Jordahl: Kit Wong, Auditor's Office. Good morning.
Wong: Good morning. The resolution for appropriating amounts through 4th quarter is just the regular quarterly appropriation. This would take up appropriation for this Fiscal Year up to 100%.
Stutsman: OK. So we just need to put this on for Thursday...
Wong: Right.
Stutsman: ...for approval of this. This one will be the last one then for this year.
Wong: Last one for this year.
Stutsman: Yes, OK.
Jordahl: Did you just say 104%?
Wong: 100%.
Jordahl: I was momentarily concerned.
Stutsman: Yes, Jonathan, don't...
Jordahl: I wanted to know if we were talking about 104%.
Duffy: The reason why we do this is a few years back we didn't do, appropriate the amount for whole Fiscal Year and one year it got a little hairy up there. (Inaudible) pay our bills so that's the reason why we want (inaudible) for it.
Stutsman: There's Tom Kriz.
Jordahl: Good morning, Tom.
Kriz: Good morning.
Jordahl: We had momentary confusion up here but...
Kriz: OK.
Jordahl:...welcome. OK, Kit. Are there any questions about this from anyone, Board, in terms of the public? OK. We'll move on to 7b, discussion, action regarding...
Stutsman: Thank you, Kit.
Jordahl: Yes thank you. Resolution 32599b2 naming depositories. Morning, Tom Kriz, County Treasurer.
Kriz: What you've got there is something we've worked on over the last month or so. There's lots of changes. I thought it would be good to come up and explain some of the reasons for some of those changes. We went through and I, over the first few months, collected data from the various banks as to their capital, as to where they're at with profitability and things like that. From that, I took that data then and went to each bank and said OK, we have this certain limit set. How much funds do you really foresee you'd really accept from the County? That's a strange question maybe you think to ask but bank deposit concentration has to be within a scope of your whole deposit cycle. For instance, a bank in Sheraton, Iowa, a few years ago, got into trouble because Hy-Vee had approximately 60% of the deposits in that bank, which puts the bank at great risk if Hy-Vee would decide not to use that institution any longer. So we went through what we had for balances and maximum amounts and said ask each of the banks what would probably be what you would foresee would be the maximum County dollars you would ever want to deposit at one time? Keeping in mind that also when the bank accepts large deposits from the County they have to pledge that much money to the State of Iowa to cover that in case anything would happen. So for instance, if you have $7,000,000, you have to have $7,000,000 of your capital pledged to the State of Iowa to cover that in the case of something happening to a bank. So as we went through, we found that some of the deposit limits that we had were much higher than we would ever conceivably deposit in any of the smaller banks based on their size and things. So what you see here is going through all those banks. What you'll find is the net total is actually lower than it was before but it's redistributed by banks. For instance you see Hawkeye State Bank going from 9 million going down to 7, Swisher from 7 to 2, Oxford from 7 to 2. Hills a larger raise because they've become the bank we use our sweep account through now so we'll have the greatest deposits in that bank at one time, especially in March and April, September and October.
Stutsman: Excuse me, Tom. What's a sweep account?
Kriz: A sweep account is one where we move it that very night into a higher paying interest account so we maximize the interest even for one day while it's in there. Then we move it back in only as we need to clear checks off that account. It may be only a half percent, but where you're talking at tax time, $30,000,000 a half of one percent, even for a few days, turns into a lot of dollars for us. So it sweeps into an account, that's just a savings type account but it's not one we draw off of. When I know we have to write checks, then we move it right back into that the next day.
Stutsman: OK.
Kriz: But it's a way that we can get into a higher interest paying account that isn't a check writing account, along that lines. So we move it back and forth. We move it back and forth. We've gone through that. What we've tried to do is revamp all the requests, if that makes sense, and get those into line. It was kind of, as we looked at it for instance and talking to Ross Stutsman at Oxford, there was no reason to have a 7 or $9,000,000 maximum when the most they would ever consider having is up to a million or 2 at any one time because of the concentration. So I thought what this did is it really put it back into perspective for how the County and where we keep the money along that line. With the addition of a couple like Brenton. They, right now, are the only people that may be able to do our credit card system that we're looking at doing through the Treasurer's Office and things like that. The Auditor looked at theirs and decided that they had sometimes approached what we had down at 400,000 we needed to change that to 6. Even if it was for one day, if we went over that limit, we'd be in violation of what we have set aside. It's really just a lot of hours of work trying to really get it down to where it should be. Hopefully, this is the last time you'll have to see it. This is not a document the Board ever saw very often because it never really changed. It just kind of stayed there. But we really needed to go through that and look at our depositories and their size and what was happening.
Stutsman: Well it sure looks like good work. I think you do need to reevaluate this every once in a while.
Kriz: You really do. You look at a deposit maximum of 7 million that was probably set just because that was fair and all the other ones were that. But that's a $20,000,000 bank in deposits having the same maximum as a bank that has $180,000,000 in deposits. So when you look at how that's relative to their deposit structure, it really didn't make sense, other than everyone had the same, but it really wasn't practical.
Lehman: It's as much a need to banks so they know what their assets are, the problems...
Kriz: Well it is and that's why we wanted to talk to them to see... We're asking for more. We are pushing the local institutions to the limit asking for maximum return on our dollar and some of them say we're not interested, which is fine.
Lehman: (Inaudible) of where you want to go and maybe how much they can do for you.
Kriz: Right. If I have $20,000,000 and can invest it at 5% rather than 3% and keep it locally in what we want to do, we'll do that. We'll also let everybody know. By letting everybody know ahead of time, it works.
Lehman: But you still have the competition from you. It's great. It's great.
Kriz: There definitely is. In fact, that's why it took a second to get up here. One of the banks was in talking to me this morning about that. I just thought because there were so many changes, maybe an explanation would help, why some of them were being lowered. That's not a reflection on the quality or soundness or anything like that but it is a reflection of hope that can skew their deposit blend that a bank needs.
Jordahl: Great. It sounds like you're working very creatively and collegially with the banks.
Kriz: The banks are a great supporter. Of course, they're part of the community and part of the County. They want to do what's best but they also have to make a profit. They also know when to fold your cards and say we can't play in that game right now.
Lehman: That still leaves the door open for them at some point.
Kriz: Sure it does. Because there is plenty of room there still. Because they want it and they also know if they're looking for funds to match up and if it's a time where we may have some funds even for a short period of time that they can call us and say this is what we're looking for. We'd like to bid on this or something.
Lehman: Your really using your background well. I really appreciate it.
Kriz: It works here. This is one thing that's simple because you've done this for years.
Jordahl: We really appreciate the experience your bringing to the County Tom.
Kriz: So any other questions on this? That makes sense.
Jordahl: All right then.
Kriz: I will leave you with telling our new Treasurer's Office hours start next Monday the Treasurer's Office will be open from 8 to 5:30, 5 days a week. You can mark that down starting Monday the 29th.
Stutsman: Did I read or dream somewhere where you talked about staying open until Midnight.
Kriz: yes. On Wednesday night we will be open till Midnight to take tax payments down at the Treasurer's Office, Betty Sass, myself, Debbie Jensen. A couple of the people volunteered just to come on in. Twofold. It's a little promotion of what's good in County and what the County is doing. We've got a couple of the news media's that would like to cover it for the 10 o'clock news reminding people that it's not too late if you want to jump in your car to run down, we'll be here. Wednesday is the last night to collect taxes without a penalty at midnight Wednesday. Just something to have a little fun with. As crazy as it sounds, the employees are kind of enthused about doing some stuff like that because it's different and it will be kind of fun.
Stutsman: Betty will make it fun.
Kriz: Yes. That's right. You didn't dream it. Some people think they probably dreamt something like that but yes, the night of the 31st the Treasurer's Office will be open until midnight to take tax payments.
Jordahl: You said your hours are...
Kriz: 8 to 5:30 Monday through Friday.
Jordahl: Thank you for those 2 gestures extending service to the public.
Kriz: We'll get there. The big thing there is we were able to do that with the cooperation of the employees at no cost to the County.
Duffy: That's what I like. No cost to the County.
Jordahl: Media, we have no cost to the County.
Kriz: We didn't change anything or add any people. We just restructured hours and went to some 4 day work weeks. Through a great staff we were able to do that so we'll push on from there.
Jordahl: That's quite an accomplishment.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Jordahl: Well it's a morning for some pretty good news in here.
Jordahl: Lora is here. Good morning Lora. Discussing, your recommendation with Lora Shramek the County Human Resources Administrator. Bringing to us a recommendation that we consider changing our flexible spending plan year from fiscal to calendar. Is that correct?
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: That's correct. I sent a memo to the Board. First of all flexible spending is a benefit that we offer to eligible employees so they can set aside moneys on a pretax basis so they can pay for medical which is health, dental or vision expenses as well as dependent care. It's very difficult, it proposes a challenge for individuals to budget because our flexible spending year runs on a fiscal year basis where our insurance year for our health care coverage as well as our dental care coverage runs on a calendar year basis. So if you were planning on having an inpatient stay or anything like a maintenance medications where you know for sure your going to meet your $100 deductible for you or a family member as well as your 10% coinsurance, it makes it hard to budget because your crossing over to 2 insurance years. I would just recommend that we would switch over our flexible spending plan year to meet or to match our insurance year. I checked this our with our third party administrator which is Wellmark. they actually said this would be excellent timing because we were up for renewal in April. He was about ready to pull out the information and start updating it. But we could do just a 6 month plan period, just one time that will take us to the end of this year, December 31st and then we'd start the millennium off with a brand new calendar year from there on. There's virtually, there would be no cost to the County at all because Wellmark would pick up the cost for the new summary plan descriptions.
Stutsman: Is there a downside to doing this?
Lehman: There will be a little more work for Diane. She's going to have to end it sooner. But once she gets rolling it will be...
Shramek: For employees, they'll go through the paperwork, filling out the paperwork a little sooner, but there's really no downside.
Stutsman: Seems like this is a no brainer, that it just makes a lot of sense to do this.
Thompson: How will our employees be notified.
Shramek: We would send out memo's. We have 50 employees that are currently enrolled and we would also notify all of the employees that are benefit eligible. Because that might entice some of those who thought it was a complicated procedure before. We have received comments from employees asking, they thought it was strange why the 2 didn't coincide.
Jordahl: Is there a, speaking of downsides is there a point at which say at the end of the year the employee loses money that was set aside that wasn't spent. Do you have to sort of set aside less than your going to spend.
Shramek: That's part of the plan that you'd want to budget conservatively because if you don't incur in expenses regardless of how your plan year runs then those go towards the administrative costs of the plan. They don't receive a refund.
Jordahl: That wouldn't; be any different under this change your proposing. That's just an aspect of the plan.
Shramek: Right.
Jordahl: Any other comment or question about this?
Stutsman: I guess I'm ready to put it on for Thursday and just...
Jordahl: Sounds like a good place for it.
Duffy: That's the second no cost to the County. It kind of made my day.
Jordahl: This day is just like spring.
Welsh: No cost to the County.
Jordahl: There's a whole section of the paper. Instead of sports they're going to have no cost to the County.
Stutsman: Thanks Lora for your work on that.
Jordahl: Thank you Lora.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller said they weren't going to request that the Fiscal Year 2000 Secondary Road Construction Program and Budget be put on the agenda during the Thursday meeting for approval, rather they were going to wait a week so they would have an opportunity to discuss it again next Tuesday if they needed to. Stutsman said last year they had Rick Dvorak and R.J. Moore be a part of the discussion. County Engineer Mike Gardner said he was coming in to refresh the Board's memory of what they discussed in November and let them mull it over. Gardner said they could come in next Tuesday for a more in-depth discussion. He said he is under a deadline to have the program and budget submitted to the DOT by April 15th. Jordahl suggested they schedule another work session for the following Tuesday. Stutsman said she wanted to make sure that Dvorak and Moore attended the upcoming work session.
Gardner said they had distributed maps and copies of the program. He said this is essentially the same plan they discussed in November. He said there were some minor changes because they are more clear on what they are going to get accomplished this year. Gardner said they were doing 2 additional box culverts that didn't present any design problems so that's why they moved those projects up and put them on the program. Gardner said he would like to ask that they concentrate most on the first 3 years of the program because those are the years they will have to deal with right away. He said the last 2 years are a little more flexible because a lot could come up in the next 3 years. He said they aren't as critical at this time.
Gardner said there had been discussion on looking beyond the 5 years. He said they have also listed projects they need to be looking at in the long run. Gardner said they haven't prioritized them, but if things happen they could move these projects along quicker than they anticipated. He said in the upcoming years they may want to talk about putting these projects on the program in the upcoming years. Stutsman said when she first got on the Board there was talk about replacing Mehaffey Bridge. She asked where that project was at. Gardner said it wasn't an immediate concern because that bridge was built in the late 1950's and it's 40 years old. He said they normally design a bridge with a 50 year design life, and they all exceed that. Gardner said realistically they are looking at a 70 plus year life expectancy on the bridges they're building. He said it's useful service life is probably half over so they will have to discuss it in the future. Duffy said they might be able to get some federal dollars for that. Miller said they are probably looking at, at least 10 years before they look at replacing Mehaffey Bridge.
Gardner said some of the things they are proposing to the 5 Year Program include 180th Street and Mehaffey Bridge Road from the Sugar Bottom intersection into Solon. He said that one they're proposing for 2001 and 2002. Gardner said in the past they had programmed 500th Street from Highway 1 to where it meets the existing pavement west of Hills. He said they looked at traffic counts and they are proposing 500th Street from Highway 1 to Sharon Center and then taking the Sharon Center Road northeast to Highway 1. He said that was where traffic was going. He said another one they're looking at putting in is 2 miles of Sand Road south of Iowa City. He said it's paved already but its got some geometry problems and they'd like to upgrade that possibly working with Iowa City. Duffy asked what they would do with the utility poles that are in the ditch there. Miller said if they had to be moved it would be the utility company's responsibility. Jordahl asked if 500th Street had the broad shoulders. Gardner said they were looking at that in the long term.
Stutsman asked if the 5 Year Road Program had been coordinated with the Transportation Plan. Gardner said a lot of the work that was being done there was being concentrated up in the North Corridor. He said the Road Program looks at needs county-wide. He said 180th Street and Mehaffey Bridge Road are roads that the Transportation Plan are studying. He said they are also studying Newport Road. He said a lot of the program would fall in line with the Transportation Study but with the 5 Year Program they have to look beyond just the one area. Jordahl said he agreed with that but Stutsman raises an important question. He said what's driving the Road Program from his perspective is where the needs are, but it is also looking at that from the point of view of trying to come up with an overall system or philosophy county-wide. Jordahl asked if it could be said that each of the projects on the 5 Year Road Plan could justify itself in terms that are familiar from the Transportation Management Study. Stutsman said the information from the Transportation Plan has to be incorporated into the 5 Year Plan. Gardner said they have used that information but one of the first roads that was looked at was Sugar Bottom Road. He said they don't have that road in the 5 Year Road Plan because they didn't feel that it was in anyone's best interest to improve Sugar Bottom without improving either of the roads that it empties out onto. He said what they have done is proposed improvement to Mehaffey and 180th Street and to Newport, but until those are improved it didn't make sense to improve Sugar Bottom Road.
Duffy said he had a problem with JCCOG having all of the input. He said ECICOG ought to be the one they look to. He said they have a good County Road Department. Jordahl said there are 2 things that weigh into the consideration. Jordahl said he supports the Secondary Roads Department in their need to balance the problem of where the traffic is against the need to provide a reasonable grid for safe transportation throughout the County. Stutsman said if they don't have upgrades on roads, how can she in good conscious continue to put more traffic in those areas. She said the 2 have to be coordinated somehow. Gardner said they should spend time looking at the plan but he thinks they have taken that into account with what they've proposed. He said the Newport Road and the Mehaffey Road are going to have a priority over some interior roads that were identified to be studied. Jordahl said he liked what Gardner is doing. Jordahl said they have a situation that has developed over the last 40 years that has developed in the North Corridor and what Gardner and Miller are proposing to do, is start with prioritizing and developing an arterial system with roads to the higher standards and appropriate shoulders. Gardner agreed with this. He said they use what they can of existing infrastructure and upgrade it to today's standards.
Thompson asked if Sugar Bottom Road was going to be on the list of projects they need to look at in the long term. Gardner said it wasn't on there. Thompson asked if it was good for 5 more years. Gardner said no but he feels there are other needs that are higher than that one. He said roads like Sugar Bottom are just internal roads that are serving the properties along side them. Jordahl questioned that. He said Sugar Bottom is a pretty popular place to go for a leisure ride. He said there are a lot of houses on it that would account for a lot of traffic but there are also bicycles and walking too. He said people go to it because it's Sugar Bottom Road. Gardner said that is possible but when you look at it on the map it goes between Newport and Mehaffey Bridge Road. Miller said they are trying to get the collector roads rebuilt before they take a look at Sugar Bottom and other smaller roads that are being developed on. Miller said other roads need to be done first and they could put it on the long term plan. Jordahl said if they don't improve the roads the Board doesn't have to permit development on them.
Stutsman said they should talk about what they can do with Sugar Bottom Road. Gardner said there would be issues with that. He said he wanted people going in with their eyes open on what they're talking about. Jordahl said they were talking about money, design exceptions, right-of-way, and trees. Stutsman said that was the whole dilemma with the North Corridor. She said there is a lot of traffic up there and the potential is to continue to produce a lot of traffic because there is a lot of land that is already rezoned in the North Corridor and yet are they financially going to be able to do anything to improve Sugar Bottom Road. Miller said that was their point because they have a lot of other roads in the county that are high on their priority list that the county taxpayers money should be going towards. Miller said on Sugar Bottom most of the traffic is being generated by the new building there. Miller said maybe they should look at assessing some cost to building out there to finance some of the road improvements. He said that is in his opinion an interior road. He said county taxpayers' money should be spread throughout the county where the needs are and not just where it's caused by new building. Thompson asked if they had the capability to require developers to pay into a savings account to develop the road when it gets enough development on it. Jordahl said they can do that, but they haven't written an ordinance yet to do that. Stutsman said she was wondering how much they would have to assess the people. Miller said they wouldn't have a 100% assessment. Miller said with Sugar Bottom they are looking at a major realignment, pavement, and right-of-way costs. Jordahl said the idea of modifying the geometry of the road without bringing it completely up to code has been discussed. Gardner said they could do that, but they would have to go to some minimum standard. He said even to reach a minimum standard they were talking major realignments.
Jordahl suggested they put Sugar Bottom Road into the 5 Year Road Plan at the very least on the list of things to be studying 5 years out and start working towards a solution for it. Stutsman asked what a solution would be. Thompson said they need to know how much it would cost. Miller said that was part of the problem, but they'd like to find a road similar to Sugar Bottom to do some preliminary design work so the engineers and the Board have a better idea of what has to be done and what the construction costs are going to be. Stutsman said she wants a planful approach. Jordahl said Sugar Bottom is included in the Traffic Management Study. Jordahl said he would like to see Sugar Bottom put into the 5 Year Plan and they need to take action to rectify the situation that they've identified. Gardner said if they are adding a project of that magnitude they have to take a different project out. Miller asked what they were going to drop out. Miller said they could get preliminary figures on Sugar Bottom Road and not add it into the 5 year plan yet because they could do that at any time. He said they were looking at a multi-million dollar project. Gardner said he didn't want to be putting things on the 5 Year Plan and then pulling them off. He said he would rather have a more consistent plan. Jordahl said his commitment about doing Sugar Bottom Road is firm because they have demonstrated a need to do something about it. Gardner said if he does put Sugar Bottom on the plan, he wants to take something off. Thompson asked if another option would be collecting money from the developers to hire a contractor to do the road. Jordahl said they would do that in any case. Duffy said he didn't like to change a lot of things.
Duffy asked whatever happened to the new road that was suggested in the North Corridor area. Gardner said he didn't remember much about it, but he didn't feel it was going to accomplish what they hoped it was going to accomplish. Stutsman said the only choice the Board has would be to start curtailing rezonings, but in the Sugar Bottom area the land is already zoned residential. Lehman said previous Boards have sent the message that the North Corridor is where the growth is going to be. Lehman said they could only look out for other roads in the future. Stutsman said maybe there needs to be a public policy decision by the Board about rezonings and then more active work in downzoning areas. Miller said that Sugar Bottom doesn't have a benefit to the entire County. Jordahl disagreed, he said that Sugar Bottom has more of a benefit than a road such as 140th Street. Dvorak said they could discuss putting a moratorium on development, but they would have to run it past County Attorney Pat White. Stutsman said they could encourage low density development in the area. Dvorak said if they have it zoned residential they could encourage downzoning, but there would be no legal way to force low density development. Stutsman said this discussion is good because the Board is starting to think long term and make plans and decisions about what is happening with the roads and being responsible about development and rezonings.
Jordahl said he wanted to see Sugar Bottom Road in the 5 Year Plan. Stutsman said they could give direction to Miller and Gardner to start working on a preliminary plan. Thompson said they might want to have a plan to get money from developers. Jordahl said they need to have a cost to be able to talk about the costs. Miller said they need to have some type of idea about a design before they can ask a developer to give right-of-way. Miller said he didn't want to spend a lot of time on this project if they weren't going to do something with this. Lehman said they should get the criteria, so they can decide whether to put it on the plan. Stutsman said they should figure out something to do with the roads in the North Corridor. Duffy said he wasn't sure that Sugar Bottom Road would be eligible for Farm to Market funding. Thompson said the thing that was important to her was the communication and coordination of the 2 plans. She said that 2 plans is almost never better than one. Thompson said her personal feeling was that Sugar Bottom Road is probably the most important one in the North Corridor, but she didn't know that for a fact. She said the important thing was to know the facts about the roads and in what order they're going to be developed, so they can do the zoning accordingly. Jordahl agreed and said they should do a road construction and development plan. Gardner said that was fine, except that it ignores two thirds of the county. Jordahl said that piece would deal with the North Corridor, which was a problem they didn't create. Jordahl said the North Corridor was an important piece of the county.
Recessed at 10:50 a.m.; reconvened at 11:00 a.m.
Gardner said his own crews could only do work if it didn't exceed $50,000, but they could program any amount of projects that they wanted. Thompson said they needed to know how much money they needed to raise in order to contract Sugar Bottom Road out without displacing other projects that are important. Gardner said he didn't think they could assess 100% of the cost of improving Sugar Bottom Road. Lehman said they would like to see the criteria applied to Sugar Bottom that gets applied to other roads to get it on the 5 Year Plan.
Thompson asked if Gardner was involved in the Transportation Study Committee meetings. Gardner said yes and he is currently doing traffic counts for roads. He said they are a source of information for the committee.
Gardner said, if they place Sugar Bottom Road on the 5 Year Plan, they will have to take something off. Thompson asked if that was because of the time it would take them to do the planning or because of the budget. Gardner said it would be because of both. He said funding would be the major part of it. Jordahl said there was discussion of spending down the carryover balance and how would that fit into the concerns that Gardner was expressing. Gardner said they would be discussing that in the next item.
Jordahl said they have kept the levy low on the rural side for the last couple of years, but they have it within their power to raise it. Gardner said they were talking multimillion dollars on Sugar Bottom, and the construction program they have had local funding for in the past has been in the neighborhood of a million dollars. Jordahl said that was matching to federal funds in some cases, so that number wasn't reflective if how much construction they can do. Gardner agreed but said that Sugar Bottom is ineligible for federal funding.
Duffy said they might have trouble with Farm to Market funding on Sugar Bottom Road. Jordahl asked if Farm to Market funding was a set amount they received every year or was it correlated to the amount of County dollars they are putting in. Gardner said it was a set amount and it was in the neighborhood of a million dollars. Stutsman asked if the Board needed to mull over the plan and then talk about it the following week and then give direction to Miller and Gardner about where they want to put Sugar Bottom Road. Duffy said he was ready to make a decision. He said that Miller and Gardner have done a good job and when they say that something would have to drop out of the 5 Year Plan, they should put it way at the end of the plan and then discuss it at another time. Jordahl asked if Sugar Bottom Road was a hard surface road or a seal coat road. Gardner said it was a seal coat road.
Thompson said she didn't see how they could do traffic planning without roads planning together. She said what she would like to know is when the Traffic Study comes in, she would like something from the Board that says they consider certain roads arterial and other roads interior so the Board of Supervisors can make a plan on assessing funds for roads. She said that way they can have a plan in place when they do a zoning.
Jordahl asked the Board to be responsive to the idea of their responsibilities county-wide. Jordahl said that traffic counts need to be addressed. He said that several employees of Secondary Roads suggested paving Deer Creek Road. Stutsman said she wanted to look at Sugar Bottom for the sake of long-term planning. She said the Board needs to be proactive. Thompson asked Gardner what kind of resources they would need to do a study of Sugar Bottom Road. Miller said they might have some outside engineering costs and he might have to have an aerial survey done on it. Thompson asked that by Tuesday, Gardner and Miller would know what resources it would take for them to do a study of Sugar Bottom Road.
Duffy said that Sugar Bottom Road would not be a top priority for him. Jordahl said it would be a top priority for him to find out where they stand so they can make policy based on a good set of facts. He said it didn't mean putting it in year 5, but just getting the study done. Jordahl said to him it sounded like Duffy was in agreement on doing a study. Duffy said Secondary Roads were getting busy again because it's spring. Jordahl said he would suggest the study was done before the next 5 Year Road Plan meeting if it was possible. Miller said it was possible but didn't know if it was likely. Miller said they try to do most of their design work in the fall and winter. He said they would have to get the area flown and they only have about 2 more weeks to fly it. Stutsman said they would want the study done within a year. Miller said it was likely to be done within a year.
Gardner said he has to send a budget into the DOT each year and it came to his attention that what was certified wasn't what he thought was certified. Gardner said it wasn't a problem right now but he wanted to bring it to the Board's attention so they were aware when he came in to ask for a budget amendment. Gardner said they were short on their construction budget. He said he had proposed to do 2.1 million worth of construction and what was certified was $900,000 worth. Gardner said he explained when he was presenting the budget, by the increase in the million dollars they got back some federal bridge funds and STP funds for the Dubuque Street Recreation Trail. Gardner said they wouldn't be using any more property tax funds to do the extra work. He said in addition from his initial submittal to his final submittal, the DOT's estimate on their road use tax funding came in over a quarter of a million dollars higher. Gardner said that number didn't get changed in the certified budget either. Gardner said in July of FY ‘99 they had a little over 2.6 million dollars in the carryover balance. He said with the budget they had for FY ‘99 they are proposing that that balance is going to be down to the low 2 million at the start of FY 2000. He said what he is showing to be budgeted, the balance will drop down below a million dollars. Gardner said his carryover balance will continue to drop because his revenues are 3/4 of a million dollars less than his expenditures. Gardner said he was going to submit this to the DOT but they might be back in to have a budget amendment. Duffy said he has the money, it won't cost taxpayers any more money. Gardner said if they don't do the expenditures he doesn't get the revenues. Gardner said they would have to take action on this.
Jordahl said they might want to have a discussion about the Quadrennial Needs Study. He said there are dramatic figures in there. Gardner said that's what they're doing there with the program. He said those are addressing his needs and they've got dollar figures associated with them. He said they are showing what their needs are for new construction. Jordahl asked if they could take the 5 Year Plan as proposed and do it in 2 years if they had the money to do it. Gardner said that was a good question that he couldn't answer right now. Jordahl asked when they were going to get the Quadrennial Needs Study again. Stutsman asked what the Quadrennial Needs Study was. Gardner said the DOT has a formula and they go out and survey all of the roads and structures in the County. Gardner said they go out and do each County every 10 years and make a judgement on what is necessary and on what schedule to keep up with maintenance needs. Gardner said they submit on a 4 year basis costs that they have let. He said the DOT plugged this into a formula and gave what the needs are for the County. Lehman asked if they used this as a benchmark. Gardner said to some extent they did. He said it was used for the funding for the Road Use Tax Money, that determines the money each county will get. Jordahl asked if the Quadrennial Needs Study compared a realistic look at the county or was it an abstract way of comparing counties. Gardner said there was a lot of discussion on this. He said there are big swings in the amount of funding each county gets and it's difficult to budget because as each county is surveyed there are major swings in the amount of adjustments made. Jordahl said the backlog of construction according to the Quadrennial Needs Study is 79 million dollars. Jordahl said they gave a 20 year needs for the county and it was 200 million dollars. Jordahl said if they broke that down it would be about 10 million dollars a year in construction. He asked what the study means. Gardner said they could go to every county and see similar numbers. he said nobody is going to be able to meet those needs. Stutsman said there are financial limitations but they have to balance that about what they can afford.
Welsh expressed appreciation for the conversation the Board had. Welsh said he liked it that they were looking ahead and hoped they would look ahead 25 years instead of 20. He said he was impressed with how busy the Board is, how they fit all of the pieces together.