Chairperson Jordahl called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:30 p.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, and Sally Stutsman.

Jean Schultz, Director of the Department of Information Services, began by referring to the memo entitled Summary of Departments' Technology Worksheet Requests, noting that "estimated useful life" was not included; most being either one or 5 years. She said that some of the items that departments requested are already covered by requests for the technology account, adding that there is going to be a Technology Department and that column 3 on the memo refers to this account. She explained that the amount in column 4, Balance in Capital Expenditures as of 7/1/99, referred to funds set aside for the Sheriff's Department. The shaded columns, she said, indicate what she thought were the most important columns. She then explained column 5, Resulting FY 2000 Amount Not Covered Elsewhere, as the result of taking the FY 2000 requested amount minus what was already covered in the technology account minus the balance. Schultz continued, saying that all technology line items are being moved out of individual departments' budgets into the Technology Department; therefore many of the things are not new requests they are just movements of money from individual budgets to the Technology Department. She moved to column 7, FY 2000 Department Change over FY 99, explaining that the figures indicate the difference of the preceding 2 columns. Jordahl asked if a negative number in this column means a need for additional spending. Schultz replied in the negative, saying that each figure is the resulting FY 2000 amount not covered elsewhere minus the amount in an FY 99 budget. She said a negative means a line item is not being asked for this year but an amount was in last year.

Schultz then reviewed the Ambulance Department's technology requests, Department 01, beginning with the requested department total of $3,620. She said $1,450 was already budgeted for routine replacement, leaving $2,170 not already budgeted. Jordahl asked if "elsewhere" meant either the balance or the technology account. Schultz replied it would cover the prior 2 columns. Schultz said the current year's budget had $2,500. She said, based on $2,500 previously budgeted and $2,170 in requests, the change for FY 2000 over FY 99 is -330. She then explained the final 2 columns as the amount each department requested to save for the next year and then the project total that they are saving towards. She said in the example of the Ambulance Department they wanted to save half the amount for a laptop computer and than purchase it the following year. Jordahl commented that perhaps the word "goal" might be more clear than "project total". Schultz noted the right-hand column with comments. She continued by saying that what they are asking includes a scanner and a replacement for their laser printer, a purchase covered by the technology central account provided the technology account amount is approved. She said they also want to begin saving for a new lap-top. She then explained the 2 softwares requested, beginning with the Sweetsoft software, their billing software, and the Infotronic software maintenance, used for their time clock.

Schultz then proceeded to the County Attorney's requests, Department 02: 2 new lap-tops budgeted at $3,000 per computer, ability to connect to the network, a desk-jet printer for the new attorney, a replacement for an old PC requested at $2,400, an increase over the normal $1,900 per PC due to the need for additional Reflections software. Stutsman asked if the new desk-jet printer would be necessary if the Board didn't approve the new attorney position. Schultz confirmed this. Stutsman then asked if one of the new lap-tops was for the new attorney. Schultz did not know.

Schultz then moved to Department 03, Auditor/Accounting, noting that she first listed the items in the current fiscal year budget, adding that the first 3 items are in the individual department budget and had a line item in the capital expenditures earmarked for Auditor. She said the numbers in parentheses are the account numbers; and that the number "0744" on line 4 is from capital expenditures. She said that Department 3 is asking for 5 replacement PCs, a higher speed network printer estimated at $2,500, a replacement laser printer that would be covered by the technology account. She explained that when she says "covered by the technology account" she means provided that the Board approves the full technology account amount. Board members agreed with that statement. She then moved to line 8, plotter maintenance contract, an ongoing expense, noting that this year $624 is available in the current budget and a $748 need next year; line 9 indicates a request for 6 Visual FoxPro upgrades. She then noted in the comments column a preference for Department 03 to convert to Visual Basic. The last 2 lines, she commented, are for 2 PCs for GIS and ARC/INFO, ArcView, and MapObject software, which have not been approved or recommended by the GIS committee. Jordahl asked if there were existing new PCs that were requested by the Auditor's Office that had not been installed. Schultz said they are ready for delivery. Jordahl noted that a number of months passed between the arrival and installation of those computers and questioned the PC replacement in that context, wondering if they would be utilized in the short term. Schultz said they were waiting for a time the Auditor could take them and then staff may have been occupied with other tasks. She said that the Auditor's Office has some additional carryover money from last year for additional PCs that have yet to be purchased. Jordahl asked how that money was accounted for. Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards said the money was in capital expenditures presently. Jordahl pointed to a zero balance as of 7/1/99 for capital expenditures. Schultz explained that the Auditor's Office was going to spend that money during this fiscal year. She then said that sometimes when money is carried over it's put into capital expenditures, but not actually put in to the capital expenditures budget until it's going to be spent. Jordahl said he would like to be able to look at a list of what the Board had approved for capital expenditures, that if there was to be carryover it should be indicated in some way. Edwards indicated the money would show in Capital Expenditures. Jordahl then asked, hypothetically, the following: If the 2 requested PCs for GIS were approved for but were not purchased, where would the money be sitting? Edwards said it would be transferred to Capital Expenditures. It was generally agreed that it would be easier to track these expenditures if they are all in one place.

Schultz then moved to the Department of Public Health (Department 04), beginning by noting the $5,000 earmarked for health in capital expenditures. She said their requests included: A CD-ROM tower, a replacement of a PC and monitor which would be covered by the technology account, 2 new PCs with software, a color printer, an item Schultz indicated might not be needed anymore because of some moneys available from a grant that provided the means to purchase a color printer in December, and a color projector. Schultz said the color projector is not as high a priority to the department as the other requests. Jordahl asked if the color printer requested could be scratched. Schultz said she did not want to speak for Public Health Director Graham Dameron, but did say the new printer was going to be used by the Health Department for what the requested printer was going to be used for. Jordahl asked Schultz to speak with the Health Department about the need for the color printer. Stutsman said it was her opinion that the Health Department received the printer they needed from the grant. The Board decided to delete that item request from the Health Department's proposal.

Schultz then noted that the Board of Supervisors (Department 05) did not make a request. Stutsman noted that there had been discussion about making former Supervisor Joe Bolkcom's lap-top computer a floating PC, which would leave the Board one PC short, thereby possibly necessitating a revision to the department's needs. She continued to say that the lap-top would be available to everybody in the office to use. Jordahl commented on the possibility of having a PC in the Board room available for meetings. He also wanted to get a cost estimate on getting 5 more network access ports. Schultz indicated that another hub could be added with 12 ports. Jordahl also noted having a projection screen in a better location would be helpful. Stutsman remarked that she was hesitant to put those things in the budget request for this year, noting that more thought was necessary on the subject.

Schultz moved to Human Resources (Department 06), noting their request for a new PC and Office software, requests contingent on the approval of a new HR Assistant.

Next, Schultz explained Information Services' requests, Department 07, saying that most of the items are being moved from the department budget to the technology budget. She noted the lease/purchase of the central computer for $41,000. She said the hardware maintenance contract dropped $12,000 because of warranty on new equipment. She continued, saying the software maintenance contract decreased $10,700 due to the lease/purchase contract. She said that line 4, software purchase, was a carryover of the request of $4,000 for software to be used by programmers in developing applications. Peripheral Purchase, line 5, was left the same, but had moved to the technology department, she said. She noted the $45,000 request for payroll, noting that new payroll systems were being investigated, with the hopes of having an HR module; this figure is only an estimate. The overall change from last year is $21,000, she noted, due to replacing the central system with a newer system.

Schultz moved to the Sheriff's Department (Department 08), mentioning line one, the IBM AS400, used for records and dispatching, the funds for maintaining it, $9,000, being moved to the technology department; she added that next year the maintenance for it will be $9,800. She noted the CIS software maintenance of $5,936. The AS400 upgrade request is a response to IBM's notice that some upgrades at a 3 year cost of approximately $18,000 would be necessary. She noted, too, that the Sheriff's Office has about 30 terminals that are 7 years old; the proposed plan would be to replace these terminals with PCs and put in a network. This would relieve the amount of the work on the AS400, increasing the AS400 life-span, and would add various software capabilities now available to other departments, such as the Microsoft Office software. The proposal would replace 10 eight year old terminals next year with PCs having the Office product for $19,160. The $13,428 proposed is for the network server and hubs and PCs and other things necessary to actually put a network there. She continued by saying that the following 2 years they would be upgrading 10 terminals each year to PCs. She said the last 2 items were things included in this year's budget: $100 for the Jail for DP equipment and $2,000 in capital expenditures earmarked for Sheriff. That amount was for new terminals which were purchased this year.

Schultz transitioned to the Recorder's Office, explaining that $6,500 listed in current fiscal year budget under Department 11 would not be carried over to FY 2000. The technology expenditures for FY 2000 would all be shown in Department 87, Recorder's Record Management. Jordahl asked about the project of converting the real estate records, if that would require additional hardware. Schultz said there was $16,000 Department 87 in the current year's budget, as well as an additional $6,500 in Department 11. She said that included amounts for COT maintenance, indexing software for real estate, and records conversion. Schultz said at least a couple PCs would be needed to replace terminals for looking up images of real estate records. She said the imaging software license would cover those. She noted that for next fiscal year under Department 87 there were requests for $15,000 for records conversion, $5,000 for hardware, $8,000 to contribute towards the salary for a GIS coordinator, and $7,000 for a document management project.

Schultz moved to SEATS, Department 12, indicating the first line item is for maintenance of dispatching software; the amount will increase from $5,728 this year by $147 for next year to $5,875. $200 was budgeted this year for DP equipment repair maintenance which now comes out of the central technology account, so the request is no longer included. She said that the only request for computer soft/hardware purchase was for an upgrade of the Paratransit system at a cost of $50,000, a cost quoted them by the company they deal with. She suggested that it may be possible to save some of the $50,000 through some work they could do to make the server run faster, but more research needed to be done. Schultz mentioned prior discussion SEATS Director Lisa Dewey had with the Board of possible moneys available through selling the vans through ECICOG, and wondered if there was a recommendation to use the money from that sale to upgrade the system. Jordahl couldn't recall whether the recommendation was for a specific utilization. Schultz said she would check on this possibility.

Schultz moved to Treasurer, Department 14, indicating they wanted to purchase bar coding equipment to print bar codes on the tax statements that are sent out and read them on a bar code reader rather than keying in a parcel number, at a cost of $4,500. Duffy said that is a good idea. Schultz noted that line 2, a printer, would normally be covered under the central technology account. Schultz said the Tax Department PC, line 3 begins the items that Tom Kriz added, for replacing terminals; line 4, Motor Vehicle PC would go in Kriz's office, because he didn't have one in his office; and line 5 would allow the department to accept credit cards. Jordahl asked if a processing fee was incurred from using the credit card machines. Lehman said his experience in business was that the fee could be a negotiable item. Stutsman said they should discuss this with Kriz. Jordahl said it might be feasible, rather than the taxpayer paying interest to a credit card company, for the County to charge interest for tax payments made over time. He noted there would be staff expenses for that option. Schultz noted that taxpayers have the option available to make partial payments.

The Physical Plant, Department 17, made 2 Technology requests, according to Schultz. The environmental monitoring system in the Physical Plant office for monitoring the Courthouse temperature and humidity is 10 years old and needs to be replaced. The PC is $1,500 and the environmental network control units are $21,000.

Schultz moved to Planning and Zoning, Department 19, observing their request for 2 PCs, Arcview software, and a printer for a total of $5,000. One PC would replace the terminal on the counter for use with public. Planning and Zoning Director Rick Dvorak uses Arcview, which he uses for making presentations to the Zoning Commission and to the Board; he would like to obtain a 2nd copy of it to allow Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore to do similar analyses on his own PC. Jordahl expressed an interest in being able to have the Planning and Zoning Department bring more Arcview presentations to the Board. He asked if having a laptop available would facilitate that. Schultz said they would be licensed for installation on only 2 PCs and could not be loaded on an additional laptop, even though the software is loaded from the network. Schultz said it wouldn't be too difficult for them to bring one down once they had Arcview on 2 computers.

Schultz discussed Conservation, Department 24, noting that they currently have a loaner PC which was placed there as part of the program to upgrade older 386 and 486 PCs for departments that didn't have PCs. This loaner is a 486 PC which needs to be upgraded before the year 2000. Software and a printer would also be needed. Lehman asked if this would be a new purchase and Schultz said it would be.

Schultz moved to Elections, Department 33, remarking that in the current capital expenditures budget, there are 2 line items, hardware purchase/elections, an amount, $3,915, budgeted in their account last year for a PC that was carried over to this year, and $7,500 which was for notebook computers for satellite voting, this amount in the current year's budget. She added there was a new request for an additional $7,500 (line 8) for 3 additional laptops. Schultz remarked on line 3, DP equipment service/election administration, noting that it was $500 in the current FY 99 budget. The voting machine service contract request, Schultz said, was for $8,585, the same as the FY 99 amount. The next 2 line items, $4,000 for DP equipment purchase and $850 software purchase, were not carried over to FY 2000 from FY 99. She covered the request for $2,020 for voting software maintenance, up from $1,980. Schultz expressed her opinion that $15,000 over 2 years may not be needed for 6 PCs because purchasing lower speed Pentiums would be an improvement over the 386s currently being used. Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards noted that the $2,500 budget amount for each PC included a label printer, each approximately $250. He said that even if PCs could be purchased at $1,500, the cost would be $1,750 with printers.

Schultz continued discussion with Department 45, Department of Human Services. She mentioned a discussion she had with Cheryl Whitney in the Department of Human Services and Whitney indicated that she left requests for PCs in her budget because it would allow DHS to receive money form the State more easily. Stutsman noted there is a 50% reimbursement. Schultz added that the $30,000 is in account 5470, Office Purchase/Human Services Administration. Schultz said the requests for Mental Health-Developmental Disabilities, Department 46, were included in the Department 45 budget. Jordahl asked if Whitney had already submitted her budget to the State, or could budget lines be changed. Schultz did not know.

Schultz moved to Secondary Roads, Department 49, noting the $6,000 under line item 1, DP software purchase/office for the current fiscal year. She continued by delineating their requests for FY 2000 as follows: replacement of 2 lap-tops at $2,100 each, replacement of an old laser printer for $1,500 and old PC for $1,500, most of these funds being covered by the central technology account. She noted that the department's AutoCAD and Eagle Point software had been upgraded during FY 99 and probably would not need to upgrade in the next fiscal year. Schultz said $6,000 of the $7,200 in requests for this department would be covered by the technology account if the Board approves the central technology total.

Schultz then remarked on the totals listed on the bottom of page 4 of the memo, noting that these totals are the totals of the departments listed before that, summing department requests and the central technology account. She then moved to page 5, indicating the General Fund total at the top. She noted that Nutrition did not have any requests. She said Department 83, Nutrition Trust/Memorial, had budgeted $500 for FY 99, but have no requests pending. Schultz pointed out that Recorder's Record Management, Department 87, is also on page 5. Schultz then noted the "Grand Total" at the bottom of page 5.

She discussed the summary page of the Central Technology Account figures. She explained the Frame Relay as the cost of interconnecting the buildings. She said they are currently connected to the Courthouse, Secondary Roads, Public Health, and Ambulance; there are dial-up connections to Conservation, SEATS, Sheriff, and Senior Dining. She noted the $2,000 for Anti-Virus software. The Server Replacement funding has updated Secondary Roads (FY 97); Public Health (FY 98); and the NT Server used for mail, the Assessors' ProVal, and PC development (FY99); and also are upgrading the Courthouse-County Attorney's server in FY 99, the Ambulance Department's server in FY 2000, the SEATS server in FY 2001. The PC replacements request covers 1/5 of PCs. She said printer replacement request was simply replacing the old printers. She said Networking Replacement was a replacement of Hubs, which PCs are connected to. There is a schedule for next year to have a higher speed connection to the Internet, Schultz noted, thus the requested moneys for Internet Connection. Jordahl asked what type of connection would be used and Schultz thought what they had budgeted would be for a T-1 connection. She explained that costs saved on dial-up connections are rolled into the figures. She explained the item entitled Unexpected Expenses as coverage for miscellaneous items such as the need to upgrade, in the next fiscal year, many of the licenses currently held for Reflections Software due to the year 2000 issue. She said Software Expenses included upgrades to server software or back-up software, various different software expenses. Jordahl asked for clarification of the line item Unexpected Expenses. Schultz repeated the need for new licensing for current software, as well as hedging against problems with failing parts in various computer components, saying purchasing replacement parts costs less than carrying maintenance agreements. She then moved to the Microsoft Office licenses, explaining that Microsoft has changed policy, not allowing concurrent use of its products; she further added that a source for a cheaper than retail Microsoft Office was found, about $150 per package versus $400, and that the additional licenses were already purchased to take advantage of the low price. She said that this would delay some PC updates this year into next year in order to save this money. She then explained a plan that started 2 years ago to gradually interconnect to buildings with higher speed communication; she noted that this plan had been delayed to begin next year, beginning with Health, then Sheriff, and finally Ambulance. She said that alternatives were being investigated, including radio towers. She said $40,000 had been appropriated for this project the first year. Stutsman expressed concern over laying fiber to Health, given the possibility that Health may move. Schultz said they are bearing in mind doing it the most cost-effective way but also considering the possibility of the department moving. She said fiber has about a 5 year payback.

Schultz said that the cost of the top part of the Technology Account is $203,185. She then discussed the Sheriff Conversion, saying that this had been listed on the Sheriff Department's worksheet, thereby it's covered by the technology account. The request for the Sheriff is for a conversion, an updating of terminals to PCs and installing a network, she remarked. She noted an additional hub would be needed in 2002.

Schultz said the amount she put in the Technology Account for GIS was based on decisions made during a GIS Committee meeting and a County Computer Committee meeting, noting that $35,000 was the amount recommended to be put away for FY 2000. She said the Committees recommended doing a needs assessment to define the needs in the County and a cost-benefit examination. She said the total at the bottom included the prior technology totals, the amount for the Sheriff's conversion, and for GIS. She again noted that adjustments to the numbers in this spreadsheet would affect the numbers for each department that they had just previously reviewed. She said they try to budget Central Technology to keep the equipment current every 5 years, departments put in their own ideas on replacement, and they try to make sure it isn't budgeted twice.

Stutsman asked Schultz if she had worked with all the departments on these budget requests to ensure compatibility and to make sure there is a good replacement plan. Schultz replied in the affirmative, noting that most departments asked for costs, though a couple did not. Jordahl asked if the central technology account was part of the Technology Department. Schultz said it was her understanding that there was going to be a Technology Department, as well as the individual lines earmarked for specific requests for specific departments. She continued, noting that there is another account, the central technology account, but within the Central Technology Department, as purchases have been made and these things have gone to different departments, these have been listed under separate account numbers. These expenditures can be tracked by the department where the hardware or software goes. Stutsman asked for clarification on what goes under the Information Services Department and Schultz said it is mainly personnel and supplies. Jordahl asked if the central technology budget served as a capital expenditures budget and therefor would be carried over automatically. Edwards said that carry-overs depended on how things were set up, that it could either be set up as a separate department in the General Fund, in which case the funds wouldn't be carried over, or it could be set up as its own separate fund like the capital budget so that the funds would be carried over. Stutsman said that is what she thought that is what they wanted to do, so the funds could be put away for when it is needed. Duffy wondered if the public really understood what was being talked about here and if there would be one budget document or several. Jordahl said that this would be a new department in the budget, the Technology Department, that is similar to Capital Projects. The Board commended Schultz on her report. Schultz noted the Board's Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard assisted with the report.

The Board asked Treasurer Tom Kriz to help answer some questions about the Treasurer's technology budget. Kriz mentioned the Treasurer's Department addition of an additional PC for the Motor Vehicles and Tax Department. He said that one challenge is to try to speed things up. He noted information which he wants to be able to analyze using a computer and the information is currently hand-ledgered. He said he wants to set an example of working more efficiently, such as using a word processor instead retyping letters. He discussed the credit card option, noting that the $1,875 represented was 3 terminals and 3 printers; he could not hazard an answer about the cost of this enterprise. He is trying to negotiate a fee for the service of no cost, due to the balances the County maintains in the financial institutions, or at least under 1%. He added that direct credit was given for those funds, so the funds can be invested the same day, and that bad checks were decreased. Stutsman asked if this would be implemented for tax payment. Kriz said it would be used initially for the Motor Vehicle side, because that is where the most bad checks occur, which costs the County a great deal. He said additional terminals could be added later. He said he is still analyzing what he can make investing the funds that are credited more quickly against the cost of implementing this. Stutsman asked how training for employees would be handled. Kriz mentioned that he planned to utilize the training services provided by Information Services. Jordahl talked about the rolling replacement policy that is part of the central technology fund and wondered if there was a pool of older computers that hadn't been dispensed with that might be used. Kriz said he wanted to feel comfortable that a wholesale make-over of the technology in his office might not be too dramatic, that maybe doing it in increments might be a better idea. Schultz noted increasing interest by Treasurer's Office personnel in receiving training. Stutsman noted that there was a lot of interest in the Computer Employee Purchase program within the Treasurer's Office due to the interest employees have in learning the skills necessary to make the transition to computers. Kriz mentioned the ACH, Automatic Clearing House, to have access to funds more quickly directly from the bank, which would facilitate fund investment among other things.

Jordahl then asked about the mid-year budget amendment. Kriz said that one challenge was hours, reducing lines, what hours to be open, things like that. He emphasized the need to implement a new position to create some back-up for those employees with valuable knowledge, speaking specifically about Deputy Treasurer Betty Sass. He said what he is looking at would be an added Deputy position but not a 1st Deputy. He said the money would be in the $35,000 to $40,000 range. He said they would be looking at changing the hours, but they should be able to do it at minimal cost. Jordahl asked if this budget amendment would be during FY 99. Kriz replied that it would be for FY 2000, beginning July 1st. Jordahl expressed an interest in seeing some amount, even a ballpark figure, put in the budget request as opposed to looking at a budget amendment. Kriz agreed it would be good to consider that now.

Recessed at 3:16 p.m.; reconvened at 3:22 p.m.

Brandon Beaudry of Juvenile Court Services discussed the FY 2000 budget. He mentioned the memo entitled Juvenile Court Services Budget, noting the difficulty in estimating detention costs because of the opening of the new Linn County facility. He noted the Linn County facility will make it much easier for law enforcement officers to detain children who should be detained than using other facilities, such as the Lee County facility, due to the reduced travel time. He said they were estimating that during FY 2000 there would be an average of 10 children per day who will either need detention or the highly structured detention alternative program. He further stated that they could probably use 3 of the detention alternative beds in FY 2000 at a projected cost of $70 per day for 363 days for a total, including an inflation adjustment, of $78,500.

Beaudry commented that the new Linn County facility is projected to open August 1, 1999, with 21 beds, moving to 28 beds and within a year move to 35 beds. He said that if Johnson County was to purchase at least 3 beds, the per diem would be at its lowest, $212 per day. He added that if Johnson County were to purchase 5 beds, the cost would come to $386,900 per year. Projecting the need for facilities for 2 other children per day would be necessary, Beaudry estimated a total of $47,600 for a possible 200 days at Linn County at a higher per diem at a non-guaranteed rate and the placements at other facilities would equal 530 days at a total of $87,450 for a 2 year period. He said the grand total would be $521,950. He noted that the increases in the budget are almost all due to detention costs. He said that this year there will be a need approximately $25,000 in shelter overage costs, whereas before they had only budgeted $10,000. One reason for this, Beaudry said, was that he discovered about a year ago that the shelter overage costs were being billed under the wrong line item, detention. He said that to some extent officers are attempting to use shelter when detention might otherwise have been used. He pointed to the cost shifting that is taking place from State to County funding. He said that to some extent detention is being used because the State of Iowa does not have enough residential treatment beds. He mentioned the cap on the judicial district for placement at the State Training School. He said that the proposed Detention Alternative Program will save Johnson County money, a program he believes can be up and running by February.

Beaudry noted a slight adjustment in the budget concerning custodial supply/janitorial costs due to the fact that janitorial costs being billed under the custodial supplies line item, so beginning next fiscal year the expenses should more accurately reflect the actual expenditures, $1,400-1,500 per year for janitorial services per year. He said he also added $1,500 in inmate medical juvenile court costs, costs that stem from medical and pharmaceutical costs that juveniles have while in detention, costs previously paid by Title 19. He said they try to get reimbursement or insurance payments from parents for these costs. Duffy asked if any other funding was available for this. Beaudry said there was only private insurance or reimbursement through the parents. Stutsman asked why Title 19 no longer covers these costs. Beaudry did not know, but speculated that it was a cost cutting move by the federal government.

Jordahl asked if the County could step in and fund additional spaces in residential treatment. Beaudry said it was possible, but the danger in that would be that once the County started paying for treatment the State is responsible for, that there would be no end to what the County would run into. He noted the cost for treatment is lower at an average of approximately $120 per day, but detention is about $165 per day. Stutsman said it would be a policy decision for the Board. She also was apprehensive about Johnson County picking up State costs and losing slots at Linn County. Beaudry said it would set a precedent that would be dangerous for the County. He said they need to get the point across to the State that residential detention is being seriously underfunded; funding has been cut from 1,600-1,850 beds in 1991 to about 1,000-1,100 residential treatment beds currently. He said there has been no reduction in the need to place kids in residential treatment. He added there has been an increase in community-based services funding, but looking at the detention costs there are a number of kids in need of intervention in the residential treatment section. Stutsman expressed concern that the County would be absorbing the costs for all the kids from Johnson County. Jordahl suggested that the County pay for additional slots, not the existing slots. Beaudry said part of the problem would be that the State is in constant negotiation with the federal government, thereby the County would need more staff to enter into these negotiations. Beaudry and Stutsman both reiterated their concern that the State would back off funding of existing slots and pass the costs to the counties. Jordahl expressed worry that the citizens of the County were paying a larger bill than the one they would be assuming and they aren't receiving the quality of service the State is able to provide. Beaudry emphasized that treatment is clearly the State's responsibility and that in the long run having the County pay for treatment would prove expensive. Stutsman said that would bring in the issue of legal settlement. Beaudry said Johnson County is already a magnet for families wanting services and the problem would increase. Beaudry said, before doing a proposal to the State, they should look at how many kids need detention and are not waiting for residential treatment. Jordahl said they should look at the possibility. Stutsman asked if any other county is paying the State for slots and Beaudry said he is not aware of any. Jordahl said he wants to draw an analogy to the proposal to allocate local option sales tax money, if approved, to the Juvenile Crime Prevention Grant program to make up for possible cuts in State funding. Stutsman said that is a prevention program, not residential treatment. Jordahl said residential treatment is similar to juvenile crime prevention in that in both cases they are trying to intervene and change the individual's outlook and behavior. Beaudry agreed, but noted that when a child is placed in residential treatment, there is a much more serious problem and intensive treatment. Stutsman said she wanted the State to understand they have dropped the ball on this issue and it's the kids who are coming up short. Duffy said it will cost us in the long run when they are adults.

Jordahl asked what the bottom line is. Beaudry said that they were increasing their line item on detention by $231,500, a number that reflects the tremendous increase in the number of juveniles being detained per day, from 3.9 beds per day to over 7 beds per day. He said the shelter overage may not reflect increased usage because of the use of the wrong line item for some, but there may have been some increase there as well. Beaudry said if the 3 beds in the Detention Alternative Program could be filled with children who would otherwise be in detention, the cost would be $78,500 and a minimum of $105,000 would be saved. Jordahl asked if that $105,000 gets subtracted from the $231,500. Beaudry said that the $231,500 was the increase in costs for children who would be in detention centers, that the cost for the detention alternative program would be in addition to that. Jordahl asked if without the detention alternative expenditure of $78,500, the total bill for juvenile detention would run to $700,000 for FY 2000 as opposed to about $600,000. Beaudry confirmed this. Jordahl noted the additional detention costs and detention alternative program would require an additional $310,000. Duffy asked what happens to juveniles when they become adults. Beaudry said his office loses jurisdiction over them when they turn 18 years of age. Duffy asked what the price is per day at the County jail. Beaudry said it was about $50 per day. Stutsman closed the discussion by saying it's tough being a kid these days.

Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards and Deputy Auditor Kit Wong discussed the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. Wong referred to the memo regarding the year 2000 budget process. Wong reviewed the second page of the memo which delineates the suggested budget timeline. He said this timeline would allow for certification one week before the deadline.

Wong moved to the next page, Chapter 444 Property Tax Worksheet, noting that this worksheet is for informational purposes only, because the County is no longer under a property tax freeze. He continued, that it gives information on allowable growth dollars, which is $518,670 in the general fund and $55,963 in the rural fund. Duffy asked for an explanation of the $55,963, saying that it seemed low. Edwards said that the growth in the rural fund went up about $19,000,000 in total valuation, so that the $55,963 is based on the $19,000,000 valuation. Jordahl said that the distinction is not that the rural fund dollars represent the rural development, but rather the allowable growth dollars from the general fund are dollars from all new construction in the county, rural and urban combined. Stutsman asked what the rural fund represents. Edwards said it was just the rural areas. Jordahl said only the rural residents pay into the rural fund with exception to the transfer made from the general fund. Stutsman then asked if it was possible to say that this was based on the new construction in just the unincorporated area. Edwards confirmed this. Jordahl said that they also contribute to the general fund. Wong said these dollars would change because they were just estimates. Edwards said they don't have the final valuations, but that these should be close estimates.

Wong then discussed unusual needs dollars, which is calculated at $187,834 in the general fund and $31,851 in the rural fund. Jordahl asked if the Board could pretend if the freeze was still in effect that the unusual needs would be appropriated, for example Juvenile needs doubling and justify a 1.42 % tax increase in order to cover that. He then said if 1.42 % was eclipsed then some statement of justification would have to be made during the budget presentation. Wong pointed out that the next page is the Property Tax Worksheet. Jordahl noted this page is used to determine the numbers on the previous page.

Wong then talked about the page titled Fund Balance Analysis, saying the first column was for FY 99 beginning July 1, 1998, with re-estimated and actual figures. He said it shows the major funds. He referenced the middle columns showing the FY 2000 beginning amounts, budget and re-estimated, and the final column, recommended ending FY 2000 fund balance. Jordahl said if there was $500,000 more in the general fund in a carryover balance than Auditor's office would recommend, and he asked how this related to the need to raise the insurance premium so as to make that fund more solvent. Edwards said it was not related, that is was a totally separate fund. Jordahl said, by budgeting $2,000,00 in the balance for general funds in FY 2000, as opposed to the actual FY 99 amount of $2,659,868, it appears they are trying to spend themselves down. Edwards said that as of last July 1st there was an additional $750,000 over what was projected. Jordahl asked if the employee insurance fund was paid out of the general fund. Edwards said it mostly comes from the department budgets. Jordahl noted that most of those are in the general fund. Edwards said if the premium amounts were increased then department budgets would also have to be increased. Stutsman said they are waiting for figures on the insurance.

Wong read the notes below the chart on the Fund Balance Analysis. Duffy asked if there would be an extra pay period this year. Edwards said it would be in fiscal year 2000. Edwards said the plan was to save $300,000 this year for the extra pay period, which is roughly half of what that cost would be. Jordahl said it looks like the re-estimated budgets of departments are coming in at $500,000 more than previously thought. Stutsman asked why. Edwards explained that one factor was the interest revenue in the general fund was underestimated, that last year it was under about $240,000. He said that he had spoken to the Treasurer about this and that the estimates add about $450,000 to what was expected. Jordahl asked if this was due to the changes the Treasurer had spoken of earlier. Edwards said no, that historically the County had been underestimating the amount expected to receive. Stutsman speculated that the interest was estimated conservatively in case the interest rates should fall, then there wouldn't be a budget shortfall. Jordahl expressed the desire to have a more accurate estimate of the budget to know what could be parceled out to the departments. Wong finished reading the notes on the Fund Balance Analysis by reading the note which states the Secondary Roads fund balance will decrease to $1,570,796 if expenditure targets are reached.

Wong said that the next couple of pages explained the Budget Worksheet. Edwards and Wong explained that as the Board goes through the department budgets and makes changes, the numbers will be plugged into this worksheet. Wong explained that budget figure for expenditures in the 1st column for FY 2000 is the base amount plus the known increases for personnel. Edwards said the far fight column, FY 2000 Request, is the maximum requested by each department. Wong said tax-related revenues have been left at FY 99 levels for Central Services, General Supplemental Block Grants, and Rural Basic Block Grants and will be re-estimated when the final valuations are in. Edwards said other revenue adjustments made by departments are shown in the worksheet. Wong reviewed the personnel increases which are included and the items not included, pending Board decisions. He noted the 1% incremental increase for each personnel item not yet set, given for informational purposes. Edwards said the personnel decisions would impact a lot of line items. Pillard said the Board could multiply the 1% increase amounts by whatever factor they want for a percentage for each group. Wong reviewed the requirement to transfer 75% of the maximum allowed under the Code of Iowa in order to receive the full amount of road use tax revenue from the State. Wong said the Capital Projects, Capital Expenditures, and Technology Requests have been left at their FY 99 budget amounts. He indicated a comparison of the FY 99 budget amounts and the FY 2000 requested amounts. Wong said the technology expenditures and some capital expenditures have been removed from the department budget totals. Of the $1,406,012 requested in FY2000, $329,817 was taken out of individual department budgets.

Pillard explained the handouts listing the Capital Projects and the Capital Expenditures. She noted 3 items listed at the top of Capital Expenditure Requests for Conservation are in Department 24's operating budget. Pillard said the 2 items at the bottom were amounts that can be reallocated to other items. On the Capital Projects Requests she noted $804 not reallocated. There was discussion about what to do with funds from interest or left over from a project. Pillard said the Board should state a policy on those funds. She noted department requests for vehicles that might be too high, leaving leftover funds. Jordahl said the argument could be turned on it's head; there is no incentive to save money if the department doesn't get to save the savings. Stutsman said a good example was the Department of Human Services request to put savings in the operating budget into a fund for putting away funds for their building needs. She made clear the point that the Board agreed to that reallocation. Jordahl said another possibility besides reversion to the general fund would be, as in the example Stutsman noted, the Board could allocate the money to a capital fund for space needs or capital expenditures for the department. Pillard said she feels it should be at the Board's discretion, not at the department's discretion. Stutsman said it is good to clarify these types of things. Pillard said the Conservation Department may take issue with the idea of taking equipment out of their operating budget and placing the expenditures in a capital expenditures budget. She said they were able to add staff under the 0% increase by reallocating line items.

Wong said the revenue-expense adjustment for the general basic fund has been increased $610,000 to $700,000, for general supplemental it has been decreased from $40,000 to $30,000, and for the rural basic fund from $20,000 to $10,000. He explained these adjustments are included in the budget as a revenue to lower taxes by keeping the fund balance from getting too large. He said adjustments are calculated by analyzing the revenues received overbudget and expenditures expended underbudget in each department over the previous 3 years and calculating an average for each fund.

Jordahl asked, if the local option sales tax passes, with the budget already certified, would the tax bills reflect property tax relief from the local option sales tax. Edwards said he thought it would have to wait until the FY 2001 budget and Stutsman noted the tax bills would already be calculated. Jordahl asked if they can wait until FY 2001 for funds received in FY 2000. Stutsman said that is a good question, but she didn't feel they should spend a lot of time discussing it at this time.

Edwards said the bottom line on the spreadsheet is, with the numbers they currently have plugged in, if the Board wants to use all the allowable growth dollars available in the general fund, there is $1,032,268 left that can be allocated to the departments and capital expenditures. Edwards said there are about $900,000 in department requests, there will be added whatever cost-of-living adjustments the Board puts in, and the capital expenditure requests are up about $500,000. Jordahl said a 3% cost-of-living increase would be about $305,000. Pillard noted that merit increases would have to be figured in and the amount they kick in for the health fund.

Jordahl asked if the $1,032,268 includes the spending down of the residual ending balance. Edwards said it does. Jordahl asked if there is a projected figure for merit and Pillard said she would be discussing that with Human Resource Administrator Lora Shramek. Jordahl asked about the health fund and Pillard said they were waiting for those figures. Stutsman asked what the inflation rate was at, thinking it is about 1.9%. She said they have historically been good with cost-of-living adjustments, even when inflation has been low. Pillard asked if lowering the cost-of-living adjustment would negate the results of the salary study. Stutsman noted the salary study was done to increase wages. She said the County health benefits are good and Duffy agreed. The Board discussed the upcoming schedule of work sessions.

Adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Darby Cole and Casie Parkins, Recording Secretaries