MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 5, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Jordahl called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:05 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, and Sally Stutsman.
Jordahl: (Inaudible) 1999 in session. Review of the formal minutes of December 31st and January 4th as available in the I drive on your computer. Mike, are you to speed on finding things on the drives there?
Lehman: I'm getting a daily tutoring course.
Jordahl: Yes, there's a few things to pick up there. Anything I can... We'll all help I'm sure. So any comments about the minutes? Deletions, additions, all right.
Deputy Auditor Kit Wong: RESOLUTION 01-07-99-B1 NAMING DEPOSITORIES
Jordahl: Item 3 business from the County Auditor. Discussion regarding Resolution 01-07-99-B1 naming depositories for our funds.
Stutsman: Do we put this on for action then on Thursday? Just to name those...
Deputy Auditor Kit Wong: Yes, (inaudible).
Stutsman: All right. You're here.
Jordahl: Anything to say about that?
Wong: No, just mergers of banks.
Jordahl: Yes, changed their name.
Duffy: Some of them consolidated.
Stutsman: This is the total amounts that we have in these?
Wong: These are just the maximums.
Stutsman: Maximums...
Wong: Yes, we can have...
Stutsman: ...in each one of those banks. From each one of those departments...
Jordahl: All right. Well if anyone has any questions about that, members of the public, we're hear to answer them or help ask them. All right, otherwise we'll put that on for action for Thursday.
Wong: OK
Jordahl: Thank you for coming in. Anything else from the County Auditor?
Peters: No.
Jordahl: Item 4 is business from Craig Mosher. I don't see Craig here this morning.
Case Manager Laurie Smith: Well I'm a little lost in the game since I found out at 8:00 this morning (inaudible).
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: Maybe we should begin by introducing Laurie Smith.
Jordahl: Excuse me.
Smith: I'm sorry. Laurie Smith from the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Department.
Jordahl: Thanks for pinch hitting.
Smith: No problem.
Jordahl: I spoke with Deborah last night about this, actually yesterday afternoon, and checking in on... I guess. Dr. Mosher has retired from his job with the County and wondering what this really meant on the agenda here. She did some calling around and talking with you and I guess...
Stutsman: Well maybe I can add some background.
Smith: (Inaudible) certainly a little background, but go ahead, Sally.
Stutsman: If you're prepared to do that, Laurie, I don't want to...
Smith: I can give you what I know.
Stutsman: OK.
Smith: I know that it's been budgeted for next Fiscal Year, 5% provider increase with the local providers who are here in Johnson County and have a service contract with the State. They've gone for numerous years without getting a rate increase to help them meet the cost of doing business. There's been some discussion that this rate increase should be driven back into direct line salaries (inaudible) a lot of turnover and with the job market being what it is, keeping jobs (inaudible).
Jordahl: That decision would be made within those agencies, wouldn't it? It's not our decision to make, or is it?
Smith: As far as how...
Jordahl: Whether it's put into salaries or not.
Smith: Well that would be up to us. I would assume as if we want the money driven back into salaries, we would want some sort of accountability for that, how it was used on salaries or we could (inaudible) 5% increase. About 3 years ago, we got a 4% increase for the costs of doing business but the costs have gone up, which we well may need to do again now. If we want to earmark it for salaries, I think there should be some accountability for that (inaudible).
Stutsman: How would we do that? Would we put that in the contract saying that this money is to be used for salaries and that we would like to see...
Smith: Right. I think at this point, I having talked with Deborah this morning, we're both trying to figure out exactly what we'll recommend and how we'd go about doing this. (Inaudible).
Duffy: But would that be for the whole $394,000?
Smith: No.
Duffy: Am I reading this wrong?
Smith: I guess I don't know what you've got a copy of there. I think, Craig had told me (inaudible)...
Stutsman: There's a memo, Laurie.
Smith: ...a little bit about $72,000 would be the increase, the difference it would make if we gave them a better increase.
Duffy: I would like... You have a list of them. We have a list of employees, don't we?
Stutsman: Providers?
Duffy: (Inaudible) providers.
Smith: Off the top of my head, it would be Hillcrest, Life Skills, Goodwill, Local (inaudible)... I may be...
Stutsman: Reach For Your Potential was the other one that...
Jordahl: OK, so this is the one who has been brought under purchase of services contract thus far.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Jordahl: And not for other agencies, is that right?
Smith: It's the purchase of service break that has been frozen for so many years.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: A point that I want to add is that this proposal was brought to the Planning and Service Management Committee and they approved the increase in view of the fact that it's been a number of years since there's been an increase and that these agencies are having a hard time recruiting qualified staff because of the low wages. This would be an opportunity to have them get some additional funding so they could increase those salaries. It also went to the Planning Council and they approved it too. So I think this is just a recommendation for final approval to the Board to go ahead with those additional dollars that were available in that budget. There is money to do it. I personally feel it's appropriate use of those dollars.
Smith: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: I think we ask a lot of these agencies and they do very, very well with the moneys that we give them. This would be an opportunity for them to increase some salaries.
Smith: Right. It's been a while since (inaudible).
Jordahl: No, pardon my ignorance on this topic, this purchase of service rate hasn't been increased. Is this a County determined purchase of service rate or this a State determined? It sounds like the State's doing it. So what we're doing then is choosing to augment the rate that's sent by the State. For agencies that are not under purchase of service contract with us, how is their funding from the County to be assessed relative to this 5% increase for these purchase of service agencies?
Smith: Well I've been out of the contract loop so I couldn't give you a sense of that.
Jordahl: It's a lot to ask you to come in here (inaudible)...
Stutsman: If we don't have a contract, we don't do business with them.
Smith: Right. If we're funding them, we don't have a purchase of service contract, we probably have a County contract that Craig would have brought to you (inaudible). How that compares to the rates of the purchase of service, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I'd have to go back and look.
Jordahl: The point you made, Sally, about the people working hard for little money, that's all true, I'm sure. As with our salary survey, I'd like to try to treat people fairly. If we're looking at 5% here, maybe we should look at 5% there. But I don't know how to assess that.
Smith: I would have to go back and look. Again, I would assume that the County has tried to keep up with the cost of doing business with their contracts where the State has lagged. I couldn't tell you that's a fact, but...
Jordahl: It's a lot to ask. That is an important question, but we don't have the answer for that today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't augment these people 5%, that just means there are more questions to be answered.
Stutsman: But are there other contracts? I guess I was under the understanding that this took care of all the contracts we had for these particular services and that's why...
Smith: I'm trying to think off the top of my head. That'd be like the Mental Heath Center contract we have.
Stutsman: OK, but that wouldn't be for direct care for residential treatment and those kind of things.
Smith: No, it'd be more like SCL, Supported Community Living, therapy...
Stutsman: Right, and I guess I was thinking that's what this was dealing with... residential treatment, Systems, those kind of things and not necessarily for counseling services and...
Smith: Like Successful Living, now that would be somebody I might have a contract with at this point in time who wouldn't be under the purchase of service.
Stutsman: OK.
Duffy: Yes, could I ask another question? Under Goodwill, Systems Unlimited, would this include the people with disabilities... They might get a wage increase? They're some of the hardest workers that we have (inaudible).
Smith: If they were their employee. There are some folks with disabilities that are employed by Goodwill as opposed to supported employment where they work for the client and get wages (inaudible). I'm assuming that would drive the wages...
Duffy: That would drive... That's important to me because... You notice I didn't use the word handicap. I just don't like that word because people with disabilities... I think we all have disabilities, some things that we can't do but I've seen quite a few in what's listed here, Goodwill, Systems, Life Skills and they do indeed work hard for minimum wage. I would like to see... I appreciate the people that are at the head of these, the Directors, but still I'd like to see some of this money go to those folks that do the work.
Jordahl: So, Mike?
Lehman: Laurie, I have a question. You may not be able to answer it but I was wondering... that $394,000 carryover, did that come from any one item that it didn't get used for or something that fell through?
Smith: No, it came from several different items and actually I think I can give you a report on that. If you want me to send one over to you...
Lehman: I'm just kind of curious.
Smith: Yes, some of the institutional costs were not as high as we thought. (Inaudible).
Lehman: Well all for the better.
Smith: Certainly, and I'd be happy to send that over to you. Craig (inaudible) kind of went over on things. (Inaudible).
Lehman: We're glad we have it but I'm just kind of curious where it came from.
Smith: Right.
Jordahl: Actually, that's this year's projected figure for the FY 99 budget. The last year that it was completed we had twice that much as carryover.
Stutsman: I think part of the carry over is just managed care and some savings that were realized because of that.
Smith: Certainly.
Jordahl: The question that occurs to me is if you graph the surplus from 98 to the surplus of 99... Craig talked to me about a projected surplus for the 2000 budget of 0. My grade school graphing capacity tells me that 2001 is under the 0 and that's a problem.
Smith: The lines are going to cross somewhere.
Jordahl: Yes, so I want to know, as you report on, or whoever reports on the motion, the direction of travel here of this budget is are we in control of that downward slope? Are we balancing this thing out to arrive at a sustainable 0 or is it out of our control and are we facing a trend that's going to wind up creating problems in the very near future? It's one thing to spend money we have now but another thing to commit ourselves to continuing to spend that money in the future when we may not have that money, this being a frozen budget.
Smith: Exactly.
Jordahl: I don't know the answer to that question.
Smith: I don't either. It will be interesting when we get the December's report from the Auditor's Office to see where we are for the (inaudible) Fiscal Year and with that projected rate (inaudible).
Stutsman: Well is the Board ready to vote on this for Thursday? I notice in Craig's memo he said he wanted to start this January 1st. If the money is there, I guess I don't have any problem with it.
Jordahl: I don't see any vociferous objections here. I guess this will be on for approval Thursday then.
Smith: OK. Thank you very much.
Reverend Bob Welsh: Jonathan...
Jordahl: Oh yes, excuse me, Bob.
Welsh: I wasn't sure, Sally, that the Planning Council did take action on this. It seems to me that they...
Stutsman: Were they...
Welsh: ...discussed several options in relation to the carry over funds but I don't think there was any action taken. It was more of an informational item and various alternatives were discussed. One of the things that came out was that this could result in some tax savings at that point. It didn't have to be used. (Inaudible) a point of clarification.
Stutsman: Right, right. I'd have to go back through the minutes too. I don't know what the procedure is, if we'd need to have a recommendation from the Planning Council or if we can just go ahead and...
Smith: The Planning Council is advisory to the Board, correct?
Jordahl: We should certainly review the minutes of that Planning Council meeting and pick up this question, whether it's a recommendation from the Planning Council or a...
Stutsman: Do we want to go ahead with this or take it back... The Planning Council meets on the 19th.
Smith: I can certainly, between now and Thursday, if you'd like me to, find out about the minutes of the Planning Council meeting.
Jordahl: That should be properly in the same context as this request for the change in our funding. It should be in the context of the recommendation from the Planning Council.
Welsh: But these people surely are underpaid.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Welsh: Any assistance at that point... Although I think there's question about what happens because I've heard that same statement that nothing is projected as a balance in the year 2000.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Welsh: I think your question about if we increase this then, what do we decrease...
Jordahl: Yes, what's 2001 look like if we're committing ourselves to this being the rate.
Welsh: I think that's a valid question. In terms of (inaudible) people who need an increase (inaudible).
Lehman: You have to insure the quality that... To retain and acquire new employees and stuff, to keep the quality up there, you're going to have to pay up.
Smith: Exactly. There's a lot of competition for employees.
Jordahl: Yes.
Smith: I can check on these minutes.
Stutsman: All right.
Jordahl: Let it be fully understood by all present that Laurie is operating on very short notice here trying to make representation of something which she was not given time to prepare for so we sure appreciate your help with all this.
Smith: Thank you.
DISCUSSION: APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Jordahl: All right. Item 5 business from the Board of Supervisors. First item is discussion regarding appointments to the Compensation Commission. We have apparently one new application for a term beginning immediately to expire what about a week ago. I'm a little confused by these facts.
Peters: It's just a typo. It expires December 31st of 1999.
Jordahl: 99.
Peters: And you need actually 2 and a press release was sent out and we've received only one applicant. (Inaudible) if you choose to appoint this person, there's still an election.
Jordahl: So we'd need to go out and advertise again perhaps.
Peters: Either that or maybe you could do some personal recruitment.
Jordahl: Some personal recruiting.
Stutsman: I think that's always the most successful.
Jordahl: Yes.
Peters: I've been contacting, well not contacting, but as I see people who are in this area I mention it to them. (Inaudible).
Jordahl: OK.
Lehman: The 2 people that vacated have no interest in playing again? Have they been contacted?
Peters: Yes. One of the things that we do is send out letters to those people whose terms expire and ask them would they consider accepting reappointment and they send it back to us. (Inaudible). They have an opportunity to say yes they'll consider reappointment or no they won't.
Lehman: OK, so we did receive notice from them.
Duffy: Are both of these... You either need a license for a Real Estate Broker or a sales person, is that what you're saying?
Peters: Correct.
Duffy: That's kind of harder to get sometimes. Sometimes people don't really understand the make-up of the Compensation Commission and there's a different variety of people that we appoint. I'd say on the whole... I wonder how many we have on the whole Commission. 33, 35 maybe. 28? 28.
Stutsman: Time commitment is relatively minor, right? They are picked randomly?
Peters: They are. The names are drawn by the judge. This year has been an active year but I can remember there was a period of almost 10 to 15 years where this Commission was utilized once or twice. It depends what's going on within the State and Cities. This also is the only board or commission that we have (inaudible).
Stutsman: Cole, I don't know if you have any thoughts about... through your connections with the Chamber.
Chamber of Commerce Representative Cole Chase: We do have a Recruitment Committee and I'll make this (inaudible) as well.
Stutsman: That'd be great.
Chase: This is one of the seats for realtor or broker...
Jordahl: Or for a sales person. Are these terms all of one year?
Peters: Yes, this is one of those that's every year.
Stutsman: But they certainly can be reappointed, right?
Peters: Yes. I'll never forget one time I called this gentleman that was up north of Solon and asked him if he would consider... Well he had sent his paper back in saying no he didn't want to be considered for reappointment so I called him and asked him why. He said Carol I've been on that thing for 15 years and I've never been called yet.
Jordahl: Never been called yet?
Duffy: Well they draw them out of a hat.
Jordahl: Maybe he wasn't in the hat.
Stutsman: Well I certainly would recommend that we appoint Jim Schintler on Thursday for one slot on the Compensation Commission
Peters: So rather than readvertising, you want to try just personal contact, personal recruitment?
Jordahl: Everybody got somebody in mind?
Stutsman: What?
Lehman: (Inaudible) Cole.
Jordahl: Yes, let Cole do it. He'll be very effective, I'm sure.
Chase: We should be able to get a couple people.
Jordahl: Great. And anybody else who wants to recruit real estate people for this Commission is sure welcome input.
Stutsman: Carol, are you saying to hold off on Jim's until we get...
Peters: Oh no.
Stutsman: OK, because he did accept it and applied.
Jordahl: I'd be happy to do that. All right then, that will be part of our agenda on Thursday.