Chairperson Jordahl called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:07 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, and Sally Stutsman. Also present were Deputy Administrative Assistant Deanna Pillard and Deputy County Auditor Kit Wong.

The Board first discussed the Ambulance Department's capital expenditure requests. Pillard said the cost of 3 requested ambulances for that department was approximately $81,000 total. Stutsman objected to funding that amount but noted that the Ambulance Department was doing multiple year budgeting for their vehicles as the Board instructed. Pillard pointed out that of the 3 requested additional ambulances, ambulance #5 was a used one which was significantly less expensive than the others. Pillard answered Lehman's question that this department requested funds to save for the used ambulance, not to purchase it in FY 2000. Lehman agreed with Stutsman's earlier point that the Ambulance Department's budget went according to the Board's instructions. The Board looked at documents distributed by the Ambulance Department which showed the schedule for ambulance replacement. Stutsman suggested telling the Director of the Ambulance Department, Mike Sullivan that $100,000 for ambulances could not be funded and ask for alternatives. Duffy and Lehman agreed with her. Pillard said she had contacted the Sullivan, and that he would meet with the Board later that morning. The Board decided to delay making the Ambulance Department's budget until they could meet with Sullivan.

The Board next discussed the County Auditor's Office request to save for a photocopier which would be shared with the Elections Department. Stutsman recommended the full funding on this request.

The Board then discussed the Department of Public Health's requests. Pillard explained that this department wanted one replacement vehicle and one additional vehicle, that these would be purchased during FY 2000 and funds be saved for 2 vehicle purchases later. Stutsman felt that no funds for new vehicles should be allotted. Duffy said this department had 8 cars, which was enough in his and Stutsman's opinion. Jordahl questioned that $20,000 was requested to buy a used car. It was also discussed that the wear and mileage on Public Health's vehicles would probably diminish since inspections in Muscatine and Iowa Counties would no longer take place. The Board debated providing a lump sum to be distributed by the Public Health Director however was wanted on vehicles, or allocating specific amounts of funding to save for specific vehicle replacements. Stutsman said an expert on vehicle replacement was needed to assist the Board in creating vehicle replacement policies. Stutsman said the Board was not ready to fund an additional, ninth vehicle for this department. Duffy said he didn't support saving for 3 vehicle replacements at once. Jordahl recommended cutting the project total amount for each new vehicle from $20,000 to $15,000 or $12,000. The Board decided to lower the project total amount for each replacement vehicle from $20,000 to $12,000, allocated $7,000 to purchase a replacement vehicle in FY 2000 as well as $4,000 and $2,000 to go towards savings for future vehicle replacements. The Board did not provide funds to purchase an additional vehicle for Public Health's fleet and did not provide funds for saving for a third future vehicle replacement. Pillard said Public Health also requested $5,000 for a photocopier. Stutsman recommended that no funding be provided for this.

The Board then discussed its own request for $5,000 for a photocopier, for which $5,000 had already been saved. Stutsman agreed to fund this request.

The Board discussed the Sheriff's Department's capital expenditure requests. Pillard noted that $110,470 had been taken out of that department's operational base budget and that $116,470 was requested for vehicles. Jordahl and Stutsman recommended allocating $110,470 to that department. Pillard said this department also requested that a savings account be started for a digital fingerprinter, to be saved over 3 fiscal years with a total project cost of $60,000. Jordahl and Stutsman allocated the full request of $20,000 to start saving for that purchase.

The Board then discussed SEATS request for vehicle #134. Pillard noted that the requested amount was $18,072, which was the amount the Board had transferred from that departments operational base budget to capital expenditures. The Board allocated $18,072.

The Board discussed the Ambulance Department's capital expenditure requests with Mike Sullivan, the Director of the Ambulance Department. Stutsman explained to Sullivan that the Board could not fund the full request for ambulance vehicle replacements. Jordahl asked Sullivan to clarify a scheduled purchase of a 1991 ambulance during FY 2001. Sullivan said this unit was an additional unit. Sullivan said a year to year agreement with the University of Iowa provided his department with additional ambulances for emergencies, but buying a used ambulance at a quarter of the cost of a new one would be a long term solution but was not essential. Jordahl asked Sullivan if he had a detailed cost versus projected reliability schedule for his ambulance fleet, which would be helpful for each department's vehicle replacements. Sullivan said mainly small items need to be repaired on ambulances due to their weight and 100,000 miles along with the ambulance's year is used as a trade in component when upgrading. Sullivan said he developed a 7 year rotation for his department's vehicle and keeping an ambulance longer than 7 years means a 3-4% increase in upkeep along with diminishing trade-in value. Jordahl said he interpreted Sullivan as having said a fifth ambulance was not necessary at that point, which Sullivan agreed with. Jordahl asked how much on average would the Board need to allocate to maintain the 7 year replacement schedule, to which Sullivan answered $42,000-$45,000 per year. Jordahl was confused why the total requests of the department without the 5th ambulance was still $70,000. Sullivan said the new 7 year rotation would be started during FY 2000 which caused the most fiscal impact on the first year. Jordahl recommended allocating the full requested amount, excluding the photocopier and 5th ambulance, in order to maintain the rotation schedule and optimize trade-ins. Jordahl questioned why $40,000 in requested funds, coupled with $40,000 during FY 2001 were needed to purchase an $84,000 ambulance when Sullivan said the Ambulance Department usually got $20,000 for trading in their old ambulances. Sullivan and Pillard explained that there was no guarantee that a trade-in would get a certain amount so the funds were needed to cover this. Jordahl objected, that an estimate in the trade-in was needed so a tax levy would not be imposed that was refunded later. Pillard said that any carry-over resulting from the trade-in could be used for future Ambulance Department needs, and that the Board could put the carry-over back into the general fund. Stutsman agreed with Jordahl, that if the amount for the actual trade-in was less than the predicted amount the Board could allocate some more funds, rather than over allocate funds initially. Jordahl said $18,000 for trade-ins should be factored in. Stutsman and Jordahl agreed they should allocate $33,000 on ambulance replacement.

The Board discussed the Ambulance Department's request of $6,653 for a new photocopier. Sullivan said the copier was over 6 years old. Jordahl and Stutsman allocated the full amount for the copier. Sullivan said the request for funds for his department's phone system was only a ballpark figure, but saving for this project would allow them to link up to fiber optic technology once enough funds were saved. Sullivan spoke about how his 4th ambulance, the back-up one, was not equipped with a LifePak-12 Cardiac Monitor which was why funds were requested to have one within 2 years, which was an expectation from the Medical Director. Jordahl said funding ambulances was a real priority for him personally.

Recessed at 10:03 a.m.; reconvened at 10:10 a.m. with Jordahl absent.

The Board decided to allocate the full $7,250 to save for a LifePak-12 Cardiac Monitor.

The Board then discussed the Physical Plant's capital expenditure requests. Pillard noted that $1,216 was requested for a display on for the second floor lobby. Stutsman suggested funding this amount, since it wasn't too much money.

Jordahl returned at 10:13 a.m.

Pillard said the Physical Plant requested $3,000 for second floor conference room chairs. Duffy felt that wasn't essential which Stutsman and Jordahl agreed with. Stutsman instructed Pillard to not allocate funds for portable conference room tables at $3,000. Stutsman and Jordahl agreed to save $4,000 for a vehicle, which would be saved for over a 5 year period.

The Board then discussed the Planning and Zoning Department's capital expenditure requests. Jordahl recommended delaying that department's requested purchase of a pick-up truck by one year by funding half the requested amount in FY 2000. Stutsman and Duffy recommended $3,000 in funding for a $4,500 request to replace Planning and Zoning's copier, since there was tentative plans for that department to purchase the Board of Supervisor's used copier.

Next, the Board discussed Court Services' request of $5,000 for a projector screen which could project items without the need of view cells according to Pillard. Lehman added that the County Attorney said this item was crucial. Stutsman and Duffy were hesitant about funding this request. Jordahl said not funding this might cause a larger increase in court costs than the projector cost in the future. Stutsman and Duffy agreed to tentatively provide funding.

The Board agreed to fund $500 for Election's payment of a shared copier.

The Board then discussed the Auditor/Elections Department's request to replace a vehicle. Pillard noted that there was confusion over this line item in previous work sessions, because this department proposed $4,000 to repair a damaged vehicle but the Board thought the funds could be better used to accelerate the purchase of a replacement van. Pillard said this request was for a van that was not in an auto accident but required sheet metal and paint for body repairs. Jordahl pointed out that the Board had previously lowered the total project cost from $23,500 to $15,000, which Wong said was correct. Jordahl recommended allocating $10,800 which did not provide funds to repair the old van's body but did accelerate the purchase of a replacement van in FY 2000.

The Board then discussed the Department of Human Services' request for office equipment. Pillard pointed out that the $19,972 carried over in that budget was to be used to purchase office equipment when a division of the Human Services Department moved offices.

Pillard asked the Board what to do with the $9,560 left over from the postage machine. Jordahl recommended creating a small pool of unallocated capital expenditure money to cover mid-year capital expenditure budget requests with the left over postage machine funds and the $8,000 in unallocated investment interest. Pillard said a policy must be created in order to allocate investment interest into a fund like Jordan suggested. Pillard pointed out that the actual SEATS and Sheriff's Department dollar amounts are not new tax asking because these funds were within their operating budget in FY 99 and the Board was shifting the funds from their operating budgets to capital expenditures and these figures should not be used to calculate the total capital expenditure budget for FY 2000 and to calculate the new tax levy. Pillard and Wong calculated the new tax asking within the capital expenditure budget as $56,445.

The Board then discussed departmental technology requests. Jordahl and Stutsman asked Pillard to ask Jean Schultz, Information Services Director, to meet with the Board to better explain the technology requests.

Jordahl left at 10:28 a.m.; returned at 10:30 a.m.

Stutsman pointed out that Schultz had worked with departments in budgeting their technology requests so she could provide more information than listed on the technology request handout.

The Board first discussed the Ambulance Department's technology requests. Pillard noted that this departments $500 request for a scanner wasn't covered by the technology account, neither was a request to save for a laptop computer. Schultz said there wasn't room to maneuver within this department's ongoing technology costs. Pillard said the scanner was requested to make billing easier. Pillard continued by saying Ambulance Department Director Mike Sullivan put the scanner as top priority for use in records management and educational storage. Stutsman said she did not have a problem with that. Pillard read Sullivan's budget statement in which he wrote that the lap top was for the assistant director's use. Stutsman objected to the laptop, saying a good deal of money had already been allocated to that department.

Pillard then read the County Attorneys Office technology requests. Pillard said 2 networked laptop computers with software were requested at $6,000. Schultz added that one laptop was for new attorney and the other for an existing one. Stutsman said the laptop and $270 for a DeskJet printer were for the new attorney. Schultz said the $500 requested for a new PC which was only partially covered by the technology account was to replace an old computer given to the Attorney's Office when it was upgraded by another department. Stutsman supported the PC replacement and supportive of 1 laptop for the new attorney. Jordahl was supportive of both laptops. Schultz said the laptop for the existing attorney was either to provide him a work computer since he or she was using their home computer or the attorney was currently using a PC on loan that needed to be updated by 2000. Lehman and Jordahl agreed to provide all the requested funds except for one laptop computer.

The Board then discussed the County Auditor's Office request for technology funds. Pillard noted 5 PC replacements were covered by the central technology fund for $7,500, a network printer covered for $1,500 by central technology leaving $1,000 for the Board to cover. Schultz said the whole amount was not covered on the printer request because this office wanted a model with options above what was normally allocated for from the central technology fund. Pillard continued by saying a $1,500 request for a laser printer was fully covered by central technology, and $1,380 was requested that was not covered by central technology for FoxPro upgrades. Jordahl questioned a comment on the sheet that stated Information Services recommended the Auditor's Office use Visual Basic instead of FoxPro. Schultz said converting to Visual Basic would be a good deal of work. Pillard and Schultz said the advantage of Visual Basic was programmers in the Information Services Department were better able to support it. Jordahl was apprehensive that additional staff could be requested in the future from the Auditor's Office because FoxPro wasn't supported by Information Services. Wong added that Deputy County Auditor Chris Edwards supported FoxPro in that office. Wong added that all the programming for elections and for the general ledger were in FoxPro, and that maintenance of FoxPro was done with current staff and he did not predict additional personnel needs because of this. Jordahl inquired whether Visual Basic or FoxPro had networking advantages over the other. Jordahl suggested that the Networking Subcommittee look at this request because of the required investment in staff training. Jordahl recommended approving the FoxPro upgrade but put it on the Board's future agenda. Jordahl and Stutsman approved the replacement of 5 PC's, a network printer, and a laser printer in that department which would be funded by the central technology budget. The Board did not allocate funds for 2 PC's for GIS and GIS software.

The Board then discussed the Board of Health's technology requests. Pillard explained this department requested a CD tower at a cost of $3,500 not covered by central technology. Pillard explained that this piece of equipment would allow anyone to access Board of Health information on the network without even having a CD-ROM on their individual PC. Pillard continued by saying an additional PC and monitor with $1,500 covered by central technology and $300 requested from the Board. She added that 2 new PC's, monitors and software packages at $1,800 were requested which were not covered by central technology as well as a color projector costing $5,000 funded fully by the Board. Schultz said the color projector was not a high priority item. Stutsman objected to the color projector. Schultz said the additional $300 for the PC upgrade would not be needed since the Microsoft Office license would still be valid. Stutsman was in favor of granting funds for one new PC. Jordahl spoke positively about funding the CD tower since the variety of federal and state health codes would be more readily available. Jordahl recommended allocating funds for this at the present time but to keep it in mind if budget cuts were needed later.

Stutsman was in favor of allocating funds for a PC and Microsoft Office software for the Human Resources Department since the Board had already allocated funds for a new Human Resources Assistant.

The Board next discussed Information Services' request for technology funds. Pillard said there were 3 ongoing hardware and software maintenance contracts not funded by central technology. She pointed out that the new request was a $4,000 software purchase, a peripheral purchase of $1,500 and payroll software estimated at $45,000. None of these requests were covered by the central technology account. Schultz said all of these requests except for the payroll software were carry overs, and pointed out that 2 of the contracts had gone down a total of approximately $22,000 since last year. Schultz added that the $4,000 software purchase were for programmers and the peripheral purchase was the lowest priority. Schultz said the payroll system was rather old and that figure was only an estimate. Stutsman said the Board had discussed a new payroll system for years and it should be supported. Stutsman and Jordahl agreed to fund all the requests in this department.

The Board then discussed the Sheriff's Department's technology requests. Pillard informed the Board that the first 3 items, IBM AS400 and CIS software maintenance and AS400 upgrade, were ongoing expenses. Pillard said an upgrade of 10 terminals that were 8 years old with PC's at a cost of $19,160 covered by central technology, which would allow this department to be networked with the County. She added that 30 terminals were proposed for upgrading but it would be done over a 3 year period. Schultz added that $13,428 covered by central technology was for installation of a server with back-up software which would extend the life of the AS400. Pillard told the Board that the Sheriff's Department's technology request was $9,706 than last year. Jordahl and Stutsman agreed with these technology requests.

Pillard said the County Recorder's Office technology requests were covered by their document fund.

The Board next discussed the SEATS department technology requests. Pillard said ongoing maintenance of their software was requested at $5,875 and an upgrade of their para-transit system which decreased in dollar amount from $50,000 to $25,000 by selling vehicles to Iowa City. Duffy asked if the funds from the vehicle sale were certain. Stutsman instructed Pillard to talk with SEATS Director Lisa Dewey to resolve this matter. Stutsman and Lehman approved this department's request for funding.

The Board discussed the County Treasurer's Office's request for technology funds. Pillard and Schultz explained that bar coding equipment was requested at a cost of $4,500 to be used for scanning tax statements rather than manual typing. Jordahl and Stutsman agreed that the efficiency gains outweighed cost for this request. Pillard said a printer request was covered by the central technology account and 2 PC's and software were requested, one for motor vehicles and one for the tax department at a cost of $1,900 each. Pillard said the final technology request was MasterCard/Visa equipment which County Treasurer Tom Kriz had answered questions about earlier from the Board. Stutsman and Jordahl agreed that savings outweighed cost for this request as well.

The Physical Plant requested a PC covered by central technology and environmental network controls, the latter costing $21,000 that would need to be funded solely by the Board. Schultz added that the environmental network controls cost was an estimate and both pieces of equipment requested for upgrade were as old as the Administration Building. Pillard added that the Y2K bug would cause problems if the environmental network controls weren't upgraded. Jordahl and Stutsman concurred with the Physical Plant's technology requests.

Next, the Board of Supervisors discussed the Planning and Zoning Department's technology needs. Pillard noted that 2 PC's, Arcview software, and a color printer were requested at a total cost of $5,000. Schultz added that this department's technology request was the same as FY 99, so no new tax asking were required. The Board voiced no objections to funding these requests.

The Conservation Department's request for technology funds was discussed by the Board. Pillard said new purchases consisted of PC and software and a DeskJet printer at a total cost of $2,200 to the Board. Pillard continued by saying the PC was for an individual in that department using a computer on loan from Information Services and this computer purchase would provide another person with network access in that department. Stutsman approved this request.

The Board then discussed the Elections Department's technology requests. Two requests in this department were ongoing and included a service contract for the voting machine costing $8,585 and $2,020 for voting software maintenance. Pillard said 3 laptops were requested costing $7,500 total for voting. Jordahl recommended allocating $4,500 for this request and Stutsman agreed.

The Department of Human Services had to budget technology requests within their operational budget which was $30,000 for FY 2000. Schultz explained technology money was put in their regular budget to receive reimbursement from the state. Jordahl pointed out that the MHDD Department included their technology budget in their own department.

Next, the Board discussed the Secondary Roads Department's technology requests. Pillard said 2 replacements of laptops were requested, with $600 not covered for each by central technology. Schultz added these laptops were used in the field. Jordahl and Stutsman approved funding both laptops. A laser printer and a PC replacement were fully covered by the central technology fund at a total cost of $3,000.

Pillard noted that there were 3 other technology items not organized by departments which were covered by the central technology fund and not new tax asking which included networks/PC's/ software at $203,185, Sheriff's Department conversion at $32,587, and GIS costing $35,000. Jordahl explained that the $35,000 for GIS was actually a contribution to fund the GIS needs assessment.

Pillard suggested examining preliminary budget calculations to make further adjustments. Pillard recommended re-reviewing the County Attorney's budget. Pillard said the Board had already agreed to allocate funds for an additional full-time attorney and full-time secretary. Stutsman pointed out that the County Attorney explained how he would distribute $15,000 for attorney promotions. Pillard suggested taxing for the $15,000 but putting the funds into the merit pay line item in Central Services which would allow the funds to be tracked more easily and Human Resources would have to approve these promotions. Jordahl recommended allocating $17,010 for the promotions which included FICA and IPERS. Stutsman agreed. Stutsman objected to providing $5,450 for office supplies. Jordahl initially wanted to fund the office supplies request but eventually agreed to withhold these funds.

The Board examined the funds tentatively allocated to the Department of Public Health. Pillard said the Director of Public Health, Graham Dameron, objected to $50,000 from a Wellness Block Grant because he felt it caused unnecessary paper work. Pillard said withholding the grant wouldn't affect his budget expenditures but would decrease the Health Department's revenues by $50,000 and that amount would need to be subtracted from the block grant 20 figure. Jordahl and Stutsman agreed with this. Duffy was concerned that the taxpayer would believe the Board simply turned down $50,000. Pillard said the Board had allocated funds to provide one full-time environmental health specialist. Duffy was hesitant to fund this additional staff person. Pillard read the line items in the Public Health Department's budget. No one on the Board objected to funding a contract with Headstart and a school-based youth services contract, which was funded from revenue in that department, and no Board member objected to $1,000 in additional ICARE funding. As for the remaining line items, Duffy was against funding any new personnel.

Stutsman suggested funding a part-time environmental health specialist instead of the 1.5 full-time specialists because Public Health was unsure of the impact of no inspections in Iowa and Muscatine Counties but a doubling of inspections in Johnson County. Jordahl said employees from the Department of Public Health had defended their budget requests twice before the Board and Jordahl felt they had justified their personnel requests. Pillard said a doubling in the number of inspections does not necessarily translate into a doubled workload. Stutsman reiterated her support for a part-time environmental health specialist for FY 2000 which could be increased to full-time in the future if necessary. Pillard said not funding an additional health specialist at all would force the Department of Public Health to request a budget amendment for this personnel at the beginning of FY 2000, but Duffy disagreed. Pillard said the Board already had allocated funds for one additional staff person but no moneys had been provided to increase employee hours from 37.5 to 40 per week, a part-time clerk II position, and a half-time disease prevention specialist. Stutsman said the disease prevention specialist was created as a temporary position for an outbreak but Public Health was now requesting funds as if it was a permanent position. Stutsman, Duffy and Jordahl objected to this. Stutsman supported allocating $4,312 to bring Health Department employees from 37.5 hours per week to 40. Duffy objected to disbursing $15,307 to increase a part-time clerk to a full-time one. Stutsman also objected and advocated a procedure for departments to justify requests for additional staff. Jordahl was sympathetic to this request, reading from a statement from the Board of Health that stated a full-time staff person was requested last year but only a part-time one granted and that additional staff had been needed for 7 years. Lehman recommended investigating whether the disease prevention specialist should have been a temporary position which would free up funds for one environmental health specialist. Since there was still some confusion about this budget, Pillard suggested tentatively allocating funds for one full time environmental health specialist and funds to increase employee hours to 40 until the Director of Public Health could meet with the Board. Lehman and Stutsman agreed.

Next, the Board discussed the funds that had already been allocated to the Treasurer's Office. Pillard said this office requested an additional deputy and reclassifying a clerk as a deputy, which would provide 4 deputies at the current time but one deputy would soon retire leaving 3. Pillard added the increase in funding would be $43,450 but part-time wage reductions were made to off-set this cost. Stutsman was concerned that once the deputy retired it would simply be refilled. Lehman pointed out funds for an additional clerk was not requested though a clerk would be promoted to deputy. Lehman continued by saying the Treasurer had brought in a good deal of revenue for the County but he would hold him to his promise of eventually reducing his deputies once one retired. Jordahl said the Treasurer's Office hadn't been computerized, which would improve efficiency and might reduce personnel needs. Jordahl recommended funding one second deputy so if the clerk was promoted, funds would still be available for a replacement clerk or the same funds could be used for an additional deputy if the clerk wasn't promoted to deputy.

Next the Board discussed disbursed funds to the Planning and Zoning Department. Jordahl wanted to provide funds for an additional Junior Planner but Stutsman and Duffy didn't. Stutsman said there hadn't been enough justification for this position. Lehman said the Comprehensive Land Plan and fringe areas were almost finished, so their workload would probably decrease. Duffy said there were already enough employees in that department, 4 full-time, 2 part-time and some interns. Stutsman said she supported funding an increase of a part-time secretary to full-time. Jordahl added that this department was having trouble attracting qualified part-time applicants. Pillard said there were possibly other factors in hiring a part-time candidate since this position required unusual hours such as attending night meetings.

Jordahl left at 11:47 a.m.; returned at 11:48 a.m.

Pillard said the only funds that had already been disbursed were to increase 2 employees from 37.5 to 40 hours per week at a cost of $3,874. Jordahl defended the workload of this department by reading aloud the schedule of implementation required by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which included a sensitive areas ordinance, tract aversion of land to other uses annually, development of agricultural transportation plan, development of criteria to support farming, definition of farming for land use purposes, development of policy for and definition of public hunting areas, development of buffering and screening standards, creation of an economic development plan, review and update commercial/industrial zoned districts for cities in fringe areas in progress which included North Liberty, Coralville and Swisher with Oxford, Solon, Shueyville, Hills, Lone Tree, West Branch and Cedar Rapids remaining. Jordahl continued by saying also required were issuing of occupancy permits, development and adaptation to conservation subdivision design ordinance, and building codes for inspections. Stutsman said she agreed Planning and Zoning was busy, but the development of the additional Junior Planner was still in the planning phase and responsibilities for that position were not concrete. Jordahl said the workload from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was enough to occupy 2 full-time employees yet there was still the day to day business to complete in addition. Duffy reiterated that 4 full-time and 2 half-time employees was adequate. Jordahl said there had been complaints about staff preparedness, reports and the ability to stay ahead of issues which reflected the number of concurrent planning processes Planning and Zoning had to do. Lehman said he could see the need for additional staff but wasn't confident an additional employee would be used as efficiently as possible. Stutsman added that department problems aren't always remedied by additional staff, that it was premature to add a Junior Planner at that point. Jordahl agreed to not hiring additional staff but to expect building inspection fees would cover the cost of another planner and to establish fees when acting on the recommendation of the Building Code Study Committee and ask the Director of Planning and Zoning to present a more detailed plan at that time. Stutsman said when the Planning and Zoning Department developed a detailed plan after the Committee's recommendation that she would not be opposed to a budget amendment requesting an additional planner. Jordahl suggested sending a memorandum to the Director of Planning and Zoning outlining this action. Lehman agreed. Jordahl and Stutsman agreed that no budget increases would be provided, except for increasing 2 employees from 37.5 to 40 hours per week, until the Planning and Zoning Department had been restructured.

Next, the Board examined the moneys that had been disbursed to the Conservation Department. Pillard said all funds would need to remain within their operating budget unless the Board wanted to move some funds into the conservation trust. Jordahl advocated placing funds to replace storm damaged trees into the trust. Pillard said funds for trees were not within their operating budget. Jordahl said he interpreted members of the Conservation Board as saying they only expected enough funds to remain REAP eligibility. Stutsman said she was in favor of funding an additional staff person. Jordahl questioned this department's ability to fund additional staff from their operating budget with the cost of tree replacement. Pillard replied that some funding for the tree would come from FEMA. Jordahl suggested removing money from the Conservation Board's operating budget and placing it in the conservation trust to prevent that department from hiring additional staff with tree replacement moneys but still maintaining REAP eligibility in the process. Pillard warned this would upset the Conservation Board. Stutsman believed this department expected funds to replace the trees to be additional tax asking. Pillard said the Conservation Department would hire additional staff regardless of not having additional funds for tree replacement. Duffy questioned whether funds for tree replacement could be placed into the conservation trust, saying the trust was only for land acquisition and capital expenditures and tree replacement was not a capital expenditure. The other members of the Board believed tree replacement was a capital expenditure. Duffy agreed with Stutsman that funding should be provided to only meet the REAP requirement, as had been done in the past. Stutsman said it was too difficult to control the Conservation Department's budget like other departments. Pillard was unsure if requests for equipment funding could be placed in the conservation trust as a capital expenditure. Pillard said the trees were within the Conservation Department's 0 based operating budget. Jordahl suggested subtracted the cost of trees from the 0 based operating budget and putting it into the conservation trust. Duffy said the Director of the Conservation Department, Rod Dunlap, ran his department very efficiently and an additional employee probably wasn't needed. Pillard reiterated that this department would be livid if moneys for additional personnel were transferred from their operating budget to the trust and it would still be possible for this department to hire more staff even with the operating budget reduction, which Stutsman agreed with. Jordahl and Lehman agreed to tentatively allocate the minimum levy to maintain REAP eligibility at $722,500 and deduce how this affected the county wide budget later.

Pillard turned the Board's attention to the Secondary Roads Department's budget. She said $30,000 had been allocated for outside engineering. Stutsman suggested funding one additional full-time road maintenance person rather than the requested 2. Pillard said the County Engineer had justified his request for 2 additional staff due to the large amount of vacation time earned by Secondary Roads employees, that this department was short 4 employees a day on average. Jordahl, Lehman and Stutsman favored providing $35,705 for one additional full-time road maintenance worker.

The Board then discussed the Information Services Department's request for personnel. Pillard pointed out that a request in funding to change union classification was to be requested in a budget amendment and not included in yearly personnel requests and one of these union reclassifications still needed to be subtracted from that budget. Stutsman agreed that this should be subtracted and dealt with as a budget amendment at the appropriate time.

Pillard mentioned the Board had been concerned about money left over from Courthouse space needs construction of $122,782. Pillard continued by saying $10,000 was to be transferred from Courthouse construction for security cameras. Pillard cited Deputy Auditor Chris Edwards as saying the $122,782 was left over from first floor Courtroom renovations and modifications of the Courthouse garage building. Stutsman and Jordahl agreed to take $100,000 from Courthouse construction to general construction leaving $12,782 in the Courthouse construction budget.

Jordahl asked about the County Attorney's request for an additional Sheriff's Deputy to provide security in the Courthouse. Pillard said no funds had been given to the Sheriff's Department to fund this. Stutsman said she would rather see a Deputy outside on patrol than in the Courthouse. Jordahl suggested funding a Deputy who spends part of his time in the Courthouse. Lehman was hesitant about this request, saying it would be better to look at the county wide budget thus far before making this decision. Jordahl quoted the County Attorney, Pat White, as saying a Deputy for Courthouse Attorney was more important to him than a second attorney and even curtailed his budget request by one attorney to free up funds to hire an additional deputy. Stutsman said the Sheriff, Bob Carpenter, should request an additional Deputy for the Courthouse and not White. Duffy said the Sheriff's Department had many demands on its personnel by contracting out deputies to provide law enforcement in small towns in Johnson County, but agreed with Stutsman that it was Carpenter's decision to request and post an additional Deputy. Stutsman said Carpenter had requested 4 additional Deputies but the Board hadn't allocated any funds for these additional personnel. Stutsman said she would consider funding one more deputy. Duffy said the Board could not fund 4 additional Deputies. Pillard said Carpenter had put a control matron as higher priority than additional deputies. The entire Board agreed to fund one additional deputy for the Sheriff's Department at a cost of $43,963.

Adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary