Chairperson Jordahl called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 1:40 p.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, and Sally Stutsman. Also present was Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard, Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards and Deputy Auditor Kit Wong.

Board of Supervisors Deputy Administrative Assistant Deana Pillard distributed documents which contained information regarding line item changes made by MH/DD. Stutsman said the MH/DD budget was capped so it did not have much impact on the budget. Pillard said Jean Schultz e-mailed the Supervisors about an inquiry regarding SEATS request for up to $50,000 for an upgrade to the Para Transit Software. Pillard said Schultz had learned that they were getting roughly $25,000 from the sale of vans to the cities, which would be applied to the upgrade, so the request was lessened to $25,000. Pillard said Becky Mills in the Health Department said that $5,000 could be deleted from that department's request for funds, since a color printer had been provided via grant money. Pillard said Schultz had learned from the County Attorney's Office that a request for a laptop PC and desk-jet printer, with a combined cost of $3,270 were related to a new County Attorney's hiring and that the rest of the computer requests for that department were for current staff. Pillard pointed out a mistake in the block grant portion of the budget documentation.

Jordahl asked for a one-sheet document to distribute by that Friday with an updated information on technology requests. Stutsman asked if anyone had a consumer price index figure.

Jordahl suggested the Board start with elected officials request for salary increases. The elected officials requested a 4% increase across the board. Jordahl said the union wages were tied to the management's wages, meaning the union wages had to be within a certain percentage of the elected officials salary. Jordahl said the salary survey was done to consistently and fairly raise management wages, he said an outside consultant and the Human Resources director was consulted in this process. He continued by saying the elected officials were not included in the salary survey , and by raising the elected officials salary the salaries of their deputies increase as well. Jordahl supported the Compensation Board's recommendation, which was a raise of 4% for elected officials and their deputies.

Stutsman said she supported the 4% raise since the elected officials were left out of the salary survey when many County employees had their wages increased. Duffy said he did not support a 4% raise, that he supported 3%, saying some rural residents were nearly bankrupt and that they did not have the benefit of a cost of living increase. Duffy suggested the Board go through the budgets before focusing on wages. Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards said the effects of increases of 2%, 3% and 4% could be estimated since 1% increases had been tabulated. Edwards said an increase of 1% for elected officials and their deputies would be approximately $10,000. Stutsman pointed out that any changes in salary were preliminary and could be changed, that it would provide a baseline tool for budget work. Pillard said preliminary changes in the budget would be helpful in order to have an updated working budget ready for the next meeting. Jordahl said union contracts had increased around 3%. Jordahl said the media could criticize the board for raising wages beyond the cost of living. Duffy said that elected officials salaries should be a state issue since the board was voting on their own salaries, and that the board would be criticized regardless of what action is taken. Jordahl said the Compensation Board's purpose was to give recommendations on wages for departments and employees not covered under the salary survey and that the Compensation Board had been frustrated since the Board of Supervisor's rarely used their recommendations. Jordahl supported going with a 4% wage increase as recommended by the Compensation Board since the salary survey did not apply to the Board of Supervisors. He continued by saying the 4% raise keeps elected officials' wages in sync with the other management officials in the county. Stutsman stated that the consumer price index had been 2 or lower, and keeping the benefits package and salary survey in mind, she would suggest 2% or lower. Jordahl said the reason for the salary survey was unions had more avenues to raise their wages, that the difference in management and union wages was diminishing too much. He said raising wages only 2% would re-create the problem the salary survey just fixed.

Duffy said the salaries should be a different agenda item, that the Board was spending too much time on the issue. Lehman said he had a problem with a 4% increase due to the rural/farm economy. Jordahl said many other departments requested wage increases though they had raises during the current fiscal year from the salary survey. Stutsman and Duffy stated that many of the expenses involved with the Supervisor position, such as traveling and lunches, were not paid for by the County.

Reverend Bob Welsh stated that a 3% rather than 4% increase would only be a difference of $320 in each Supervisor's wages, which would cause the public to view them as responsible managers. Lehman said that to appear favorable to the public, their deputies would be denied wages. Stutsman argued that good wages were needed to attract good candidates, that an elected official's position was a demanding one. Jordahl suggested raising elected officials wages 3% and their deputies 4%. Duffy questioned if that was possible. Lehman stated that raising each Supervisor's wage 4% instead of 3%, was an increase of $320 for 5 supervisors, which was a cost of $1,600 that could be explained to the public. Jordahl said the Compensation Board's recommendation is comprised of the salary survey adjustment and the cost of living adjustment. Pillard stated that the cost of a 1% increase in merit pay would be $40,000.

Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler entered the meeting and read from 331907 "Compensation Schedule Preparation and Adoption of the Code" which stated that increasing or decreasing salaries for elected county officers and their deputies was an equal percentage. Stutsman asked if anyone objected to a pay increase of 4% for elected officials and deputies. No one objected.

Jordahl inquired about the health fund. Pillard said she had no exact dollar amount on the matter yet.

Jordahl noted that elected officials' pay can only be reduced by the same amount. Lehman said that prevented a Supervisor from being singled out by the others. Pillard said the Board needed to specify a percentage to be used for the bargaining units. Jordahl and Stutsman agreed on 3%. Jordahl asked how that amount affected the remaining funds. Edwards said that would leave $720,000. Jordahl said the previous amount was $1,032,000. Jordahl said $300,000 would be subtracted for 3% COLA (cost of living adjustments) plus 4% elected leaves $722,000. Duffy said many would be unhappy when they found out the elected officials pay raise is 1% higher than the COLA percentage increase. Stutsman said that one should point out the exclusion of elected officials from the salary survey. Jordahl said one could point out that the extra 1% was less than what was typically given to other management employees in the salary survey.

Duffy left at 2:20.

Jordahl said $500,000 was requested for capital projects, saying that number might be too low. Jordahl estimated that $222,000 was left to budget. Jordahl asked how much money County Treasurer Tom Kriz said was available from extra interest income. Edwards said that between the present year and the next year, approximately $450,000 was available, but that was already included. Jordahl noted that the $900,000 in departmental requests did not include the technology fund. Edwards said the technology requests was $790,000 for FY 2000. Pillard said technology fund money was taken out of departmental budgets. Pillard said there was no technology expenditure in the budget except what was spent last year on central technology, which was still under capital expenditures. Jordahl noted that $143,727 is FY 99 capital expenditures technology. Jordahl said $35,000 in GIS (Geographical Information Systems) subtracted from $270,000 plus the Sheriff's request for $32,000 left approximately $235,772. Jordahl calculated that if everything was funded in the central technology fund request, it left $92,045. Jordahl said that departmental requests for new equipment ballooned the $235,000 figure to $700,000.

Duffy returned at 2:25.

Jordahl informed Duffy that the basic outline of the computer technology issue was Edwards had calculated the zero point of the current year's central technology fund but not the departmental expenditures on computers which would be put into the technology department for FY 0000. He continued by saying none of the departmental expenditures were presently in the regular budget. Pillard pointed out that the Supervisors should look at the resulting FY 2000 amount not covered elsewhere on the technology budget worksheet.

The Board discussed strategy in budgeting. Jordahl advocated focusing on the largest portions of the budget, such as technology, salary and space needs. Stutsman suggested that the board look at personnel first since some technology requests were dependent on personnel.

Susan Horowitz asked to what degree the Board reached when dealing with department budgets, such as asking each department to reduce their budgets by a particular percentage. Jordahl replied that the Board had dealt with departmental requests to a very fine degree in the past, citing the Computer Needs Committee composed of community volunteers. He said the Computer Needs Committee generated a report and 4 sub-committees resulted from the report's recommendations, including GIS, the web site, document management and networking. Jordahl said that ordering the departments to reduce technology requests by a flat percentage would not work because computerization levels among departments vary.

Jordahl said he wanted a bottom line for technology as a whole, then to focus on personnel after that. Jordahl felt that staff should be dealt with before technology. The Board discussed GIS's requests. He said the GIS Subcommittee requested to bring in an outside consultant and for additional computers. Stutsman noted that additional computers meant additional personnel. Jordahl said he was opposed to hiring additional GIS personnel when there was not a county wide GIS plan yet.

Duffy left at 2:36.

Jordahl said that he wanted to know all the department's technology expenses for FY 99 and that it was not in the information he had. Pillard noted that the amount not covered by the technology fund for FY 2000 was $571,000, and the amount for FY 99 was $355,002. Pillard said an additional $216,094 was requested for FY 2000 than FY 99. Pillard also said to know departmental technology requests versus available dollars, total department funds within their budget in FY 99 was $211,275 and the change over FY 2000 by department was $89,000. Pillard said the $571,000 included the central technology fund. Jordahl said the $790,000 figure came from adding $571,000 and $117,000, which was the actual request that includes the central technology account. However, Pillard said that to look at only departments without the central technology which is $101,000. Pillard concluded that departments were requesting $300,324 that was not covered.

Duffy returned at 2:40.

Jordahl said $153,000 could be subtracted that was already budgeted from $700,000, leaving $547,000 in requests which would need to be taken from the $1,032,000 amount. Jordahl calculated roughly $335,000 in new technology requests.

Stutsman suggested the Board discuss the process of making the budget. Duffy and Stutsman agreed that looking at personnel requests would be the first priority. Stutsman said requests should be looked at as a whole, since some personnel requests were tied to computer requests. Jordahl said he was disinclined to granting personnel requests unless statistical justification for the requests was provided as well. Stutsman suggested that a system needed to be created to evaluate personnel requests other than at budget time. Duffy agreed. Jordahl said that hiring new personnel was a serious commitment. The Board discussed Ambulance's request for a third ambulance shift when it was not budget time. Jordahl suggested that Pillard prepare a one-page review of all the departments' requests for the next days meeting. Stutsman said she would like to know which departments neglected to put benefits costs with their new personnel requests. Stutsman suggested that it was important as the County moved towards performance based budgeting to let the departments know the Board noticed who followed the correct protocol with their budget requests. Pillard said she would have liked to get the budget requests earlier to clarify some questions she had about departments' proposed budgets. Jordahl said MH/DD was a good example of performance based budgeting that works. Jordahl said that looking at what each department provides, quanitifying and qualifying the provided services when departments ask for additional personnel is needed in the future.

Adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Nick Tremlow, Recording Secretary

Sent to the Board of Supervisors on February 5, 1999 at 6:30 p.m.