom asked in what kind of increments would they do exception reporting. Shramek said it would be in full day increments. Bolkcom said that more details would be coming on that. Shramek said it would be nice to come up with a County-wide attendance record for exempt personnel and it would also be easier for the payroll clerk. Dunlap asked how management would monitor or evaluate how a professional person was doing their job if they weren't tracking all of their hours anymore. Shramek said if the job isn't being performed adequately it would be their responsibility to address the problem. If the job consistently required more hours than it should, then additional help is probably needed. She said they just couldn't keep track of time on a daily basis. Slockett asked about exception reporting that wasn't in one of the categories, such as personal time taken off. Dunlap asked what evidence they would have for additional help if they couldn't track the additional hours worked in a position. Lacina said they could keep records and track a period of time for a position if they were showing a need for additional people.

Mosher asked if it was correct that the salary survey implementation would go into effect October 5th. Shramek said yes. White said assuming it was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Flora asked about their department, who were also under the control of another Board. White said his recommendation was that if everybody else starts October 5th but the Board of Public Health doesn't meet until October 19th that Board could make the decision retroactive, if they wish to put up with the bookkeeping problems. Dunlap asked if they would make the funds available for this year's budget, if it's needed. Bolkcom said that was correct. Mosher said that staff are very curious about the salary survey. He asked if the Board wanted the department heads to wait until this was formally adopted to initiate discussions on this. Bolkcom and Stutsman said yes. White disagreed, that part of the purpose of briefing the department heads is so they can share it with their employees and stimulate discussion and then they may help the department heads think of questions. Lacina said they probably need to send a letter to the Board of Public Health and the Conservation Board from the Board of Supervisors asking those Board's to accept the salary survey as recommended by the Board of Supervisors, so there was consistency in the County. Flora asked about determining the correct step for the October 5th implementation. White said the October implementation for each range would be the line labeled "Step Min." Shramek said that in the example of someone in a position for 4 years the correct step would be Step 4, 3 Years, because the next step is reached upon 5 years of service.

Whitney asked if individual employees would get feedback on why their job was given the salary it was. Shramek said if an employee really feels that their position is out of sync, she would help explain to them why they were put where they were. Lacina suggested that Shramek print out her PowerPoint presentation for department heads to use in helping explain the survey to employees. White said that one of the things about pay grades is that they are partially arbitrary. He said anytime you draw lines, there are some people who are close to the line, above or below, and there are no guarantees that these groups are precise. He said if anybody saw someone who was in too high or too low of a grade they should let somebody know to take a look at it. Sheriff's Captain Duane Lewis said that there was a difference in the Fair Labor Standards Act definitions of professional, supervisory, and administrative. Shramek said there was a little more to it than that; the categories are administrative, managerial, professional, and outside sales, which wouldn't apply. She said there were specific criteria, individuals can't spend more than 20% of their time in non-exempt tasks if they are considered exempt. There are evaluation forms for determining whether a position is exempt. Shramek said the Sheriff's employees, except the Sheriff and 1st Deputy, are non-exempt. Lacina said they may also want to take a look at the Civil Service rules too, just to make sure there isn't a quirk in it. Shramek said it was always safe to err on the side of treating somebody non-exempt. She said that the statute of limitations on overtime was 2 years.

White said the first and second phase implementation of the plan spends about $190,000 County-wide and so one of the things that the Board is doing is committing itself to continue that funding. He said that was a significant fiscal impact as they start into this year's budget. He said the merit beyond that was going to be money spent in addition to the $190,000 and that too would be an annual commitment. White asked that they don't underestimate at all what the Board had stepped up and done in terms of overall compensation of County employees. He said this is a major new expenditure that they are taking on, not just a one-time expenditure. He said that ultimately the goal is to get the step eligibility out to at least 4 or 5%, but whether that's doable is hard to tell, especially if the tax freeze comes back on.

Slockett said that if the merit is too low, everybody will probably automatically get the full merit increase. He asked about precedence, if it turns out that it is almost always given, then do they have legal liability for discrimination if they don't give it to someone. He asked if it will be evaluated in the future to see if it's working the way they want it. White said one of the things that they understand is that they are on their way to phase 3. He said the implementation of it will be more difficult and complicated than they realized at the outset. He said phase 3 seems to be trying to figure out how to make the merit approach work by July 1st. Slockett said that there ought to be some kind of rule of thumb about how infrequently the full amount is given, otherwise it becomes meaningless and it will be automatically given. White said the Board's ultimate control over that was the budget, the amount appropriated. Flora said that the Public Health Department used to give merit raises, but it was hard because people look at merit differently, some looking at doing additional work and others looking at doing an excellent job within 40 hours of work. Shramek said this indicates the need to take the time available to prepare the evaluation form and communicate the criteria to the employees. Slockett said the real danger with merit was perceived favoritism. He said it was very difficult to avoid that. White said that was the reason that most union contracts don't include a merit component, because unions say that people will reward their friends. Slockett said that in the Auditor's Office what worked well in the past was they gave out merit if somebody switched jobs in the same grade. He gave an example that if the payroll clerk and the accounts payable clerk switched jobs after a year in the job, then they could get a merit increase for learning another job. Mosher said that when he worked at another job they tried to implement a merit system over a period of a year, but they gave it up because they decided that they couldn't do it in a way that everybody would perceive as fair. He said that it was a great idea, and he was encouraging the County to struggle with it, but they may decide that it's harder to do than they think. Bolkcom said they may struggle and it's open for change in the future. Dunlap asked what this did to the department heads if they wanted to hire somebody at a higher step based on their experience. Dunlap said that he liked to think of the step and grade system as being based on satisfactory work performance over longevity, as much as merit, which is viewed as rewarding somebody. Bolkcom said if the Conservation Board agreed they could hire someone at a higher step. Slockett asked if they weren't opening themselves up to a lot of liability there. Shramek said that it would be fairly infrequent that they would hire somebody like that, at a higher step. Slockett asked if it was true of the collective bargaining contract that they didn't have to start people at the beginning of the range. White said no. Flora said not being able to hire at a higher level might prevent the hiring of an experienced person making more at another location. White said they should hire somebody like that very, very carefully and also consult with Shramek before they make that offer to make sure that everybody is on the same page. Theoretically everyone else in that range might have a grievance.

The Board and department heads decided to meet again on Friday October 2, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.

Jean Schultz brought up the possibility of starting a committee of representatives from each department to start checking maintenance contracts for the possible year 2000 computer glitches, and calling vendors for to see if they are aware of any problems.

Adjourned at 2:12 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Melinda Green, and Casie Parkins, Recording Secretaries