Reconvened on January 7, 1998 at 9:40 a.m.

Jordahl: All right. Discussion regarding the local option sales tax.

Stutsman: No one I think wants to talk.

Jordahl: Gee, we had just a big non-stop discussion going a few minutes ago. Come on now Marlene, please step up to the microphone. Identify yourself for the Auditor.

Johnson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Program Representative Marlene Perrin: I am Marlene Perrin and I work with the Johnson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Program. I'm sure Sally was thinking also as the Chamber was presenting their ideas we have an idea that fits perfectly with all the criteria that they have set up. We have a project that involves collaboration. We have a project that we hope will involve long term commitment and we have a project that benefits lower income groups. As you know the County is the prime contractor for the Johnson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Program. This is a collaboration of agencies, school districts. We also get money from Iowa City, from North Liberty. We are attempting to make it as broad based as possible. The Clear-Creek Amana School District participates as well as the Iowa City School District. We serve about 2,500 people a year. It's truly crime prevention. So much of the programming is working with parents and parent education, working with children, all children, in some cases it's children at risk. We have family resource centers in Hills, in North Liberty, Tiffin. We're tying into a bunch of other projects and a bunch of other funding sources. When the State started doing this in 1994 their position was they would provide us money, and ours actually comes from the Federal government through the State as we were in the state to do this. The State would give the money to these local communities who would collaborate in whatever way and each year the local communities would take more of the burden. In 3 years the State was not going to give us any money at all. I think we're now in our 5th year and the state hasn't cut people off yet, but every year we get a little less. It's about $200,000 now coming from the State specifically for this project through the various agencies.

Jordahl: Down from? Do you remember what the initial funding amount was?

Perrin: It was a little over $200,000 now it's a little under. It's been close to $200,000 most of the time.

Jordahl: Thank-you.

Perrin: At any rate, the question is what is going to happen to this project if and when the State pulls the rug out. The latest thinking is it will probably be another year. So we sort of came up with something, came up with the idea of something like a 2% solution so could 2% of the Local Option Sales Tax money go for services to youth and families? The County bears the brunt of the expenses for juvenile crime. They have the detention problem, they have the law enforcement problem et cetera. Everybody deals with people in prisons and people in State training schools or people in detention. There are aren't many programs that deal with people at an earlier stage so that hopefully you don't have children going into detention juvenile facilities et cetera. So that's really all we really wanted to say. Consider this as something that really is a true collaborative project that really does involve the whole county. The County Boards of Supervisors has been wonderful to support it, so has the City of Iowa City and other groups and we would like to see that continue.

Jordahl: So 2% would be about $50,000.

Perrin: Whatever we can get. We get $38,800 from the County now if we could add to that. We've also sent letters to the cities involved asking them to consider earmarking some of their sales tax money for this kind of project.

Duffy: Well presented. Could I ask you one... You know it's budget time. How come with the State, I think they have a surplus of some kind, over $700,000,000, is that right?

Jordahl: It's close to 9 now.

Duffy: Or 9 is it and would want to cut a program like this that's so important.

Perrin: Charlie I think you should ask the state people that. We would like to know that as well. It's really quite cost effective in terms of statewide programs. We're getting together some figures and I don't have them right here. But Jim Swain did some research here a few years ago and found that in 1975 we paid several times more in juvenile crime prevention than we do now in just the same dollars. It's just kind of one of those things that has fallen along by the wayside while everyone has gotten excited about prisons I guess.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: I think the commitment is by the Juvenile Justice Policy Board to continue to work with the State to continue to make a permanent funding stream. To show the value of these programs, what an impact they have on the community in reducing crime, reducing the need for detention services and ultimately the adult correctional system. So we'll continue to work on that level but you just never know what will happen with the legislature so I think it's a good plan to get a more permanent funding base on the local level so we can make sure that these programs stay in place.

Perrin: We are attempting to do evaluations. It's a little hard to prove something that might've happened and didn't happen that you had an affect. But we are attempting to keep statistics on all people we serve whether or not they go back into delinquency. There's a whole range of people served from people with little kids where you're helping their parents know how to parent to in the junior high schools, we have student advocates who work specifically with kids who've been in trouble with the juvenile court. The hope is you keep them in school, you keep them going and they don't have to be sent to detention or to somewhere else.

Jordahl: It was only last week that we heard presentations in this room about the need for a significant additional funds for juvenile detention this year, outstripping the $50,000 you requested from the Local Option Sales Tax and we have the Space Needs Committee working on the Jail and we're talking about multiple millions of dollars for adult incarceration. I have to wonder if the case hasn't been made nationally somewhere, we had the same question occurring with land use. We think this is true, we think we know this is true but where are the statistics. There must be statistics on the effectiveness of prevention nationally that could be persuasive. I applaud keeping them locally.

Perrin: I think there might be. The big problem is that the State has basically said when they set this up is, OK if you think this is worthwhile in your community your community has to cough up. Now the other part of this equation is the Decat funding which has also been a part of this project so everything has been very uncertain. No one know whose funding is going to continue on. We just thought perhaps as part of this sales tax thing this might be considered as one of those things that does involve the whole county, it is collaborative and it fits all of the Chamber criteria.

Duffy: Did I hear you right that maybe the State wouldn't fund this program at all in 3 years?

Perrin: That's what they say. They said in the beginning they would only do it for 3 years. At the end of 3 years they said they would do it another 2 and our other 2 ends, I think we may get 1 more year after this one. They're saying right now they're not going to provide anymore funding.

Duffy: When do we meet with their people that represent us in Des Moines, State legislators?

Stutsman: We already did in this...

Duffy: Yes, but I think we really ought to press this issue.

Jordahl: Well the League has a meeting on the 30th a legislative forum in the morning. I was just making a note to raise this issue at that time but...

Duffy: Oh well that's good.

Stutsman: Well I think any opportunity we have to talk with legislators or even the Governor. The Governor will be in town Friday evening and this might be a good opportunity for us to stress how important these programs are on the local level. We're doing what we can but we need the support from the State too.

Perrin: One of the problems that we always run into is that when we talk to our State legislators its like singing to the choir. They're very supportive. The problem is how to get the legislators in other counties to also be as supportive.

Stutsman: Well for the purpose of discussion I'm going to suggest that we look at 5% for Human Service funding such as the Juvenile Justice grant. 45% for direct property tax relief. 35% for roads and 25% for space needs such as the jail. I'm just putting that on the table.

Duffy: Well, we'll discuss this again on Tuesday but...

Stutsman: Well we got it...

Duffy: We want it to pass Sally.

Jordahl: It's right here.

Stutsman: Yes and I'm just throwing this out for discussion Charlie. Let's just talk about it.

Duffy: We want it to pass and we you really say I don't think is going to.

Stutsman: Well OK you tell me, how do you want to...

Jordahl: This wouldn't be. She's not saying this is the only item. We're still talking roads she's just saying as a component of this ...

Duffy: No, but...

Stutsman: What do you...

Duffy: You have to be careful. I'm just going to wait until all the cards are in then I'll make a decision but again we... Cole Chase told us on Tuesday. If you look at the history its roads and bridges. Now we can put in something extra in there but...

Stutsman: Well Charlie I...

Duffy: It's just not going to do it if you know the history of the other counties. It's going to be tough enough anyway Sally.

Stutsman: OK I just presented these numbers for discussion.

Duffy: What are the figures again?

Stutsman: OK what I said was 5% for Human Services funding such as a Juvenile Justice grant, 45% for direct property tax relief, 35% for roads and bridges and 25% for space needs such as the jail. Does that come out to 100%?

Jordahl: That sounds like a lot of percents.

Duffy: Well I see the jail in there but...

Stutsman: No that isn't right is it?

Duffy: ...why should the county.

Stutsman: Yes, Yes. 10% over.

Jordahl: We're going to really use this local option.

Stutsman: We'll say 15% for...

Duffy: Have any of the cities, are they going to help fund the jail?

Stutsman: Well the jail comes from all property tax.

Duffy: Yes, I know that. But is this sales tax, do they have any dollars in it for the jail which we all use?

Jordahl: Well that's if we put it there.

Duffy: So far.

Jordahl: What Sally's just saying is that we would use 25% of the local option tax.

Duffy: Yes, I'm not saying us at all. Does Iowa City for example, do they have a percentage for.

Stutsman: Oh I see, on their local option sales tax language.

Jordahl: But the jail is our responsibility.

Duffy: No it isn't Jonathon it's the county's.

Jordahl: It's the county's responsibility.

Duffy: It's the whole county's responsibility including the cities.

Stutsman: But it comes out of our funding.

Jordahl: They pay taxes.

Stutsman: We're going to have to, the city doesn't.

Duffy: Including the cities.

Jordahl: They pay taxes to us, the city people.

Duffy: We're talking about property tax.

Jordahl: Right.

Duffy: We're talking about right here now about increasing one cent sales tax and again if we don't do it right they're...

Stutsman: Well actually when I look at this Charlie when we're talking about direct property tax relief and roads... That will have, well it has an impact on all rural voters but to me if the rural community, they're interested in property tax, they obviously get the bigger share of what we're going to put the sales option tax towards. If we feel that it's important to be attracted to the rural voters the majority of what we're saying really will have a direct impact.

Duffy: Well roads and bridges but they're not going to ask about the property tax relief.

Stutsman: ...OK.

Duffy: Most of them will see that it goes to the rural. If we throw in the general fund we talk them out, their few (inaudible)... I just want this thing to pass.

Stutsman: Yes, I do too Charlie.

Lehman: (Inaudible) just going to throw these figures out for sake of argument so sounds like you accomplished that.

Jordahl: :Good job huh?

Lehman: We have a starting point and we're going to tweak these numbers but we've got to do the research and find out where they are going to be best used. Then like we talked about, we have a marketing challenge here too.

Jordahl: Regarding that property tax though Charlie I don't believe it's a choice there for us to make of whether we give the property tax relief to everyone or to rural voters. I don't think we have a choice.

Duffy: Well I'm just saying we're speaking right now for the rural people because the cities are having their own.

Jordahl: Right, but as I said earlier if the cities did not pass this local option sales tax then the only money we would get for rural area, or any kind of projects, would be that sales tax which is collected in the rural area. And our businesses are far fewer than what the city has so we would have a very much less money coming from the local option sales tax.

Duffy: Well the statistics will say maybe some entities, it's not going to pass but that's one more reason if it passed in a rural area if you don't have the dollars. Most of it should go to roads and bridges.

Stutsman: So what are you saying Charlie, 100% for roads and bridges?

Duffy: No, I said I want to see until everybody has a right to speak about it and I liked your presentation. I don't think you can just say Human Services anyway it has to be a project though.

Stutsman: No I don't think so. Cole I'm looking to you. I think if you say such as juvenile justice grant funding.

Chase: Well if we can dedicate the funds to human services but I would confer by them to be your attorney then (inaudible).

Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: I'd have to check but I think you can say human services.

Duffy: But you don't have to say which human service it is?

Lyness: I'll have to find out.

Jordahl: You certainly can say.

Duffy: It'd look better on the ballot if it comes to this.

Stutsman: I guess I would almost like to have it more open, more general than specifically, because if for instance we get additional state dollars to the juvenile justice grant through federal funds or whatever. I don't want us to, if we see needs in other human services areas, we can use the dollars for that. That's my thinking about just saying human services such as the Juvenile Justice Grant knowing that that would be our first priority but if the needs aren't as great there then we certainly could divert it to senior center issues or senior citizens issues.

Duffy: See I would agree with that too but I don't think the voters, they want to know exactly where their...

Lehman: What we're looking at if the state does not cut the funds to the juvenile area then we could use that money for something else but we need to have the fallback of funding that program if the State money does cease to exist.

Duffy: Well we better find out whether I have to I found we had to name the project that...

Jordahl: Well the roads question too. If you say roads and brides that's not naming projects you'd have to say 140th street and 965 and...

Duffy: No Jonathan no. Roads or bridges is enough for...

Jordahl: Well it says human services is like roads and bridges

Duffy: Everybody knows what a bridge is but not everybody knows all the departments of human service. I'm sorry I don't agree with you.

Welsh: I heard both say that a good wording was such as in all the cases. In all the cases and if we go under human services and allocate 5% or 10% for human services. If you're looking for support from the rural area, one of the such as I would suggest that you consider as transportation. An example is SEATS now has a very limited service to the county. There's a real need there. I'm supporting the wording under human services such as and listing some of the things. The other comment I'm speaking is that rather than saying roads and bridges we might want to consider capital projects such as.

Duffy: I don't think that's strong enough, Bob, no.

Welsh: Again, what I thought I heard Cole say was you want to be specific but you want flexibility.

Jordahl: That is a very interesting proposal. Capital projects such as roads and bridges, jail and so for space needs, that is very interesting. I don't from a legal point of view whether that's a sufficient distinction but it's an interesting idea. Can we characterize roads and bridges as capital projects?

Lyness: I think you generally categorize them in your budget as the Roads Department as opposed to, you look at something different for your capital budget. Your capital budget your using for buildings and things. . . I think your current budgeting process, I don't think that would be the way to do it.

Jordahl: OK. It's an interesting idea.

Stutsman: I agree. I think we need to point out as a tax-payer that would be deceiving that you're just saying one thing

Jordahl: And doing another. Yes. Well along that line of looking at the contrast of what we think is going to happen and what's actually going to happen and not wanting to be surprised about that. In the same conversation with Representative Myers he cautioned us, and through me I pass that along, that it would be more sensible to fund things that are sort of a one shot deal. Something that doesn't necessarily have to be a stable funding stream out of sales tax. Because for one thing it could sunset and that's another issue we have to address is do we want to include sunset language in the ballot proposal. With fluctuations in the economy, say you had a major downturn in the economy, the sales tax receipts would similarly drop precipitously and then you'd have a program established with people being paid salaries and so forth with a sudden drop in the ability to meet those expenses. So it's kind of like funding new salaries lines through a grant, then the grant ends and what happens to the salary line? You still have a person you're committed to employing you then fire them because you lost the funding for that or do you then raise property taxes to make up for the loss of that? If we have something we want to be a continuing ongoing stable program, maybe we should fund that out of property taxes and look to things that can be fixed within a reasonable period of time like roads and bridges or like a capital project that you can take the funding when it's there, build it, and then if the funding goes away well you just don't build it at that time. I mean that's a piece of logic that if the local option sales tax passes seems to make a little bit more responsible sense to me. Which is not to say that prevention programs couldn't be funded out of this. I'd like to see prevention programs however we do it. But I throw that out there. I don't want to give a speech here I want to get some response.

Duffy: You said about economic development in case something happened to somebody out of some commercial developmental close-up, is that what you mean? That we'd help out?

Jordahl: No, I mean if...

Duffy: Got laid off or how?

Jordahl: I mean the funding, the amount of money we get from the local option sales, now we're talking about two-and-half million dollars. But the economy's going really strongly. What if you're in a recession and the funding is not. Say you lose a million dollars out of your sales tax receipts and what happens to the funding of programs you want to continue?

Stutsman: Well I think Jonathan's talking about what we talk about what we call soft money. It's not as stable on-going amount of money that you can depend on, it fluctuates and so when you have those fixed costs such as operating costs it gets real dangerous to depend on a soft funding base to pay for those things and so capital needs, you can put it off for another year or you can expand it for 2 years but salaries you can't. Unless you want to start laying people off.

Duffy: But I still think it has to be down on the ballot. We can't put all this dollar on the ballot. And again like Cole said, on Tuesday if you don't do it right, if it's just another increase, forget it. Down on the ballot is the most important thing.

Jordahl: That's what we're trying to get to is what we put down on the ballot. But what I'm trying to do by introducing this may seem like its expanding the discussion and avoiding focus is to try to help us focus on the question of what types of things should be in specific ballot language. I'm sort of asking the questing about the Juvenile Crime Prevention Program. Should we be looking to the local option sales tax for those dollars or should we be looking to property taxes for that program? I would be perfectly happy with the amount of money you're asking for and everything , seems like I would love to put money into prevention as opposed to detention. I sound like Jesse Jackson here with rhyming words. Is this the right place to get the money?

Stutsman: I think I understand what you're saying and I agree with what you're saying but I think the 5% is a small enough figure that it would have a terrific impact if we said we were going to use 100% of the funding for human services then yes I'd have a real problem with that because then we are getting really dependent on these dollars but I think the 5% would be reasonable. Even though it may fluctuate in the amount.

Jordahl: Being an amount that perhaps we could absorb in property taxes if the local option money wasn't there. But it still is of that basic character of, we're talking about funding ongoing programming.

Stutsman: I think that adding human services in there too has another element. The county historically has had a very strong position about human services and so I think it sends a message that we continue that philosophy or attitude about the importance of human service funding by including it in the sales option tax equation.

Lehman: I think it kind of goes back to what Chamber representatives asked for a collaboration. For city and county and if they can kind of residence visit with each other and realize we'll help you and you're helping us. Human services I know. A lot of county people feel that's for the city. Because there aren't that number of people out there in the county that get to use those services. I mean visiting nurses whatever, they're available if there is a collaborative type effort but people don't realize that it's available to them, maybe they're not using it. So I thing the human services and the space needs is something that follow that collaboration.

Stutsman: Well and human services as you know was stated by Bill earlier. The county is really growing and what was once considered Iowa City's problem is now the whole county's problem. We are seeing a lot more needs for services in some of these smaller rural towns and unincorporated areas.

Perrin: But also the human services money has always come from the County. The cities have said that's the county's job and they don't want to do it. Iowa City has moved away from that to commitment, I think in their ballot language it's also 5% for human services, but this happened a number of years ago and was kind of a break through when Iowa City took also some responsibility for human services although very small because that's generally a County function.

Duffy: Well Sally I will agree that we're people orientated. I think the budget is about 46% that goes to human services now, and we will continue and hate to speak for the rest of the group but that's what it is. We care about people. But then again I've said this about half-a-dozen times they way it's put on the ballot, if it isn't right then forget it.

Jordahl: Cole?

Chase: This may address Charlie's concern about how it appears on the ballot and also your concern for funding human services. And this is also part of the shell game that John was concerned about earlier this week. If you dedicate that 5% amount you have for human services, and you instead enroll that in the property tax and make that 40%, you still see the same money. Then you as a Board have more discretion as to how to spend that money goes into the general fund, you dedicate that 40% to the general fund. Property tax relief and property tax cuts are completely different. If you decide that this relief is going to be in the form of funding for new programs, new monies into human services has the same benefit. You can say that we think that this is an important enough program that the Supervisors we want to participate and a level of $50,000 a year or whatever. That gives you more discretion. Plus it addresses the fact that you're not constraining their budget to an elastic revenue stream. If, in a bad situation, Coral Ridge blew up and that extra $100,000,000 in taxable revenues was gone, we'd see a million dollar drop roughly so the county's share would be, what is that $130,000? Obviously, the percentage that you have dedicated to each individual program would drop. That could put elements of their program in jeopardy when you dedicate that stream or their budget, when you tie it to that revenue stream. Instead this way if you always think that this program is always worth $50,000 from the County you can do that in your budgeting process each year. If it's worth more you can do that in future years. And you have this stream then it's your responsibility as supervisors to factor in the changes in that stream from the tax revenue and you're dedicating to the general fund.

Jordahl: Yes, that would be our problem to assess to what we wanted to make subject to elastic, to changes. I liked your word elastic, I didn't manage to use it properly there. The things like Sally was saying, capital projects could be postponed if there was fluctuations in the income where personnel and essential programs like this would be sustained through that drought.

Chase: By putting into the general fund it gives you more discretion as elected officials. You have to decide if that's politically desirable because one of the nice things about local option is that when you say that these monies are going to a specific project, which is not necessarily a recommendation on my part, but instead if it's for a general theme like roads. The community gets to say well I expect to see some improvements in my roads. If you dedicate all that money to the general fund that perception may be that they're going to see a tax cut, but that's not necessarily a reality and we discussed that on Tuesday.

Duffy: Well there was things like the Coralville mall. Coralville has a fine City Manager and a good Board of Directors. When that mall was built we knew it would impact our county roads, a lot of our county roads. So we have to keep that in mind too.

Jordahl: So we could dedicate a percentage to property tax relief for all county property owners which would be the reality of it.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: Then I think what you're saying seems to go along with what I was suggesting about putting this juvenile crime prevention grant enhancement from the county directly into the budget on a regular basis. And simply dedicating the sales tax money, which would still be there, to property tax relief.

Stutsman: I guess I don't quite understand why there's a problem with putting additional monies through the sales option tax into human services funding. I guess I think that sends a message.

Chase: I'm not saying that they're the problem I'm just saying that Charlie expressed that there was a problem with having it on there. I think Charlie would like to see roads, property tax as key elements on it. What I was saying is that might be addressed by that by simply changing the language so it's property tax relief you can accomplish the same goals and instead make it appear better on the ballot. But that's a decision you guys have to make.

Jordahl: It is puts the budgeting of the money back in the hands of Board of Supervisors to respond flexibly to circumstances that may change rather than affixing it to a ballot choice that was made at some future date say near 10 years ago.

Chase: That's true but it's also by having human services on there. It shows that this Board has a commitment to human services in there and they're comfortable dedicating those votes to it so I mean you have to make that decision there. I'm giving any recommendation on that I'm just providing you another option if that was what you were looking for.

Jordahl: It really sounds like we're making a choice between the rural side of the budget and the general fund. It's like basically other than a political statement about what we chose to indicate that these funds are going to go that we might not do otherwise. Really the choice is how much are we going to put into roads and how much are we going to put into the general fund. Am I right about that?

Stutsman: I have to think about that. Help me out.

Lehman: What you're saying, you're going to lock yourself into a certain amount of front for roads and rural development type things versus having the flexibility of dedicating a certain amount later on out of the general fund.

Jordahl: Well we're

Stutsman: So are you just talking about basically roads and directory property tax relief?

Jordahl: I'm suggesting that to specify what will be done with the amount of money that would go to the general fund beyond just saying property tax relief is primarily a statement of commitment, it's been suggested. Where we could be committed whether we said that or not in terms of our budgeting choices in our regular budget process. It doesn't matter a whole lot within the general fund choices beyond a statement of our priorities.

Duffy: Well again.

Jordahl: So I could by happy you know if I could be happy either way. We could do roads and property tax relief or we could put this in 5%. It doesn't really matter a lot other than I think the perception of people about what they're voting for and a commitment on the part of the County that we will give that percentage to that program. But that percentage might fluctuate. It would be a stronger statement on our part in fact to put it into our regular budget. It just wouldn't be... We'd have to make the point that we're making the commitment in some way writing articles and giving speeches and so forth.

Duffy: I think that maybe Marlene's 2%. We have a lot of people moving into Johnson County. It's good for children, great schools and things like that and I think they just might go for that 2%. That tells the voters what we're going to use this for and if we don't cut this issue off at the pass it's going to cost more than juvenile things like that. I'm not going to say it again but we have to have something that will pass the voters.

Jordahl: Well...

Stutsman: I threw out 5% just because I like round numbers. You know if we want to do 2% and 47% you know have a problem with that.

Jordahl: I think the point that Cole raised about the perception of voters though is very important here. I mean we're not talking about trying to hoodwink anybody and the idea of property tax relief, if we put in you know 65% to property tax relief and then people don't see any drop in their property tax bill they're going to want to know what happened. And we are in a condition, and this is something but have not yet said today, we are in a condition where our space needs are so overwhelming and so immediate that it would not be reasonable of us to lead anybody to believe that they're going to see a tax cut this year. In fact we're going to have to put more money into space needs than we have in the past and so I think it would be wrong of us to talk about property tax relief in such a dramatic way when in fact they may not see it.

Lehman: Or the idea that you're going to... It's very marketable to show it, tax relief, but then if we have to turn around and raise taxes to cover project that are definitely needed or we get moved into the limelight. It sounds good, I'm going to get some money back but if we have to turn around and ask for it back down the road

Jordahl: and more

Lehman: Its not very responsible for us. We have to let the people know that the money is needed now and either contribute now or later.

Duffy: Well we're talking about tax increases already. Keep in mind that the Feds have billions of dollars in services surplus and the State already, said I think is over 700 million. There will be no property tax increase in Iowa City evidently from what I've been reading in the papers. None in Coralville. And we'll see what the rest of the cities do. So are we going to go against the grain, row upstream? That's what I've been hearing here for almost a year about this property tax increase. Now what can happen they can challenge counties like this. We've been challenged before so if we're talking about a huge tax increase I would suggest don't do it. Just get rid of some of the things Watch the new programs and get rid of some of these things that maybe we don't need.

Jordahl: Like what?

Duffy: Well we could. That's not on the agenda and budgets are coming up and I'll probably suggest some of those.

Stutsman: That's good.

Jordahl: Well it's easy to say that we should cut things and we should not have the property tax increase but you have to hold in mind the fact that we spend a number of years under a budget freeze here in the county where they didn't in the cities. And we were the one who had to try and bear up under that. We have a lot of pent up demands. We have staff requests that are coming from all the departments and we have capital projects that went unfunded for all these years that we were frozen. We're having to play catch-up. That reality has got to be out there.

Stutsman: ..Plus the fact of all these unfunded mandates that we continue to have from the State that we're required to pick up.

Duffy: .The unfunded mandates. But I don't really agree with that statement either Jonathan. I think the budget went up. I bet here we got a big $7,133,000 to help with mental health. Mental health was the thing that was raising property taxes in 3 years $7,133,000.

Jordahl: That came right back off though. That's just direct property tax relief that's just no, no We didn't get any more money.

Duffy: So right there so that... The budget went up. I don't think our budgets have dropped at all they went up. But we just got more dollars.

Jordahl: No the budget stayed the same. The $7,000,000, that money for mental health is not an increase in the mental health budget it keeps the mental health budget frozen at where it has been.

Duffy: That's the yes but we still got that and Dick Myers led the way on that, I think that was farm bureau debt.

Jordahl: But its nice that the state is paying part of the bill but the bill is the same.

Duffy: We have to fund mental health and we if we haven't got that here comes a huge, huge increase.

Jordahl: We have in fact not only, we're not only funding mental health but we have a surplus in that budget right now.

Stutsman: Could we get back to this discussion about the local option sales tax and how we want to.

Duffy: I'm not ready to commit myself today.

Stutsman: No, I know I just OK.

Duffy: There's some good issues that came up.

Lehman: I think we may all need to sit down and right our own little verbiage here on how percentage wise and maybe how we want to such as and maybe we'll put our heads back together again on Tuesday and see if we can't reach some more common ground.

Jordahl: That's a good suggestion Mike. I think we need to get down to some specific language to talk about

Lyness: I can find out for you too what specifics you need to have in there too. How specific you have to be.

Jordahl: Yes that would be good. An outline of some kind. I understand that the first thing we have to say is what proportion is going to property tax relief for example. If there's anything else we need to know it would sure be welcome.

Stutsman: But I think Mike makes a good point. You know say if we put it all on direct property tax relief and then we turn around and raise taxes I mean that's deceiving.

Lehman: Well the example I'm thinking of it would be nice to give a large percentage back as tax relief but if we do that it handcuffs us to what we have left to use for other projects and what I'm thinking of is the 5 year road plan. They have the projects laid out for 5 years and they're subject to change but there is stuff out there that they have not been able to put on that we could accelerate possibly by using having this money and I think the people in the county would see an immediate impact. Rather than get the money back they're going to see it put to use. What I'm saying is the larger the tax relief the more of a chance of their decrease in their direct what do I want to say here improvements, updates, maintenance type thing so

Duffy: I would agree with that. Yes.

Stutsman: Well and one last comment about this human services funding and including that in there, I certainly agree with you know looking to the general fund to continue funding for human services and I think there's a general commitment on this Board to do that but that's not always to say every Board will fell that way. And I think by at least having some of those monies allocated for human services we have some additional dollars that another board can use that they won't have to be committed to use from the general fund.

Jordahl: In other words we could kind of indicate to future boards what they're going to do with some of this money. Just some additional dollars that can go onto here (inaudible) fund.

Duffy: Count your money already I

Jordahl: No, no, no, no, I'm talking about the fact that this Board can make a decision for a future Board. I didn't want to say it so directly but that's what I meant.

Duffy: I'm not so sure that we should.

Jordahl: I agree.

Stutsman: Well we're doing that by saying roads and bridges and anything else we put on so.

Duffy: Land use plans. Yes, I understand so.

Lehman: The other thing that impressed me today was Cole had mentioned that, I don't know, a 100%. But a large majority of the people that had communities that have passed this local option tax have not receded it. They realize where the benefits come to them and what is any other certain thing we need here in the county and rather than ask all the residents to pay for it themselves we do have a chance, like you mentioned, up to a third of the sales tax comes from out of the county. It gives us a chance to collect money from out of county customers if you will to help pay for some of our projects that we're going to benefit from as well as they when they're here doing their business or please so Yes, we will have to cough some of that out of our own pocket but it's a chance to give us a chance to collect money from out of the county for our benefit.

Jordahl: It's a real good point.

Duffy: It's true.

Stutsman: You know our opportunities for additional resources are very limited and this is one of those opportunities so

Lehman: If we have an attractive community where people do come in for social, business reasons then this is a chance to have us ante up a little bit so we can make it even more attractive for them and our residents.

Duffy: Cole, would you have a list of the counties that passed the tax and what was spent

Chase: The one from last February, I'm sorry last June, is in the packet that Jonathan has and I'll leave Carol with a request for information that will have the newest numbers the department of revenue and finance has a new packet out

Jordahl: Osterback

Duffy: A new packet could you get that for

Chase: I believe Carol's ordered them for you.

Duffy: Well we should have them before Tuesday then.

Jordahl: Copies of this?

Chase: Not copies of that, copies of brochures produced by the department of revenue and financial details also included to have passed will go out there It's there brochure on frequently asked questions. You can see an older version of it in that packet.

Stutsman: I think you We have 3 of them, up here right?

Chase: No actually this one's a little bit different. That's not it.

Stutsman: OK. That's what I was thinking.

Duffy: That has the counties and what they

Stutsman: Yes, that information's not hard to get. I think we can give it.

Jordahl: (inaudible)

Chase: There it is, Chase(?). You'll see a newer version of this and a detailed which can (inaudible) cast it which I think actually pulled out for a different section. There it is, that's a list, an outdated list now.

Jordahl: I'll clip this Charlie.

Duffy: That's a list of what they were spending their sales tax for.

Chase: Oh, no, no, no. That's just the communities that have passed.

Duffy: Yes, but there's another

Jordahl: But right behind it there here it says Yes, here's Ames saying 60% property tax relief, 40% community betterment project, 18% human services and 22% capital improvements such as roads, cityscape, parks et cetera.

Duffy: Why don't you read some of them.

Chase: I only have Ames I there. There are

Duffy: Well most of the rest of them said roads and bridges.

Jordahl: Here's the one that failed in Linn County.

Duffy: Yes.

Jordahl: Do we want to read failures? Probably not, maybe it would be instructive. It says $7 million for street improvements, $5.5 million for parks and rec., $5 million to establish an affordable housing trust fund, $2 million for the construction of an ice skating facility, $19 million for the construction of an exhibition hall, $15 million for the construction of a riverfront recreation and entertainment complex, $4.5 for improvements to the Five Seasons Civic Center and Paramount Theatre, $8 million for the construction for a new facility to replace Veterans Memorial Stadium, $3 million to improve and expand the recreational transportation trail system, revenue received but not otherwise allocated should be expended for 50% for street improvements and 50% for community improvement parks and recreation.

Chase: They did theirs a little bit differently.

Jordahl: That's Cedar Rapids though.

Chase: Yes, they had specific projects detailed where they had the cost of the projects known or estimates, then they estimated the total revenue over a 5 year sunset, a 5 year period they were collected the tax. Anything in excess of that amount would go to roads and property tax relief and anything under that was going to be met by the general fund.

Jordahl: Now Linn County said 0% for property tax relief which has got to be kind of is-spiriting to the voter reading this in the ballot. The specific purposes for which revenue shall otherwise be expended are 83% for improving and grading secondary roads and bridges, or upgrading I guess secondary roads and bridges, 15% for the development of and enhancements to a lake at Squaw Creek Park and 2% for services to the elderly and of course this all failed.

Stutsman: So are we going to put this on again for Tuesday.

Jordahl: It's on right.

Stutsman: for the discussion.

Jordahl: Yes. So everybody draft up some percentages and some language. Janet as soon as we can get info from you there will be... All right, any other last thoughts on local option sales tax? People are tired of talking about this. Good. Report and inquiries from the County Attorney?

Lyness: Nothing.

Jordahl: Inquiries and reports from the public?

(Continued in Part 7)