MINUTES MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL 2006 BUDGET

Transcription

MINUTES
MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL
2006 BUDGET HEARINGS
August 16, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
Pursuant to proper notice a budget adoption hearing of the Monroe County
Council was called to order at 9:00 a.m. August 16, 2005, at the Monroe County
Courthouse in the Judge Nat U. Hill Meeting Room, Third Floor Bloomington, Indiana
47404. The presiding officer was Mark Stoops, President. A quorum was present,
including:
Councilors present: Sue West, Marty Hawk, Michael Woods, Sophia Travis,
Warren Henegar Trent Jones, and Mark Stoops.
Also present: Auditor Sandy Newmann, Financial Director Brandon Knight,
County Attorney Margie Rice, and Deputy Auditor Amy Gerstman.
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR LOCAL CUM BRIDGE
2006
Requested
01 PERSONAL SERVICES
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.04
1000.10
1000.12
1000.20
1000.22
1000.23
1000.24
1000.25
Supervisor
Engineer
Executive Secretary
Assistant Superintendent(2)
Overtime(moved to 531 line)
Database Admin.
Traffic Specialist
Project Engineer (2)
Drainage Engineer
Bridge Foreman
Category 01 Total:
2000.01
2000.02
Official Records & Supply
Office Supplies
2006
Approved
$55,644.00
$55,644.00
$27,074.00
$71,509.00
$0.00
$24,990.00
$35,536.00
$68,173.00
$47,941.00
$35,157.00
$421,668.00
$12,283.00
$55,644.00
$55,644.00
$27,074.00
$71,509.00
$0.00
$24,990.00
$35,536.00
$68,173.00
$47,941.00
$35,157.00
$421,668.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
1
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
$11,000.00
$11,000.00
03 OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
Professional Services
Communication & Transportation
Printing & Advertising
Insurance
3000.05
Official Bonds
$300.00
$300.00
3000.12
Other Current Charges
Category 03 Total:
$500.00
$800.00
$500.00
$800.00
Machinery & Equipment
4000.01
4000.02
4000.03
4000.04
Office Equipment
Computer Hardware
GIS Workstation
Traffic Counters
$10,000.00
$3,500.00
$12,000.00
$4,000.00
$10,000.00
$3,500.00
$12,000.00
$4,000.00
Other Capital Outlays
4000.05
County Maps
$5,400.00
$34,900.00
$5,400.00
$34,900.00
Department Total:
$468,368.00
2006
Requested
$468,368.00
2006
Approved
Category 01 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Utility Service
Repairs & Maintenance
Rentals
Debt Service
Other Services & Charges
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Improvements Other Than
Buildings
Category 04 Total:
Salaries and Wages
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
2
Category 02 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Communication &
Transportation
Insurance
Utility Service
3000.01
Bridge Maintenance
3000.02
3000.03
3000.04
3000.05
3000.06
3000.07
3000.08
3000.09
3000.10
3000.11
3000.12
3000.13
3000.14
3000.15
3000.16
3000.17
3000.18
3000.19
3000.20
3000.21
3000.22
3000.23
3000.24
3000.25
3000.26
3000.27
3000.28
3000.29
Russell Road C-2654
GIS Aerial 2005
W. Maple Grove Road C-1972
Smith Pike C-1649
Russell Road Bridge #48
Fox Hollow Road C-2468
Eldridge Road C-1171
Gore Road C-252
Ratliff Road C-1797
Ketcham Road C-235
Howard Road C-1728
Gettys Creek Road C-1388
Bottom Road C-2367
Limestone Drive C-1970
Gross Road C-1087, C-1086
Rockeast Road C-68
Popcorn Road C-109
Low Gap Road
Howard Road
Crider Drive
Yonkers Drive
Kerr Creek C-1437
Mt. Tabor Road C-2032
Highland Village
Bluebird Lane
Headley Road Bridge #47
Brummetts Creek Road Bridge
#51
Dodds Street Bridge #903
$65,000.00
$65,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.30
3000.31
3
3000.32
3000.33
Grimes Lane Bridge #904
Bridge Inspection
Category 03 Total:
$0.00
$50,000.00
$115,000.00
$0.00
$50,000.00
$115,000.00
Travis moved Hawk seconded.
(Hawk) Since the highway budgets are set by different revenues and the State
helps us set what’s on the budget amount to be. I will move that we approve them as
submitted and as John is about to present. And what I would like for the Highway Dept.
to do is talk about that particular fund and where the money comes from, from that fund.
(John Chambers, Highway Dept.) What we’re working on now is Motor Vehicle Highway
Fund, which is strictly gasoline tax reimbursement from the State. The only thing that we
have done on the budget that we’re looking at here is the 3% increase.
Hawk moved, Woods seconded to approve the Highway Administration Fund as
presented.
(West) We have the employee benefits in a different spread sheet so the number that
you just read to be approved for the total budget, is not the total budget because those
other benefits are on that next little tab over.
(Hawk) I understand that. But if we could just move approval of what I just put in then
we will go onto that one as well.
(West) It’s one fund. Are we going to add to it Margie?
(Rice) Legally there’s no right or wrong answer. You can do it the way she wants to or
the way that you want to. It would make sense to do the personnel benefits, like the
longevity with the 01’s that are in the budget. So Marty if you want to amend that.
(Knight) In County General they will all be in one personnel budget.
(Stoops) So we will approve that with the Auditor’s budget?
(Knight) You will approve the personnel department with the Auditor’s budget.
(Stoops) So after we vote on Highway, maybe we should move to the Auditors to the
last item.
(Hawk) The reason why this is different is because they’re not in the same (inaudible) of
money.
Stoops moved, Woods seconded to approve the Highway Dept. budget as
submitted including the benefits total.
(West) For a total of $482,868.
4
Motion passed.
(Hawk) Can someone tell me what the $27,461 is under there?
(unknown) I believe that was just the difference with the 3% so we could keep track. We
just made a little addition there so that you could tell what the amount was that it
actually raised from last year.
(Chambers) This is also in the (inaudible) budget and it comes from State Reimburse
Gasoline taxes.
(Hawk) In the past we’ve had other equipment in there, but this year there’s no
equipment that’s placed in this particular portion of the budget.
(Chambers) That’s correct.
(Hawk) Do we want to talk about equipment in this budget or do you want to wait until
we get to the end?
(Chambers) We can wait until the end.
Hawk moved, Woods seconded
Motion passed
GENERAL AND UNDISTRIBUTED EXPENSE
Total $377,580
(Hawk) I would just like to mention that this is part of the equipment that was requested
in the bond issue. If we’re not going to do that, at some point and time if we can’t figure
out some other way we would probably want to do more of the lease purchase to get
some of those trucks. However this morning since I just found out about this last night I
have been on the phone this morning with State Board of Accounts and we can buy the
equipment that the highway has requested, not in this budget, but in the bond request
we can purchase that out of either gaming money or we could do it out of the COIT
money. But because of the way it’s been advertised I doubt very much that we could do
it during budget hearings. But we certainly could do with an additional appropriation.
State Board of Accounts said they didn’t care whether we did it under highway or
commissioners; we could do it either way. The utilities budget is very important to the
highway. For a total of $350,000 will be able to be covered at a later date. But unless
somebody can come up with a way that it’s advertised as such that we can cover it
during budget hearings. I don’t think we could cover it today. But I wanted to mention it
during this portion of the budget because in past that’s how we’ve been able to buy
some equipment. And the total for that department is $377,580.
Hawk moved, Henegar seconded.
5
(Chambers) This is also out of NVH, which is gasoline reimbursement from the State. I’d
like to add that the $110,000 lease purchase is the last payment we make on the
purchase that we made.
Motion passed
Hawk moved, Woods seconded
(West) This makes the new total $1,247,473.61 for the 533 fund?
(Hawk) You could put them together it really doesn’t matter.
Motion passed
Hawk moved, Woods seconded.
(Williams) This money comes from the State Gasoline Tax. Its similar projects to
what we’ve done in the past. The only addition that we have this year is $200,000
for additional pavement to help make up for the short fall in the NVH fund.
(Hawk) Can you tell us how the wheel tax that was added affected this portion of
the budget?
(Williams) It affected the NVH fund. That money is put into the bituminous line of
the budget you just previously approved. The additional $380,000 that we
anticipate being generated by that will help make up for the $265,000 short fall in
that budget. So we’re approximately $80,000 in the NVH fund in the plus. That’s
why the need to increase the bituminous line out of the local road and street
budget.
(Hawk) All of it interacts together.
Motion passed
(Hawk) Under 3000, Bridge Maintenance at $65,000 and the total of category 3
115,000 for a bottom line of $115,000. This is the C.U.M. Bridge Fund that is on
property taxes and it is a part of our frozen levy. And they come in and figure out
what they are going to do with the money and whether they’re matching it with
something. That’s why you’ll see all of those lines that have numbers in it that we
have used during the year that they come in and make a presentation with what
they want to do with the money. But it is also a rate controlled fund so that if our
assessed valuation goes up the rate on this is .0213 and so that goes times our
total assessed valuation. But the total of it is in our frozen levy. So that if our
assessed valuation should go up dramatically when we get that final number we
may see that this amount is going on taxes will be a greater amount and then
that will reduce the amount that is available for county general. However in this
6
county we do not take the C.U.M. Bridge rate nearly as high as other counties.
We do have the legal right to take it a great deal higher than this if it would be
decided by this body and by the commissioners to do so. Until we get the total
A.V. that has been certified we won’t know for sure what this dollar amount will
be able.
(Williams) I think the increase is proportional over the general fund as it is with
this fund. I don’t think it’s going to hurt the general fund any. If the A.V. goes up
then all the general fund and this goes up.
(Hawk) It has been changed in that this is a rate controlled fund. This and the
Cum Cap is both tied to the A.V. But the County General Fund and the other
funds is tied to personal income non-farm growth. And so they average that over
the last six years and that amount is .039 that’s the amount of growth allowed for
the entire frozen levy and the C.U.M. Bridge, because we have C.U.M. Cap,
C.U.M. Cap sets off the size of frozen levy, which puts C.U.M. bridge in the
frozen levy. And since it’s a rate controlled fund and its .0213 if we have a great
deal of increase in our assessed valuation the amount will be higher. But as long
as it doesn’t go up more than the .039 County General will still be fine. But once
again, just wanted folks to know when you’ve heard of other counties that are
having problems with your C.U.M bridge rate it’s because they’ve taken it up to
the highest amount it can go. And in this county we don’t, we’re only about half of
the rate where we could take it if we chose to.
Motion passed
RICHLAND TWP. TIF
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
Category 01 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Category 02 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
Salaries and Wages
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Professional Services 3000.02
3000.09
Disbursement to Bank
TIF Annual Review
7
Communication &
Transportation
Insurance
3000.01
3000.10
Insurance
Bond Anticipation Rimb.
3000.03
Engineering/Construction
Profile Parkway
Signalization
Daniel's Way Resurfacing
Connector Road
Loesch Road
Profile Parkway
Curry Pike
Curry Pike Parking
Vernal Pike
Category 03 Total:
$3,000.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.04
3000.05
3000.06
3000.07
3000.08
3000.11
3000.12
3000.13
(Williams) We’re anticipating on generating almost 1.2 million next year
according to the financial analyst that does the TIF annual review. Out of that the
bond payment of around $265,000 will also be taken out.
Hawk moved, Stoops seconded
Motion passed
BLOOMINGTON TWP TIF
2005
Approved
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$0.00
$0.00
Salaries and Wages
Category 01 Total:
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
8
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.01
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Category 03 Total:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Department Total:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
TIF Annual Review
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
Hawk moved, Henegar seconded
(Williams) This is a financial analyst that’s done as part of the annual review of
the area.
Motion passed
(Stoops) Now that everybody is here. Before we present the next departmental
budget we’ve decided to pursue or not to pursue the bond. Obviously that will be
9
up to a vote on Thursday night. In order to avoid the bond it will be necessary to
actually place the capital items back in department’s budgets as they come up.
So we’ll be placing those items back in the 04 lines. Some items obviously will be
a matter of discussion. If we are going to use cash, rather than a bond it would
probably be more safe to actually reduce that actual figure down to a million
dollars or less as far as what we actually pay for out of cash rather than pursue
the bond.
(Jones) If we decided to pay for it out of cash instead of the bond it would be best
to do that as a separate line item, keep them separate from the budgets, and
spend it down this year so when we go for an excess levy we’re not penalized for
having too much cash on hand.
(Stoops) The excess levy I believe will take into account the amounts that we
have budgeted for 2006 as well as what we spent or project to spend in 2005, is
that correct? I think Trent’s question is, should we spend the cash down now,
or?......
(Rice) You’re going to put the capital items that have been submitted with the
excess levy keep those in the excess levy that he’s done, is that right?
(Stoops) That’s right. The items that are requested from the bond, not the excess
levy we will move back into department’s budgets.
(Rice) As long as it’s in a general fund budget, it should be advertised high
enough. As long as you include this bond, things within a general fund you
should be okay.
(Hawk) That’s what I was talking about when we were talking about the highway
budget, since I didn’t get this call until last night. I called State Board of Accounts
this morning saying, “Look, we don’t have the highway budget advertised high
enough”. We certainly cannot move their capital expense items over into their
budget. Not that we cannot still do it with our savings account that’s permissible.
(Rice) As an additional.
(Hawk) As an additional. But I don’t believe we can do it today or in with the
budget hearings. It still hasn’t been advertised.
(Rice) But we can do general fund. And that was a special fund.
(Hawk) These things will be paid for out of what is setting in the general fund as
far as we could have a special fund. Or maybe that gaming money I believe is
still sitting just in the cash that we could pay for it out of that, that’s not the
10
problem. It’s just that I don’t know whether it’s advertised high enough that we
could put it in the Commissioners budget for this year.
(Rice) Are you talking about highway or these other things?
(Hawk) I’m talking about the things that were going to be in the bond for the
highway. State Board of Accounts said that they did not care whether we did it
under the commissioner’s budget or the highway. But I don’t know whether it’s
advertised high enough that we could get it under the 04’s in the commissioners
or whether we need to wait and do it another day.
(Rice) Brandon and I were talking about whether the general fund was advertised
high enough to include these items. Brandon’s opinion is that he did advertise it
high enough in the general fund for the commissioner’s budget. But it’s up to this
council to decide whether they want to put it in the budget today or as you say,
“Additionally appropriated” in another month out of some other fund source.
(Hawk) Not knowing where they are headed it’s hard to determine. I just want to
make sure the highway’s vehicles are covered and I know that we can cover
them out of other funds just whether or not we do it today.
(Stoops) And then some departments we may elect to do an additional this year.
For instance, Parks and Rec. has a mover that costs $17,000 they’ve negotiated
it down to $11,000 because of the time of year. But they have to buy within 60
days. So in that case we would pull that out and just have them to submit that as
an additional request for this year.
(Hawk) And the utilities truck that the bridge crew is using in the highway is really
in pretty bad shape. So if we’re going to pull it out of one of those funds I would
really like to do it as an additional and get it done this year. It shouldn’t make a bit
of difference one way or the other cash wise, since we’re not doing it with new
revenue we’re doing it with existing revenue. I would really rather just do it as an
additional and get that utilities truck replaced.
(Jones) I believe like all the bond items done as an additional would be more
appropriate due to the reason I think it would be beneficial to reduce our fund
balance before we go through that excess levy. I think that could have more
selling features to it at the state level.
(Hawk) The one thing that I have concerns about is that we really did not have a
discussion as to what was requested in the bond. Which things were really
urgently needed that we would be willing to take cash or savings to pay for and
which ones are really just wish lists?
11
(Stoops) That was the responsibility of every department liaison and I requested
that information and that’s what we’re working on today. There are items that
don’t necessarily have to be funded this year. And that’s what we will be
discussing and that’s what the department liaison will be discussing.
(Jones) I brought that up at the last meeting. I made it clear that I was against the
general obligation bond because of our fund balances and our cash on hand. I’m
glad to see that after that meeting we’re going back to our suggestion.
(Rice) And I will say that if the council is entertaining this idea on Thursday we
would want to make your intent clear that you’re not going to pursue the bonds. I
will prepare a simple resolution to that that says, “You voted on it on August 9th,
but you’ve since changed courses and you’re not going to pursue it”. That way
there is no doubt what’s going on.
(Stoops) We haven’t voted to resend it yet.
(Rice) Right and I’ll prepare that for Thursday for your consideration. Is that when
you said you guys were going to talk about it on Thursday?
(Stoops) Right, but there may be council members who still wish to vote for the
bond, so I don’t want to preempt that.
(Jones) If the bond still existed, or the approval for the bond was still out there
and it didn’t get re-sended could that bond be used then for a different purpose,
even though we would use the original?
(Rice) It would have to be used for the general purposes that were established.
On Thursday you’re going to entertain the idea of not going forward with the
bond. And I assume you’re going to vote on that on Thursday on that issue?
(Stoops) We have to.
(Rice) Right and then I will have something for you to sign, if you vote.
(Stoops) So the council will be adding items from the bond request and capital
items back to the county budgets as we go.
(West) To keep us on tract, Brandon has to submit a statement that tells what the
additional appropriations estimated are through the end of the year. So as we go
to the budgets can we say, “this was in the bond, we’re going to put it back into
county general, we’re going to take it out of an additional appropriation or we’re
not agreeing to fund it”. So we know right off the bat we have 460 where are we
going with this? And I’ll keep a separate list of what we intend to additionally
12
appropriate for Brandon, so that he can add that on his 16 line statement or 17
line statement, whatever it is.
(Stoops) Right. I have been keeping notes from the different council members on
their departments rather the departments who wish to comment on for instance,
Marty said it was possible to get highway from other funds and so I think that’s.
As we go through the departments we will make sure that’s clear.
(West) Okay, so we have 460 here on highway do you want me to list that as the
additional appropriation for this year, since we did not include it in any budgets or
are you going to include it in another budget?
(Stoops) I would say not every item on highway is going to get support.
(Hawk) Do you have a list that you are going by?
(West) Then I’ll just put this on that list so it’s somewhere now. It’s not in the
budget.
(Stoops) (inaudible) additional that it would have to be voted on in the future.
(West) I’ll put that in that list then.
(Stoops) Is that correct Margie? Do you have a list of the items that were
requested on the bond for the excess levy?
(West) (inaudible) For possible appropriations for the remained of the year and
that way we can decide.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
Director
Secretary
Public Information Coordinator
Category 01 Total:
Office Supplies
2000.01
Supplies
Operating Supplies
2000.02
Computer Supplies
Other Garage & Motor
Equipment
Travel & Vehicle Fuel
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$40,404.00
$23,070.00
$0.00
$63,474.00
$40,404.00
$23,070.00
$0.00
$63,474.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$240.00
$240.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
02 SUPPLIES
2000.05
2000.07
13
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
$1,240.00
$1,240.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$208.00
$23,117.00
$500.00
$0.00
$24,825.00
$208.00
$23,117.00
$500.00
$0.00
$24,825.00
Insurance
Utility Service
3000.06
Maintenance
3000.02
3000.05
3000.08
3000.09
Postage
Radio & CD Sirens
Training
Computer Software
Category 03 Total:
4000.04
Radios
4000.01
(2) Outdoor Warning Sirens
Category 04 Total:
$41,821.18
$41,821.18
$41,821.18
$41,821.18
Department Total:
$131,360.18
$131,360.18
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
$0.00
14
Jones moved, Travis seconded.
(Jones) I am overseeing that this year and I would like to request that John give
an explanation of all the changes that you made and your reasons why for your
06 budget verses your 05 budget. If you could read that letter that you submitted
on June 17, 2005 when you submitted your budget.
(John Hooker, Emergency Management) The budget explanation letter that I
wrote the 2006 Emergency Management Budget we are asking for a 3%
increase in salaries for full time employees so the 1000 line item for the director’s
salary would be $40,440 and the secretary $23,070 and we get 50%
reimbursement back from the state for our salaries. The 2000 line item for the 01
supply for 2005 was $900.00 and we’re requesting $1,000 for 2006. This is due
to an increase in paper and other items that are necessary to maintain daily
office work. The 02 computer supplies for 2005 are $204 and we’re that they be
maintained at the same level for 2006. In the 3000 line item we are asking to
keep the 06 maintenance line item as it is in 2005 so the 2006 amount would be
$1,000 the 02 postage would stay the same as it is this year, so the 2006 figure
would be $208 in the 08 training line item we’re asking for a $14.00 increase from
$486 to $500 next year. This will allow us ten training classes outside the county.
The 05 radio and cd sirens this year was $14,000 and in 2006 we are requesting
an increase to $23,117 this increase is due to a 5% increase in siren
maintenance from $5,100 this year to $5,355 in 2006. Also for 92 new batteries
for the 23 outdoor warning sirens we are requesting $4,462. In federals
explanation for the battery life expiration is similar to an automobile it is
depended on many variables to which are difficult for each customer. Such as
the climate, duration of each use, etc. therefore the real rule of thumb is typically
batteries last 3 to 5 years for the system that relied upon for safety it is
recommended that the batteries be replaced every three years. The above is a
statement from the manufacturer, which sold us the sirens, Federal Outdoor
Warning System. The current warning system is now over five years old. To
change out the batteries we’re going to need a bucket truck so we’re requesting
$3,000 and $1,400 for an operator. The rest of the radio and cd line item goes to
maintaining pagers, cell phones, radio system and purchasing parts for sirens
that are damaged. One of the sirens had been struck by lightening and the board
costs $724 and that was after we returned it to federal for a reimbursement.
Originally it cost $1,200, but if you sent back the part you got a credit for it. The
04 line item the Outdoor Warning Committee is finishing its five year plan for the
county the request by the Monroe County Commissioners is that the EMAC put
together a five year outdoor warning plan for the county. For next year the plan is
requesting two outdoor warning sirens, installation for the sirens at $41,821.81 I
broke down the outdoor warning sirens, you can see that the sirens the two
installations, two poles, eight batteries and the freight charge.
15
(Woods) On the battery replacement program am I understanding that it’s four
batteries per siren to operate?
(Hooker) Yes.
(Hawk) Can you tell me where the outdoor warning…..
(Jones) I have a question for Margie, as the budgets are submitted and are
requested as you see there under that 4000 line item, $41,821 that’s submitted
by John Hooker, the director. Could you explain to me what the 2006 council line
item is, or do we know?
(Rice) I think the 2006 council; my understanding is that’s what the council talked
about during work session.
(Knight) Those were just suggestions talked about by the council during work
sessions. And they were much easier to remember by placing them in that
column.
(Jones) I believe any suggestions should be voted on before we actually go.
(Brandon) That’s why it hasn’t been approved.
(Rice) It was a way to keep track of what you guys talked about during the work
session. It’s not a done deal. It will still have to be voted on.
(Brandon) If you keep the $41,000 what I will do is change this number to
$41,821.18 and then change that to 2006 approved.
(Stoops) Are you actually moving to approve the budget as submitted?
(Jones) Yes, I think it’s in line with what the Monroe County Commissioners
suggested that we do two outdoor warning systems per year for the next five
years to go in line with the five year plan. Also the general obligation bond is in
question, we obviously been told that, that is going to be cut down to a million
dollars from a million eight are preferably cut per Marks suggestion. So that being
the case I think it would be best to work sirens in intermittently at a smaller level.
I do think there is a chance if they did get cut from the bond then this would be
the appropriate way to handle (inaudible) with the Commissioners suggestion.
(West) Is this budget approved by the emergency management board?
(Hooker) Yes.
16
(Woods) Could you explain to us like the sirens in detail, what’s their effective
rang and then how they are placed as they are believed to be needed by the
council? Tell us any advancements that have been made and the sirens. There
was a comments made that the sirens were the same as old World War II sirens.
(Hooker) The outdoor warning sirens the committee is still finishing up on its
plan. They have put together a prioritized list of the sirens that we recommend to
county purchase over the next five years. They have a range of a mile to a mile
and three quarters. If you maintain them in good working order they last for a
long time. We have a good maintenance program. I’ll let Randy Smith, who’s the
County’s GIS coordinator; explain to the committee about what he does.
(Randy Smith) We use the elevation data from our contour information. We use
the existing coverage of the sirens to potentially site the new sirens where they
could be heard by the largest area and also the population trends to where the
population is growing in the county.
(Jones) I’d like to revise that if I could. I was under the understanding as far as
how we are going to handle the 04 items that were taken out of the bond. So any
04 items that were in the bond as we were told to do so are to be placed back
into the 04 categories that being the case under the 4000.01 outdoor warning
sirens. In the bond we had budgeted for seven outdoor warning sirens, so I
would like to put in $183,400 for seven outdoor warning sirens under the 4000.01
line item. That would be as we were told to do this morning anything from the
bond back in.
Jones moved, Hawk seconded.
(Hawk) What was planned by your department was to two here and seven here
for a total of nine? Is that correct? How was your total?
(Hooker) We needed 13. We’re looking at 13 new sirens over five years.
(Hawk) But we’re only looking at if there’s two here at $41,021.18 is that correct?
That you had originally presented.
(Hooker) I put in two sirens for the budget and Bill Steger two weeks ago sent me
an email saying that the Commissioners recommended that I put the sirens in the
general obligation bond. I didn’t know about these were going to be in the
general obligation bond.
(Jones) I think the bond is kind of up in the air right now. We don’t know what’s
going to become of the bond.
(Hawk) Do you want the 41 on top of the 183 or do you want that total to be 183?
17
(Jones) Since it’s a five year plan I think the total of seven would be sufficient for
this year. Since that was in the bond anyway and then we…
(Stoops) So your motion is for?
(Jones) What was in the bond to go then into the 04 category?
(Stoops) $78,600 what I have listed is three outdoor warning sirens. Did you
remove the two that was requested Michael?
(Jones) Remember the two that were requested and took the seven out of the
emergency management line item from the general obligation bond? Which was
$183,400? So I changed the $41,821.18 to $183,400.
(Hawk) Second.
(Rice) Let me just clarify that I understood Trent that either the council was going
to include it in the 04 or do an additional appropriation later. That’s something
you guys have to decide.
(Jones) I think that’s where we need guidance now is how are we in fact suppose
to do them? Do you want us to put all the 04 line items from the bottom into our
budgets as I’m trying to do here now?
(Rice) That’s the council’s decision. That’s up to you guys how you want to fund
it. Now I will tell you….
(Stoops) The way I expect ii is, if Trent wants to put the motion on the floor then
we vote whether to approve the amended motion or not. Personally I want to
keep it at the two sirens for next year. And I don’t feel that the board has
completed their plan. We have to narrow that bon request down from 1.8 million
down to a million and want to see more information including some questions for
John regarding the maintenance costs of all these sirens that are proposed that I
don’t know that it’s included in next years budget, that kind of thing.
(Rice) Just a reminder that when you add something that’s not been included in
the budget estimate or you increase it higher then what was given to you in the
estimate it takes a least five votes.
(Hawk) So every time we do anything with these 04 categories you have to get
five votes.
(Rice) And that’s all day long.
18
(Stoops) That sounds good to me. That means it has the approval and it needs to
get through.
(Jones) I guess that’s my question to Mark, is this the way you want to see it
handled, that anything from the bond is then put into these budgets?
(Stoops) Yes. So you decide at what level you’d like to present it. If you would
like to move to change that line from $41,821 to the bond request which is
$183,400 is that your motion?
Jones moved Hawk seconded to amend line 4000.01.
(West) You said you had a five year plan for how many sirens?
(Hooker) We’re putting together a five year plan for 13 sirens.
(West) So 13 divided by five would be?
(Hooker) That’s the debate. We were trying to think two this year three next year
etc. We have not put down…
(West) I’m just trying to see where we went from two to seven. But you do have a
five year plan that includes 13 sirens?
(Hooker) It will be ready sometime next week.
(Jones) Those were based on setting those in areas of two hundred people or
more correct?
(Hooker) Right, you can see the legend where we have the light blue is 200
people or more and the light gray is 300 or more.
(Jones) We also looked at areas where there was substantial new development.
There were some subdivisions and some of those areas that were being built out.
(Hooker) And we are also looking at the lake where you have a lot of people
during the summer time to try to warn them.
(Woods) What the audio ability in that circle. Can you hear it?
(Hooker) It can be heard at 1 3/4 miles. Last Friday when we had our monthly
test and I was down at the Summit Elementary school and what we do … we
have two different sirens here in the county. We have whelens and we have
federal and we have to set off the whelens first. And we could hear the whelens
from the Justice Building down at the Summit Elementary school. And that’s off
19
of Tap Road, so that’s a good two miles. And with the high elevation we can get
good coverage on the sirens. And these are outdoor warning sirens, you can
hear them inside, but you might not be able to. They are for people that are
outdoors.
(Henegar) The money for the sirens when they go back into the budget, where is
that money coming from?
(Stoops) It comes from the general fund. We can choose to take it out of some
specific fund, but it’s all the same.
(Hawk) I understand that you’re working over a plan that’s not just for this year,
but would you agree with me that the sooner we can get more sirens up the more
people we will be able to protect?
(Hooker) We want to cover the county if we can get more sirens up I think people
would be out there. We got a lot of request from different individuals here in the
county, down south, up north that cannot hear the sirens. Over the years this five
year plan will probably be changing every year because the population is
growing. So we’ll probably have to revisit that five year plan every year.
(Jones) The department total would change to $272,939 based upon the
amended motion.
(Stoops) With the increased number of sirens have you included any of your
maintenance costs in there?
(Hooker) In the five year plan that’s what we’re doing. We’re putting together the
five year plan it will have a list about the maintenance the costs. I did not bring a
copy of the rough draft, but we do have each year that the sirens we increase the
sirens we put together a spread sheet on how much it would cost for the
maintenance.
(Stoops) The five year plan is completed?
(Hooker) It will be completed next week. We’ve been waiting on a few quotes to
come in and we got those last week just before we had to have all the
documentation done for the general obligation bond. We had to get some quotes
for the sirens, batteries and installation.
Motion failed
Stoops moved Hawk seconded to amend to increase line 4000.01 to
$62,732. That would be enough for three sirens.
20
Motion failed
(Jones) Do we go back to the original budget?
West moved Stoops seconded to amend the motion that they leave it at the
original budget put the additional siren and the capital items to be
considered for additional appropriation for the remainder of the year and
go back to the total of $141,368.18
Motion passed
Jones moved, Woods seconded
(Hooker) The Local Emergency Planning Committee we get reimbursement back
from firms that has hazardous chemicals. This is the Right to Know, it’s a Federal
Law that all agencies that have hazardous chemicals have to file with Emergency
Management, local fire departments and the State Emergency Response
Commission. And what we have is we kept the budget the same as we did last
year. We just shifted some of the funds around. We increased, I believe, training,
but we kept the budget the same as last year. It’s pass through money.
TECHNICAL SERVICES
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.08
1000.09
1000.10
1000.11
1000.20
Administrator
Systems Manager
Operations Manager
Administrative Assistant
Project Manager
Support Technician
Training Specialist
Support Technician
ER Manager
Tech Support Supervisor
Support Technician (New)
Part-time Hourly
Category 01 Total:
2000.01
Office Supplies
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$59,019.00
$40,384.00
$51,831.00
$28,952.00
$47,982.00
$33,633.00
$34,363.00
$32,063.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
$28,828.80
$387,055.80
$59,019.00
$40,384.00
$51,831.00
$28,952.00
$47,982.00
$33,633.00
$34,363.00
$32,063.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$16,640.00
$344,867.00
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
21
Other Supplies
2000.02
2000.03
2000.04
2000.05
3000.12
3000.13
Computer Supplies
Copier Supplies
Microfilm/Other Supplies
Repair & Maintenance Supplies
Category 02 Total:
$5,000.00
$1,485.00
$900.00
$5,500.00
$14,085.00
$5,000.00
$1,300.00
$900.00
$5,500.00
$13,900.00
Consultation Fees
Contractual Services
$15,000.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$0.00
$5,625.00
$1,200.00
$5,000.00
$5,625.00
$1,200.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
3000.02
3000.08
3000.10
Long Distance
Pager
Telephone Maintenance
Utility Service
3000.01
Telephone Service
3000.03
3000.04
Reprographics
Maintenance
$22,000.00
$212,320.00
$22,000.00
$194,820.00
3000.05
3000.06
3000.07
3000.09
Software Development & Service
Training
Mileage
Microfilm & Other
Category 03 Total:
$115,725.00
$15,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
$392,370.00
$45,000.00
$15,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
$304,145.00
4000.01
Computer Equipment (Courthouse)
Computer Equipment (Justice
Building)
Computer Equipment - Other
Copier/Lease Purchase
Telephone Equipment
$0.00
$0.00
$107,500.00
$0.00
$80,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$271,500.00
$72,500.00
$0.00
Radios, Pagers & Other
Equipment Restoration
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$187,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$344,000.00
Insurance
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.02
4000.03
4000.04
4000.05
4000.07
4000.08
22
Department Total:
$981,010.80
$1,006,912.00
Motion passed
Stoops moved, Woods seconded
(Larry Smith, Tech Services) You’re currently looking at the personnel services.
We had as a result of the new courts requested an additional support technician
also some additional hourly help desk dollars. I understand those have been
taken out and maybe part of the access levy. Other than that we have held this at
the 3% increase specified by the council.
Stoops moved Woods seconded to approve the o1 category with the following
amendment; reduce line 1000.20 part-time hourly from the requested $28,828.80
down to $16,640, which gives us a new bottom line of $344,865.98.
(Stoops) I will leave the bottom line to the auditor that way we don’t have to
shuffle back and forth.
(Knight) I was just wondering. The 1000.11 the new support tech as well did you
want to bring that down as well?
Stoops moved, Woods seconded to reduce the 1000.11 line, support technician
from $30,000 to $0.00
(Knight) New bottom line of $344,867.00 for the 01 category.
(West) I think it will be helpful to add that these were subtracted because they’re
included in the excess levy.
(Stoops) Support technician of $30,000 is in the excess levy. $12,180.88 of the
overtime is included in the excess levy.
(Hawk) But they were added on here (inaudible)
(Stoops) We’re working from the original budget submitted by the department.
Most departments listed excess levy requirements within their budget. At a later
date council decided that the excess levy items would be pulled out and placed in
a separate budget, so many of the departmental budgets will have excess levy
items in them that need to be removed.
23
(Hawk) But the new line item that you’re talking about takes all of the excess levy
out of this particular budget?
(Stoops) Yes.
Motion passed
Stoops moved, Travis seconded to approve Tech Services 2000 category with a
bottom line of $14,085
(Smith) This category covers office supplies, computer supplies, copier supplies,
microfilm and also repair and maintenance supplies. In arriving at these figures
we took a look at the data that we had over the last two or three years for each of
these categories and made a recommendation that represents what we believe
to be a realistic cost for each of these lines this year. We have computer
supplies, office supplies $1,200 which is the same amount that was approved in
2005 we then have the computer supplies at $5,000, which represents a $2,000
increase over the approved amount last year. We believe that this is a realistic
cost. We take a look at our 2 ½ year average for this particular category it’s
$5,051, therefore I believe $5,000 fairly accurately reflects the needs that we’re
going to see in this line and just to give you an indication of what this actually
covers, it provides the supplies to support over 480 work stations across the
county. And it could be things like replacing a hard drive, or C.D drive and you
can see that that basically doesn’t give us very much in terms of a monthly
allowance for things to go bad that are not covered under warranty. The copier
supplies this covers any copiers that are not part of our Icon Contract, which
you’ll see later. And our two year average in this line was $16,099. We’re asking
for $14,085 of which it represents $185.00 increase over last year. And that is
attributed to the cost of the new court. The repair/maintenance supplies and the
microfilm supplies we’ve actually lowered the microfilm supplies by $200.00 from
last year based upon what we believe we’ll actually need in that category. And
the repair/maintenance supplies are at the same level as 2005.
(Stoops) $185.00 of the copier supplies is attributed to the excess levy?
(Smith) Yes.
West moved Woods seconded to make an amended motion to change the
total to $13,900 and take the excess levy amount out of the totals that was
originally proposed.
Motion passed
24
Stoops moved, Woods seconded the approval of Tech Services 3000
category with the following changes. Line 3000.04 maintenance reduced
from $212,320 down to $194,820
Line 3000.05 software development and service will remain the same. We
had reduced in originally for the $70,725 for the Intuit Fund ware, but I
added that back in, so the line remains the same at $115,725. So again that
is a capital cost that we removed and it’s placed back in. So that gives us a
new bottom line of $374,870. Is that correct?
(Stoops) One thing that I would like to point out is the telephone service that is
reduced to zero; we’ve been taken that out of the telecommunications fund. But
because of Tech Services pursuing the voice over I.P. telephone system I
believe that has reduced drastically this year and will further reduce next year.
(Smith) It certainly has. I believe we were at a level of $192,500 was the
appropriated amount from the Cable/DVD fund for this year in this area. And that
should reduce significantly in 2006 as we fully implement voice over I.P.
(Stoops) It was up to like $170 or $180 somewhere in there.
(Smith) Actually $192,000 was the figure. That includes a couple of other
incidental items. But it was roughly $15,000 a month or more for service and
we’re going to get that down probably by maybe 40% in 2006 is what we’re
looking for.
(West) This was changed since our work session; I’d just like to know why it was
added back in because we have duplicated software in two cases in here, both
for tax billing and for accounting software. And I thought we were going to do that
through an additional appropriation yet this year.
(Stoops) We could do it through an additional appropriation; I thought it would be
better if it was budgeted, but if you would like to move that that is taken out.
(West) If it’s in the budget for next year we can’t buy it this year. And we can’t
implement it by January 1, 06 if that’s the intent.
(Stoops) Is that the intent? I thought you still weren’t sure, but we thought we
were going with the Intuit.
(Smith) That actually is our intent as far as I know it. And I think it got a little
confusing with the amounts going in and out of various lines and I apologize. I
probably should have recognized that yesterday when we talked about that. But
that is an expense that we believe we would have this year. And in order to
benefit from reduced maintenance costs in other areas.
25
(Stoops) Sue, before I withdraw my motion what line is that other duplication on?
(West) 3000.05 Software development and service $115,725.
(Stoops) No I mean the other duplicate.
(West) I’m not sure we’re in a position to take these out, it’s the tax billing
software between Manatron and Odyssey. Is that right?
(Smith) Yes, and I would recommend not taking them out, that doesn’t mean we
have to spend them, but we’re really not sure what kind of overlap we may have
and right now we’re looking at an ideal situation of having everything done.
(West) And that one I agree, it is a duplicate, but I’m not sure we’re in a position
to convert both soft wares on that side.
Stoops moved Woods seconded to withdraw their motion.
(Stoops) Do you want to give me a total on $115,725 less $70,725?
(West) $45,000
Stoops moved Woods seconded that line 3000.05 Software development
and Service be reduced from $115,000 to $45,000
Motion passed
TECH SERVICES 4000 CATEGORY
(Stoops) With the following amendment 4000.03 Computer Equipment &
other. Requested down to zero I would like to increase that to $299,000.
4000.04 Copier Lease Purchase requested amount $80,000 I would like to
reduce that to $72,500.
(Stoops) I’ll start with line 4000.04 $7,500 of that was an increase for the new
court. Line 4000.03 Computer Equipment/other is a combination of the items that
Tech Services has requested from the bond. And if you would like I could run
over the bond request line by line. It depends on what the council wants.
(Knight) Line 4000.02 what is your proposed amount for that?
(Stoops) 4000.02 I lumped all of their requests from the bond to line 4000.03
(Knight) They originally requested $107,500 in that line.
26
(Stoops) I have it as requested at zero.
(Smith) I don’t remember that request to tell you the truth. I’m not sure where that
amount came from. Mine shows zero as well.
(West) It comes from your one time request for the bond.
(Smith) We didn’t talk about that at the work session, maybe something has
happened since then that I’m not aware of.
(Knight) It was a portion of the excess levy that I originally put in there.
(Smith) So it’s associated with the new courts? Okay.
(Stoops) Just so we can keep that in one line. 4000.02 is zero.
(Hawk) I wish we were doing this separately at a separate time.
(Stoops) This is the time to do it. You have $128,000 for file sharing server. We
have $100,000 to consolidate existing Microsoft servers to Q – Clustered
servers. We will move Sisco and JTS from the Sun Platform to Line Servers.
Total cost on that is $21,000 originally Larry requested $48,500, but he has
agreed that the costs of implementation will be borne by Tech Services, they can
do the work, they don’t have to contract it out. So we’ll be saving $27,500.
There’s also $22,500 for a clustered GIS server.
(Smith) What happened to the clustered web server?
(Stoops) It was withdrawn. It wasn’t urgent. We also withdrew the camera system
for the Courthouse.
(West) You have added some of the bond into this line of $128,000, $100,000,
$21,000 from the Sisco/JTS and $22,500. Is that correct?
(Smith) The clustered G.I.S. server.
(West) Okay the clustered GIS instead of the web, it’s the same amount. That
comes up to $181,500 how did we get to the $299?
(Hawk) And could you go back and say what the $21,000 consists of in the
moving Sisco/JTS from…
(Stoops) Let’s deal with the totals first. Did you get the original $128,000 for the
network attached storage?
27
(West) I didn’t.
(Stoops) And the server life cycle hardware replacement program?
(Hawk) Did you do the camera system for the courthouse?
(West) $128,000 plus $100,000 plus $21,000 plus $22,500 is $181,500.
(Smith) It should be $271,500
(West) I got it. I missed the 181.
(Stoops) Is the $22,500 the difference?
(Smith) $27,500
(Stoops) That’s the difference we have both the web server and the GIS server in
there.
(Smith) It looks more like we have the migration costs for the Sisco to GTS in
there. Between your motion and the total?
(Stoops) I think that’s the difference is that $27,500 based upon the motion.
Which we do want to come out?
(Hawk) The migration cost?
(Smith) Yes, so instead of the 299 it should be 271,500. I think is what it should
be.
(Stoops) Could you say that again?
(Hawk) The camera system is completely out?
(Woods) Well in this motion it is.
(West) Okay so the new number would be $271,500 for a bottom line of
$344,000 are we on the same page with at least a number that we are starting
with?
(Stoops) Can you give me that number again?
(West) $344,000 it includes 4000.03, $271,500 and the copier lease purchase
$72,500, not including any costs in the excess levy. And then from the bond list
28
do you want me to move this to the requested for additional appropriation or do
we say we’re not going to consider camera for the courthouse?
(Stoops) I think anything is fair for an additional appropriation request. I probably
am not going to support it. But it makes sense to put it up to a vote. And
someone from the council may amend the motion to include that at this time.
(Hawk) I sure would love to know how much money we’re working with.
(Woods) If briefly you could justify the things that we are including from the bond
list why they are urgent.
(Smith) Three of our most important focus areas from Technical Services stand
point are the elimination or reduction of single points of failure to maximize our
service availability of any mission critical applications that we have. Also the
reduction of the number of single function servers that we have through
intelligent serving of those applications, through clusters, which basically means
we’re trying to reduce the number of individual items that themselves are not real
reliable, not real high availability items and working to cluster it into a super
server that would take care of multiple applications. That helps us to reduce our
maintenance costs as well as provide a better service for our users and then our
increased emphasis on data protection and date of availability shifting to a
centralized storage format with multilevel data protection and recovery. So
basically what we’re trying to do is actually insure that the data that we have is
available to users when they need it. And that the down time associated with that
is as close to zero as we can possibly get that. And each of those items that are
listed there basically falls under that same category it’s just different areas.
(Woods) Do you have any kind of estimate for how much down time the existing
equipment that performs these functions…
(Smith) That’s one of those issues that depending upon who you ask. If you talk
to a specific department, or instance we’ve got a justice system server that
essentially serves 245 users. Any downtime in that server is probably too much
and we have experience that’s being less and less reliable. The age on that
specific server is getting up there to where our maintenance is becoming more
and more and if we suffer four hours of downtime for that then that’s probably too
much. We’ve seen cases where it’s been down for a day. And so what we would
like to do is we would like to work towards having clusters to where we have two
servers that are working together to support this application. Especially in issues
that are critical like this. And that way having as much redundancy as we
possibly can to where if one server fell the other continues to run. It provides the
service at half the transfer rate as the two working together. It takes it off line to
where it’s not an issue anymore as to whether the other server is down for four
hours or a day or two days or whatever it is we can fix it right and bring it back on
29
line. And then when it’s brought back on line then once again we’re back up to
100% capability. But from a user stand point they probably won’t notice anything.
And that’s our goal is to try to take the pressure off of our users and provide the
maximum service that we can and to put the pressure on us, you know behind
the scenes to get things back up and running.
(Woods) Can you briefly describe what that is and why being down four hours is
too much time.
(Hert) The justice software is software that is used to document all the court
hearing both the criminal and the civil cases. Every dollar that is paid in the
justice building is used and tracked by that software. It is literally used by
everyone in the Justice Building except for the Voter Registration Office. So
anytime three minutes of downtime means that court stops, it means that the
Clerk’s office stops. The sheriff’s records department, Central Dispatch they rely
upon this software. And that’s why it is so critical and why our goal is to have
zero minutes of downtime in a year.
(Smith) And each moment that that user is not able to do what they would
normally do if you actually start factoring in what is the loss and efficiency the
dollars of productivity you’re going to find that just over a matter of a couple of
small downtimes is probably going to pay for the server. Plus you’re sacrificing
potentially public safety at the same time with the systems not being up and
running.
(West) The $22,500 that we left in for the clustered GIS server will that allow us
to host our own?
(Smith) It will. That’s exactly what the intention of that is and we can transition
there now without that. But once again what we’re doing is, we know that as soon
as our internet GIS in house hosted server hits the ground it’s going to be
probably see 4000 users a day is what some estimates may be. And we know
that one server is not… first of all we don’t want to see that server go down. We
can’t really afford to do that. Once people start relying on a service they expect
that service to be there. And so our plan is to get it up and running this year with
what we have. Next year early in the year actually implement the second part of
our plan, which is to make sure that it’s a very high availability server.
(West) Well what I would like to mention is that would save us $2,000 a month
that we are currently paying Plexis to host our website off site. So the $22,500
we’re investing here will save us $24,000 out of reassessment budget.
(Hawk) Can you tell me why you’re supporting taking the camera system for the
Courthouse, Health Building and Curry Building out of this?
30
(Smith) I’m not supporting that, it’s not my motion.
(Hawk) Could Commissioner Poling tell us why you would like to have that?
(Smith) We used some homeland security money to put an outstanding
infrastructure in place to allow us to do this. I think it’s something that as we go
forward we need to do for the safety of our employees and our work places. I
believe the original Homeland Security investment we were unable to use it
without cameras. This was the servers and the infrastructure and that was all the
homeland security money would cover. And our goal was to make sure that we
cover all facilities. The system is compatible with the system that is currently in
our jail, so it could actually be monitored by the jail in the future as far alarms and
that kinds of things. So we can get quicker response. I believe through intelligent
management of the money that we have currently we can provide some cameras
to monitor certain areas of the county with out this additional money, but I would
recommend that we at least fund this at some level. I think maybe that there will
be homeland security grants available that will allow us to fund this in the future.
We’re not really sure right now and I know that they’re going to be very, very
competitive. Until we get the first camera in place then our previous homeland
security investment provides no benefits for us.
(Hawk) Obviously you folks have this all worked out. I don’t know who took this
out. Is there any kind of rhythm or reason here that you want to share with us?
(Stoops) Mike is the Tech Services liaison. Originally the cameras were a grant
that I believe Herb Kilmer pursued to get cameras in all the county buildings. The
original grant, which I thought would cover cameras really only covered the
amount of the infrastructure. There’s no money for the cameras. This $50,000
would be county general funds to purchase the cameras. But on top of that
there’s too many questions remaining about upkeep maintenance. Again this is a
whole new system that is going to be put into place in the county. The support
would have to come from Tech Services any replacement or maintenance would
have to come from Tech Services there’s no money for that. I’m hoping that with
this huge vat of homeland security funds that seems to be available there will be
more money that can come down for Tech Services to actually implement the
cameras. But that’s what they decided to do. But I thought at this point if we’re
trying to get that bond request from 1.8 million dollars down to 1 million some
things that could possibly be funded in other way like Homeland Security,
especially ones that don’t come with any support can possibly come in the future.
(Hawk) So the Auditor has suggested that….. how much do you believe you have
in your cash that you can reduce your cash? Have you suggested that you can
reduce it by a million and what does that leave you with your cash then? That’s
the concerning part of discussing. How far down are we going to take the cash?
31
(Stoops) As far as I know cash is at 6.5 million dollars. We’ve been very frugal
including another two million dollars in county option income tax. With that level
of cash I feel it’s an amount that could affect our levy both for next year and it
would be a good idea as you mention to spend that down.
(Hawk) Absolutely, I have said that I was not in favor of the bond that I had
hoped that we could do it not just with cash though but with special funds and so
I don’t know which we’re taking out of special funds and which we’re taking out of
cash and as long as the Auditor has looked at this and knows that she has the
cash she needs left when we’re through.
(Stoops) From what I understand they do, but I’ll let Sandy speak for herself.
(Knight) We have looked at that and we’ve given Mark that figure of a million
dollars that we could use for one time capital expenses to bring our cash balance
down a little bit, that way we can fund the capital expenses without going into the
bond that you guys had previously talked about.
(Hawk) Last week when I asked for a list of the funds that would be available to
cover these bond issues my feeling is we would get a list that would include our
one time C.O.I.T money, which started out at 1.9 million. We could pull from that.
You know all the different funds that we have available to us to go to so we could
decide whether or not we wanted to go to that fund or go into cash or maybe a
combination of the two. And so I didn’t know whether you had discussed that and
you’ve decided which direction you are going. I’m just trying to follow along here.
(Stoops) As far as I’m concerned this money will just come out of general funds.
(Hawk) Straight out of cash, nothing out of….
(Stoops) We still have and maybe that’s a difference on how you and I are
thinking of it, but we still have a COIT fund. We could say it’s out of the COIT
fund, but as far as I’m concerned there’s no real difference. And the COIT fund is
invested. It probably makes more sense to take it out of cash on hand. And we
can do that.
(Hawk) I’m just trying to figure out how much money you’re working with.
(Stoops) Would you suggest that the camera system come back for an additional
appropriation? Or would you rather see if Tech Services can chase up Homeland
Security funds or other funds for it?
(Hawk) And if you’ve discussed it with them and if they feel like they have an
option to get it from Homeland Security that’s wonderful.
32
(Smith) That’s certainly something we’re going to work toward, but I understand
that it’s going to be very, very competitive. I’d say the likelihood of us getting
additional funding through Homeland Security will probably for cameras will
probably be difficult. What we will do is I think it’s important that we do begin to
utilize this system at least in key locations and we’ll work with whatever you
provide us. We will manage it the best that we can to try to provide that
coverage.
(Stoops) Would you like to suggest that Tech Services come back with a plan for
a minimum amount of camera coverage and key areas?
(Hawk) No matter where the dollars come from it seems to me if we’ve used
public dollars for the equipment to provide the service we have the money for
that but we don’t have the cameras to make it work. How nuts is this?
(Stoops) I think that the Commissioner that pursued this would probably be able
to pursue the other funds necessary to further implement the system without
impacting county finances.
(West) Just for the record everything that we took out of the bond I am keeping in
a separate list of potential possibilities for additional appropriations through the
end of the year from whatever fund it may come from. And then otherwise I’m
taking the ones like Larry said he has reduced his costs in not including that. So
right now we’re up to $745,000.
(Hawk) Generally we have a dollar amount that we’re going to shoot for and it
looks to me like we’re just…
(Stoops) The dollar amount I would personally be shooting for is a million dollars,
which is a hefty reduction from (inaudible coughing)
(Hawk) Is the million covering my highway?
(Stoops) From our discussions yesterday I thought you recommended that
highway could be covered through other funds.
(Hawk) Special COIT or the gaming money or just like everything else or cash.
I’m hoping to do an additional appropriation for that utilities truck yet this year
because it’s to the point where it definitely needs to be replaced.
(Stoops) And I believe that Sue has that on her list. The amended motion reads;
Tech Services 4000.03 category at $271,500 line 4000.04 at $72,500 for a
bottom line of $344,000 that was seconded.
Motion passed
33
YOUTH SERVICES
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.08
1000.09
1000.20
1000.25
Director
Counselor (1)
Care Coordinator (1)
Programs Director
Residential Coordinator (5)
Residential Specialist (3)
Office Manager/Bookkeeper
Secretary (full-time)
Assistant Director
Hourly
Overtime (from hourly)
Work-study
Category 01 Total:
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$47,433.00
$35,536.00
$30,261.00
$33,200.00
$128,271.00
$69,197.00
$25,530.00
$23,070.00
$40,403.00
$71,490.00
$500.00
$500.00
$505,391.00
$47,433.00
$35,536.00
$30,261.00
$33,200.00
$128,271.00
$69,197.00
$25,530.00
$23,070.00
$40,403.00
$71,490.00
$500.00
$500.00
$505,391.00
$4,500.00
$4,500.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.01
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
2000.02
2000.03
2000.04
2000.05
2000.09
2000.12
Food
Educational
Recreational
Medical
Shelter Furnishings
Postage
$11,000.00
$500.00
$100.00
$400.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$11,000.00
$500.00
$100.00
$400.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
Other Supplies
2000.06
2000.07
2000.08
2000.11
2000.13
2000.14
2000.15
2000.16
Training
Repair & Maintenance
Counseling Supplies
Shelter Resident Supplies
Grounds
Outreach Materials
Ed Sup/Comm.. Prevent Grant
Training Sup/Step Ahead
Category 02 Total:
$400.00
$1,500.00
$300.00
$5,500.00
$500.00
$1,800.00
$0.00
$0.00
$29,500.00
$400.00
$1,500.00
$300.00
$5,500.00
$500.00
$1,800.00
remove item
remove item
$29,500.00
3000.01
3000.08
3000.12
Agency Membership Fee
Medicaid/Medical Exams
$1,200.00
$5,200.00
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$5,200.00
$1,200.00
3000.03
3000.11
Telephone
Mileage
$0.00
$4,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
3000.04
Duplication
$300.00
$300.00
34
3000.09
Public Information
$1,450.00
$1,450.00
Utility Service
3000.15
Trash Pickup
$700.00
$700.00
3000.05
3000.18
Copier Maintenance
$2,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
3000.07
3000.13
3000.17
Client Activity Fee
Staff Training
Maintenance Contracts
Category 03 Total:
$2,200.00
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
$24,750.00
$2,200.00
$4,000.00
$2,500.00
$24,750.00
4000.01
Building
$0.00
$0.00
4000.02
4000.03
4000.04
Computer Equipment
Lily Endowment
Furniture
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Department Total:
$564,641.00
$559,641.00
Insurance
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
(Travis) I’d like to propose that we put in the 4000.04 line for furniture the
proposed project costs for shelter and office furniture to add in $20,000 and that
furniture is for new picnic tables and some sofas and settees to update the
furniture in the shelter. I have details about that from Robin Donaldson. The 4000
category would then be $584,641.00.
Moved and seconded
(Ron Thompson, Youth Services) In our 01 category we’ve added no personnel.
We are at less paid personnel strength then we were about three years ago. The
good news is, we’ve increased our augmentation by interns, practicum’s and
volunteers to offset that decrement in personnel. And so the only thing that we
have added in the 01 category is the requested 3% raise. In the 02 and 03
35
categories we have flat lined those. We have done some internal reconfiguration
within those categories increasing office supplies and residence supplies, but
offsetting that increase with decreases and repairs and maintenance, grounds
and outreach. In 03 we increased client activity line item by $500 along with staff
training by $500 and reduce repair and maintenance by $1,000 to offset those
increases. So other than the personnel and the furniture we’ve basically flat lined
the budget. Now addressing the furniture specifically we are currently in our
present facility a little over nine years we still have the original furnishings, which
were not top of the line when the facility was opened. We have patched,
repaired, glued, bolted things together. Our reception area has a discarded
couch. This is just regular wear and tear replacement and I’m here to tell you that
those kids averaging about 10 or 11 a day over nine years have worn out some
furniture. I think it’s fully justified and you might want to question picnic tables.
Picnic tables if you will are part of our recreational facility because we don’t have
a gym. We do have an outdoor basketball court and a volleyball court. We use
picnic tables for counseling outside, just to get the kids out of the shelter when
weather permits because it’s a small facility, it’s not designed for long term
residency and because we’re the only facility locally we get children there much
longer then the prescribed two weeks.
(Jones) Wouldn’t you rather have your furniture this year instead of waiting for
your 2006 budget? The reason I ask that question is because we have a healthy
reserve of funds available in our cash balance. It would be beneficial to possibly
spend some of that down this year instead of waiting for next year. That being
the case the thought would then be that you could come back to us this year ask
for the additional $20,000 to replace your furniture this year instead of working it
into the 2006 budget in which it would be then next year that you would get.
(Hawk) Absolutely and you could have your picnic tables for the fall of the year.
(Thompson) I would be happy to do that. I had put that furniture in my bond
request which is not going to come to pass. And I was also recently informed
about some extra dollars which could be tapped this year. I would be happy to
exclude that from this budget and come back for an additional if I have your word
that you will support it.
Jones moved Stoops seconded to amend furniture line item 4000.04 to the
original requested amount of $5,000 and then ask Ron to come back this year for
an additional.
(Hawk) Could we find out what the original $5,000? You might want to reduce the
whole thing and have…
(Thompson) The $5,000 was specifically for bunks because we’re double
stacked.
36
(Hawk) Let’s just take it all out and do it all.
(Thompson) We can do that. If I can get it this year, we can do that..
Jones moved Stoops seconded to amend Jones amended motion to change the
4000.04 line to $0.00. Then ask Ron to come back for an additional I believe it
would be $25,000 at a future date.
(Travis) The new total is $559,641.00
(Stoops) We’ll let the auditor give us verbally the bottom line when we make
these changes that way we don’t have to worry about working it out ourselves.
And that way we know it matches what they have.
(Hawk) You had someone question the use of picnic tables?
(Thompson) I could see someone questioning the need for picnic tables. They do
get lots of use and we take them to parks, museums, local venues that get them
out and about and out of the shelter.
(Hawk) I think just about anyone adult or child will do better if they get out and
about.
(Travis) I would like to mention that one of the other items that Robin put in the
list of things that you’re looking into purchasing is a proper water cooler. Is that
correct?
(Thompson) That’s something that the staff is a big advocate of. The shotty
condition of the building itself the water lines do not function properly and our
water fountain in the shelter according to our maintenance department will never
really get us a good flow of water.
(Stoops) Some of the departments that I have talked to that are interested in
getting funds this year rather than their 2006 budget are doing so because it
gives them the opportunity to chase out special deals. Maybe rather than wait for
2006 to get the funds they can work out some arrangement this year or buy on
sale.
Motion passed
(Travis) Do we need to do the Federal Lunch Program?
(West) Yes.
37
FEDERAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM $11,000
(Travis) Ron could you tell us how the reimbursement works?
(Thompson) We get reimbursed for each resident and staff member who eats
with the resident for breakfast, lunch and snacks on school days and to include
the summer. And we put that into this line and the county council must
appropriate it so we can spend it. About five years ago we decreased our general
fund food budget line and offset it with the federal lunch dollars. We used to roll
them back into the general, but the County Council wanted to split them out. So
we’ve split them out. Our numbers have gone up over time as has the
reimbursement. They did not use to reimburse us for snacks, but they do now.
And if we set that figure at $11,000 that should cover all of the federal dollars we
re-coop for meals and snacks over the course of the year.
WEIGHTS & MEASURES
Department: 308 Weights & Measures
2006
Requested
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
Director/Inspector
Category 01 Total:
2000.01
2000.04
2000.06
Forms & Records
Hardware
Uniforms
2006
Approved
$31,473.71
$31,473.71
$31,473.71
$31,473.71
$800.00
$500.00
$375.00
$800.00
$500.00
$375.00
$1,675.00
$1,675.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.01
Travel/Schools, Lodging
3000.02
Printing
$350.00
$350.00
3000.03
3000.05
Scales Maintenance
Software Maintenance
$150.00
$300.00
$150.00
$300.00
Insurance
Utility Service
38
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.04
Tare Weight Expense
Category 03 Total:
$300.00
$2,600.00
$300.00
$2,600.00
4000.01
Equipment
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Department Total:
$35,748.71
$35,748.71
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
Hawk moved Woods seconded.
(Richard McMurray, Weights & Measures) The budget basically is the same as
last year and the year before with the exception of the increase in salary this
year. I did move some of the money around in various line items, like hardware
where I increased it by $100.00 for everyday expenses that I run into. A couple of
other line items that I decreased and moved to another line item was software. It
was $405.00 last year. I made it $300.00 this year. And moved $100.00 to
printing increasing it from $250.00 to $350.00. And reduced the travel school and
lodging category by $250.00
(Jones) In regards to your 3000.01 Travel Schools and Lodging I noticed year to
date actual look like you’ve spent 2.64% of that is that something that comes at
you all at once and you go to a training seminar?
(McMurray) last year I would have gone to the conference, however; I was in the
hospital, so last year I didn’t get to go and this year I was so far behind that I
didn’t go.
(Jones) That’s about the cost of your conference if would go to them?
(McMurray) There’s actually two conferences and I try to go to the State
conference if I can. And the national conference I try to go once every two to
three years if I can.
39
(Hawk) I didn’t feel like it would be fair to cut his budget back just because his
health would allow him to go to the conference. And of course if he doesn’t spend
it, it will go back into County General.
(McMurray) Yeah, you got it back last year and the year before.
Motion passed
VETERAN’S AFFAIR
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
Service Officer
Part-time Secretary
(2)
Category 01 Total:
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$15,423.00
$15,130.00
$17,288.00
$32,711.00
$17,073.00
$32,203.00
$495.00
$130.00
$495.00
$130.00
$625.00
$625.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.01
2000.02
Supplies
Copier Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.01
Training/Travel
$455.00
$455.00
3000.03
Equipment
Maintenance
$606.00
$606.00
$300.00
$1,361.00
$300.00
$1,361.00
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.02
Postage
Category 03 Total:
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
40
Land
Buildings
Improvements Other Than Buildings
4000.01
Equipment
$0.00
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Department Total:
$34,697.00
$34,189.00
(John Tilford, Veteran’s Affairs) No changes except for the two variables. One
being the salary increase, I have a request of $3,000 additional for each of the
Veteran’s assistance, $6,000 total which would enable us to stay open full time
for the first time on Monday’s and Thursday’s. Right now we’re half-time situation
from 8:00 to Noon. We’re missing folks. I found out from someone in Parks and
Rec that she would see people turned away from our closed office doors. We
have on our website our hours and days and on the door itself on a recording,
but people still show up and we can’t reach them.
Henegar moved Stoops seconded.
(Woods) My understanding is you’re moving each of them to quarter time to half
time is that right?
(Tilford) Well it would be almost like.. they split now a half-time job. We don’t
really have quarter time ladies. They job share the half-time position. We have
one person at the desk as a support person when the office is open.
(Woods) And the $17,288 request will have somebody at that desk five days a
week?
(Tilford) Right, three days will be half – time and the two full days Monday and
Thursday.
(West) There was some discussion at the work session about being able to share
employees between departments, where are we on that?
(Stoops) It used to be that Emergency Management and Veteran’s Affairs shared
a person that could be there all the time.
(Henegar) It requires specialized knowledge to do this job. That’s the reason it’s
important that these people be continued people who are specialized in the job.
41
(West) In addition to this discussion the raise for the 01 line is 5% not the 3%.
(Stoops) That needs to be corrected.
(West) It’s corrected on the screen $15,130. So line item 1000.01 should be
$15,130.
Stoops moved Jones seconded to amend the original motion line 1000.01
Service Officer $15,130 line 1000.02 Part-time secretary $17,288.
(Stoops) I’ve been trying to be very careful about requests for new employees
and additional hours and items that are going to be placed within our budget levy
that we’re going to have to deal with every year. I think in your request it’s
something that’s been ongoing and I see that it’s a definite need.
(West) Does the $17,288 include a 5% or a 3% raise?
(Knight) It should be $17,073 for a 3%
(Stoops) I’m going to withdraw my motion.
Henegar moved Stoops seconded to amend the motion on the 1000.01 from
$15,423 to $15,130 and the 1000.02 to $17,073
Motion passed
(Hawk) Can we hear the number we’re shooting for, for renewable expenses and
somebody keep track of that?
(Stoops) Just off the top of my head, last years was $8,900,000
(Knight) And I believe we’re shooting for 9.3 million. It’s basically $370,000 over
last years.
(Hawk) But whatever it is we need to know what that number is and every time
we take something from it I’m hoping someone is subtracting and making sure
that we’re leaving that 3% pay raise in there.
BUILDING COMMISSION
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
Building Commissioner
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$47,433.00
$47,433.00
42
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.08
1000.09
1000.10
1000.11
1000.20
Chief Building Inspector I
Administrative Assistant
Plan Review Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Secretary
Plan Review Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Hourly
$35,536.00
$25,530.00
$35,536.00
$30,260.00
$30,260.00
$30,260.00
$23,070.00
$35,536.00
$30,260.00
$30,260.00
$3,000.00
$35,536.00
$25,530.00
$35,536.00
$30,260.00
$30,260.00
$30,260.00
$23,070.00
$35,536.00
$30,260.00
$30,260.00
$0.00
Category 01 Total:
$356,941.00
$353,941.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.01
Office Supplies
$1,835.00
$1,835.00
Operating Supplies
2000.02
Official Records &
Supplies
$1,020.00
$1,020.00
Other Supplies
2000.03
Code Books & Supplies
$1,155.00
$1,155.00
$4,010.00
$4,010.00
$400.00
$6,000.00
$950.00
$400.00
$6,000.00
$950.00
$0.00
$12,000.00
$0.00
$12,000.00
Category 02 Total:
3000.04
3000.10
Exam Cost
Education & Training
Code Organization
3000.03
3000.08
Telephone
Mileage
3000.05
$2,875.00
$2,875.00
3000.06
3000.11
Equipment Maintenance
Computer Equipment
$900.00
$8,000.00
$900.00
$8,000.00
3000.02
3000.07
3000.15
Postage
Permits
Refunds
$1,000.00
$425.00
$4,000.00
$1,000.00
$425.00
$4,000.00
$36,550.00
$36,550.00
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
Category 03 Total:
43
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.02
Office Equipment
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
4000.04
Vehicle
$20,000.00
$38,000.00
Category 04 Total:
$45,000.00
$63,000.00
Department Total:
$442,501.00
$457,501.00
Stoops moved Woods seconded to approve the 1000 category, with the
following amendment. Line 1000.02 hourly reduced from $3,000 to $0.00
And the bottom line of the 1000 category to $353,941. 4000 category changes to
4000.02 office equipment will remain the same at $25,000 4000.04 vehicle
$20,000 is requested I’d like to increase that to $38,000 for a new bottom line in
the 4000.04 category at $63,000 for a total new bottom line of $457,501.
(Stoops) Just to go over briefly the changes. Jim has agreed that they never use
their hourly line so 1000.02 hourly tend to be actual use of zero every year. If
there is a need for hourly he can come back to the council. The office equipment
request remained within the budget, but was also requested in the bond so it was
a duplicate. That is for field data collection equipment, computers, software, etc.
And what this will do will allow the building to not have to pursue an additional
individual next year. The $38,000 are for two vehicles. Jim has requested from
the bond four vehicles, he does not have enough vehicles for the employees that
he has. He can get by with two new vehicles at $19,000 each.
(Jim Gerstbauer, Building Dept.) We’ve been very busy. We did go through a
voluntary reduction of our budget for 2005 to reduce some of the categories and
make more money available and those cuts look like they were done wisely.
They haven’t created any impedance to the work that we’re doing at this point.
We have increased our jurisdiction this year; we’ve taken on the Ellettsville
jurisdiction so we’ve added work load to my department. We haven’t had a fee
increase for the department and we’ve had no additional staff. The request for
office equipment is an attempt to get more efficiency out of the field personnel
that we have. With the additional work load and activity level as it is and not
having increased staff over the past years we were looking at that as a realistic
possibility and Larry in Tech Services has been working with me. If we can come
up with additional technology in the field I think we can realistically eliminate an
additional person which would be an ongoing expense for the county. The
44
question about vehicles is a two horned problem. We have depreciation that
we’re dealing with and the vehicles that we have currently have. The county has
never provided enough vehicles for the field inspectors that we have. We’ve
always had to deal with paying some mileage and providing vehicles for some of
the staff and that has worked out in the past. That’s also a difficult problem to
deal with too. When the discussion of the bond came up the reason there was
four vehicles requested because Tim Gilliland at the Highway department had
provided me with what he had called his depreciation schedule for vehicles to the
point to where he didn’t want to carry those vehicles for more than seven years to
the point to where maintenance got to be an increase in problem for him and
there was no resale value left in the vehicles by the time we got to the end of
their years. That’s why the bond request was so high. We have several vehicles
one’s ten years old, we’ve got two that’s seven years old already and one that’s
six years old. If I could be provided with a couple of vehicles to forestall both the
oldest vehicle we have an additional vehicle requirements for the staff that would
help our efficiency and help me out until we can replace vehicles on an ongoing
basis as needed.
(West) Computer equipment $7,258.20 the last three years, we’ve budgeted
$8,000 is that a maintenance contract?
(Gerstbauer) That expense is the support for the software program that we use.
(West) How many total vehicles do you have?
(Gerstbauer) Currently we have six in the office.
(West) And this would give you seven, one as a replacement, one as a new
vehicle? Did you take that into consideration both in your mileage budget and did
we make sure the commissioners added in their fleet budget additional gas for
the new vehicles?
(Gerstbauer) There was no change in my mileage budget that could be affected.
(West) Okay so that could potentially lower and we’ll need to make sure the
commissioners fleet budget has increase gas costs for the building fleet gas
budget.
(Stoops) The Commissioners/Building Department will have a slight increase in
gas, we’ll work that into the budget.
(Hawk) When you were going through this and trying to get this down to
$100,000 what did you include?
(Stoops) I included $19,000 and twenty of it was already in the building
departments’ budget before we worked out totals.
45
(Hawk) So when you worked out these totals and you’ve got this figured out this
number that has been presented you’re going to add….
(Stoops) That’s right. For instance, in the bond requests if the bond request was
reduced from $76,000 to $19,000 Jim in his budget requested $20,000 for a new
vehicle. The quotes on the new vehicles were $19,000 each. So that’s where I
came up with a total of $38,000. We also had not removed the office equipment,
which is the computers that was also requested in the bond.
(Hawk) I’ve got both of those marked and I’m just saying that in your estimation
that is a part of what you considered you could cover and the kind of money you
had to work with,
(Stoops) Yes.
Motion passed
PLAN COMMISSION
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.08
1000.09
1000.10
1000.11
1000.20
1000.12
Planning Coordinator
Zoning/Erosion Inspector
Assistant Director
Office Manager
Plan Commission
Planner/GIS Specialist
Planner I
Senior Planner
Zoning Inspector
Zoning Inspector
Zoning Inspector
Hourly/Work-study
Address Coordinator
(New Hire)
Category 01 Total:
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$57,320.00
$0.00
$43,260.00
$23,809.00
$5,280.00
$31,290.00
$30,260.00
$36,565.00
$30,260.00
$28,200.00
$0.00
$12,250.00
$57,320.00
$0.00
$43,260.00
$23,809.00
$5,280.00
$31,290.00
$30,260.00
$36,565.00
$30,260.00
$28,200.00
$0.00
$12,250.00
$25,856.00
$324,350.00
$0.00
$298,494.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.02
Office Supplies
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
2000.01
Official Records
Category 02 Total:
$0.00
$4,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
46
3000.08
Consultant Fees/Legal
Ex.
Professional
Fees/Training
3000.02
3000.09
Travel Expenses
Telecommunications
$6,000.00
$500.00
$6,000.00
$500.00
3000.04
Printing other than Sup
$4,500.00
$4,500.00
3000.06
Equipment & Repair
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
3000.03
3000.10
Postage
Refunds
Category 03 Total:
$5,000.00
$500.00
$39,500.00
$5,000.00
$500.00
$39,500.00
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Department Total:
$367,850.00
$341,994.00
3000.07
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
(Travis) Plan Commissions budget from the 1000 category there is a 3%
increase in salaries and in the 2006 requested line there is a new line for the
address coordinator, which currently has been subject of discussion at the PAC
Committee meetings. Bob Cowell the department head has put in the request in
the 2006 requested line for the address coordinator at $25,856 the PAC did not
send the application to Waggoner, Irwin & Sheele, but there are several of us
who are interested in expediting that so that the job will have a description. It’s an
urgently needed position. It’s a matter of security and emergency management
47
importance. The 1000 category with that salary request is $624,350 without that
request, but with the line at zero the total is $298,494 in the 1000 category.
(Jones) How are you presenting it?
(Travis) Should I motion to open this for discussion or should I go through the rest?
(Hawk) Let’s stop at 1000 and work that out.
Travis moved, Stoops seconded to present this with line 1000.12 at 0 and
the total will be then be $298,494 for the 1000 category.
(Stoops) I think by putting it at zero we’re saving the place.
(Bob Cowell, Planning Dept.) This is a position that has arisen from an increase in work
load associated with the assigning of new addresses and making corrections on
problems in the current addressing system that is resulting in a health and safety
concern when dispatching occurs. Essentially if the wrong address in the system when
some one calls in 911 they will not be recognized by the system and they will have to go
through some additional steps of questioning to figure out where exactly they are and
how to dispatch. And this is a function that we can no longer deal with, without
additional resources. We submit the information to PAC. PAC authorized that to be sent
forward to the consultants for classification and at that time we will know exactly what
the salary figure is that we’re looking at. This salary figure that I put in the budget was a
guess at what that position was likely to cost. What will occur is when we get that back
from the consultants assuming that PAC forwards that up to the council we’ll have a
dollar figure. I will go to the Planning Commission and we’ll have to seek a fee increase
in order to pay for this position. Assuming that fee increase is approved then I would
come back next year to the council with an additional appropriation to fund the position.
(Jones) There’s been some talk amongst the surveyor with GPS locators and then also
with our new layers on our GIS system. Is there a chance that with better technology
this could get easier in the future to assign addresses?
(Cowell) On one hand it could and on the other hand it could get more difficult. Part of
the situation we’re in is actually a result of increased technology. The dispatch system
became better and because of that it pointed out more errors that existed in the system
than we knew of in the past.
(Hawk) The motion on the floor does not include the new personnel correct?
(Stoops) That’s correct.
(Hawk) But it does include more than the 3% raise for the assistant director, is
that correct?
48
(Cowell) It is more than a 3% increase over the original salary ordinance, which
was approved; however, the salary ordinance was amended two to three months
ago so this is 3% above that number.
(Stoops) We have to make sure that we include that in the amount.
(Cowell) Yeah because it come up in the budget and I wasn’t aware that, that
wasn’t reflected in the… but it makes sense that is showing what was approved
at the beginning of 2005.
Motion passed
(Hawk) Just a reminder, whoever is keeping track of the amount that we have
limited funds for. You’ll have to count that increase even if it did happen this year
because it’s different then what we started out in budgets.
Travis moved Woods seconded for the bottom line approval of $341,994
(Cowell) Just to remind the council that the Planning Commission in 2003, 04
&05 were able to reduce their budget request partly through use of better
technology in some of the things that we were doing. We finally reached a point
in 2006 where we don’t believe that’s any longer possible. We have tried in at
least the last five years to not spend everything that’s in their budget. We have
always been able to return funds back. It is our intention to pursue other sources
of revenue that we then can use what’s budgeted to sort of match that. 2006 is
the year that the Planning Commission also undertakes a fairly significant look at
the comprehensive plan, which typically is contracted out and is typically in the
$100,000 to $200,000 range that’s something that will be done in house.
Motion passed
COURTS
County General Fund101 Dept. 225 Personal Services Line
(West) The reason I am reading this is because they originally included the levy
in their numbers as instructed, so I will be reading them separate, because we
instructed them to take them out of the levy.
Personal Services 01 as submitted $2,492,037 as amended with the access levy
out of it $1,913,530. And the levy amount is the difference.
02 - $35,925 as amended $29,630 with the difference of $6,295 in the levy.
03 - $259,980 as amended $229,587 with a difference $30,393 in the access
levy.
49
CAPITAL OUTLAYS – as submitted $104,301 as amended $29,062 the
difference $104,301 and the levy the request from the bond added in for a $6,000
copier, $500 courtroom t.v cart $1,450, attorney chairs in courtroom $16,000 and
probation $5,112.
Moved and seconded.
(Stoops) You’ve added in lobby furniture, support staff desk for probation?
(West) Yes. $5,112 the $4,000 I left out because I believe that’s in another
budget.
(Hawk) What is the line total?
(West) $29,062. That included the court services request in the bond and from
the probation budget $5,112 lobby furniture. And then the access levy was
removed and those totals are as submitted on Brandon’s report $719,496.
(Woods) I ended up with a different number.
(West) We had discussed in the work session cutting down the hourly part-time.
That should be $41,760
(Stoops) For guardian Ad- Lidem is that the correct total? Did it remain at
$107,166 or is that after a reduction for the access levy?
(West) That’s after the reduction for the access levy. $93,766 in Regular County
general and $13,400 in the access levy.
(Stoops) So the total is $93,766 in county general.
(Hawk) So did the extra guardian ad-lidem in there or not?
(Stoops) There’s an increase in guardian ad-lidem to $93,766 and the remainder
of the increase that would take it to $107,166 is in the access levy request.
(Michael Hoff) Most of the changes in our budget this year was a result from the
new court that was approved for Monroe County beginning in January of next
year. The last time a new court was added here was in 1986 and in the 20 years
that has elapsed since then our population has increased by 20%. And there are
another 20,000 people here to serve. More and more of society’s problems have
found their way to our courts during those years. Increasing case loads and
population pressures strain the resources the courts have; they have stayed
constant during the last 20 years. Our budgets do not include much in the way of
increases. We have been painfully aware of the financial constraints the council
50
has and we’ve been good soldiers. We have done more each year without any
significant change in our resources. Adding a new court gives us a chance to do
a better job and we’re looking forward to that. The second new court in 2008 will
give us additional time in every case. An excess property levy is necessary to
fund a new court. Because of the frozen levy there is no extra money in the
general fund to fund a court or anything else.
(Hawk) The probation officers are all at 2% raise is that correct?
(Hoff) Yes.
(Hawk) And how did you determine it should be 2%?
(Linda Brady) Probation officer raises are tied to state judicial employee raises so
whatever raise they get every year that’s what we would get and this year it’s 2%.
(Hawk) I would like to add that whoever is keeping track of renewable expenses
that guardian ad-lidem increase will come out of that frozen amount that you are
talking about. And as we go along I would like to know where we stand. Because
when we get down to our 3% raises for our employees I’m not supporting one
more penny. The raises come first
(Stoops) On my spread sheets I had not reduced the amount for guardian adlidem so Brandon in your figures did you include the full $107,166 towards the
levy estimate after the meeting last Monday?
(Brandon) No I included that at the $93,000 amount.
(Hoff) The way the need for additional courts is assessed by the State
Legislature is with reference to the actual case loads that each court has. There
is a weighted caseload calculation that was done to try to decide how much time
does it take to handle a particular sort of case. A murder case takes longer than
a traffic ticket. There’s been a time assessed for each sort of case and then you
look at the number of those cases each case type that’s filed in the county and
you come up with a weighted case load so you can assess how many judges
should you have doing this particular kind of caseload. Those are the numbers
that the legislature looked at to try to assess the need for additional courts in
Monroe County. We were pretty high on the list. We’re not just comparing a
particular county but we’re comparing the actual caseload and the work that has
to be done by the courts and the judges in those counties.
(West) We’re going to address this access levy in a separate budget hearing on
Thursday at 6:00 p.m. so if it’s pertinent to the access levy save it for then.
(Hoff) From the increase of the caseload by 50% over about five years we didn’t
bring that information with us we presented that to you before. Three or four
51
years ago we demonstrated that the number of entries made in all of those
cases it increased like 87% over some span of years that we measured, which
was in the range of five or six. In addition to that the number of litigants in
Monroe County is unusual compared to a lot of counties here that choose to
represent themselves and the burden of that falls on the judge to make sure that
the cases address the issues that the parties intend to raise helping them to get
their point out. And then of course you don’t have assistance in those cases in
terms of orders and motions and research and that sort of thing that you do when
you have attorneys. There’s a long list of things that would justify easily the
implantation of two new courts.
(Stoops) Sue, Marty is asking if you could repeat the items that were taken from
the bond and placed back in the courts budget.
(West) Okay, from the bond Court Services, multi-purpose digital copiers $6,000
desk top copier in room 209 $500.00 t.v. cart, DVD, VHS player, $1,450. Replace
attorney’s chairs in courtroom $16,000 that was under court services. In
probation I also added lobby furniture and support staff desk $5,112. I eliminated
and left off remodel of front lobby for security and staff. If you wish to put that on
the list for additional appropriations for the remained of the year I will, but I just
eliminated it because I thought there was some discussion about what the future
of the courthouse is going to be inside. And the 4000.01 under probation I did not
include because I think that’s included in one of fee funds. I don’t know what you
have, but there’s $4,000 under the bond under probation. There’s also $4,000 in
one of your probation user fees under the same line.
Motion passed
2006
Monroe County
0275 Jury Pay Fund
000 Courts
2004 Actual
1000.44
Petit Jury Fees
Category 01 Total:
Other
Services &
Charges
3000.03
3000.12
2005
Approved
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Postage
Lodging &
$5,000.00
$2,500.00
52
Meals
Jurors
Category
03 Total:
Department
Total:
$7,500.00
$32,500.00
Moved and Seconded.
(Bonnie Austin) This is a fee based budget where the money goes into this fund. This
helps to offset the cost to the county general for the cost of petite jurors throughout the
year. It pays for petite jurors for citizens coming in and serving on jury duty. It also pays
for postage for mailings too and then I think there’s also some meals when we have
jurors who are in deliberation, we do provide meals for them. And that’s what this
money is used for.
Motion passed
(West) There is no budget for the Family Court Grant. First fund will be
2006
Monroe County
0503 Juvenile Probation User Fees - Empl Benefits
Probation
2005
YTD
Actual
1000.21
1000.22
1000.23
1000.24
1000.50
01
PERSONAL
SERVICES
1000.01
1000.02
1000.20
1000.04
FICA
PERF
NEW- Insurance Supplement/JABG Match
Unemployment
Longevity
Category 01 Total:
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$1,295.00
$800.00
$2,222.00
$240.00
$200.00
$4,757.00
Supplement for SHOCAP Coordinator
Juvenile PO Supplement
Hourly and Part Time
*New - Juv. ISP Field Officer/JABG Match
Category 01 Total:
Total
$1,295.00
$800.00
$2,222.00
$240.00
$200.00
$4,757.00
$0.00
$9,748.00
$1,000.00
$5,982.00
$16,730.00
$0.00
$9,748.00
$1,000.00
$5,982.00
$16,730.00
$21,487
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.01
Office Supplies
$2,000.00
53
$2,000.00
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.06
3000.12
Drug Screens
Contractual/TIPP
Professional Dues
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$500.00
$300.00
$0.00
$500.00
$300.00
3000.02
3000.03
Training/Travel
SHOCAP Travel & Training
$8,000.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$0.00
3000.01
3000.07
3000.08
Equipment Expense
Computer Expense/Maint/Software
Shocap Equip/Comp Exp
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
3000.10
3000.14
3000.16
3000.17
Refunds
Postage
Special Services
Shocap Electronic Monitoring
Category 03 Total:
$100.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$11,900.00
$100.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$11,900.00
4000.01
4000.06
Equipment
SHOCAP Equipment
$4,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$0.00
Category 04 Total:
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
Department Total:
$39,387.00
$39,387.00
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
Moved and Seconded.
54
(Knight) I believe you had the employee benefits included in that.
(West) Yes, it is included.
(Brady) This is the juvenile probation user fees. Juveniles who are on probation
have to pay a certain amount of money every month to be on probation
supervision and that’s where this money comes from. It’s to be used pursuant to
statute to supplement juvenile probation services and to supplement probation
officers salaries.
(West) This is the one that had 4000.01 equipment of $4,000 so I assumed that
was on the bottom?
(Brady) This was the same amount that I had in the budget last year. We just
budget money in the 04’s incase we have equipment breakdown, because T.S.D.
doesn’t have replacement monies so we put money in our 04’s in all the user
fees incase there is a phone or computer or something that breaks down outside
of the replacement cycle. I didn’t put that in there specifically to do with the bond
or not to do with the bond it’s the same amount that I had last year.
(West) And that’s why I took the money out of the bond.
(Stoops) Michael is going through all the budgets and removing capital items for
possible use in the bond to help get the budget down.
(West) So that’s why I eliminated that $4,000 because I thought it was the same
$4,000
(Brady) No, it has nothing to do with the bond.
(Hawk) Many times we are better off to leave it in these user fees if we can
instead of trying to take it out of county general.
(Jones) It was almost the same as the 2004 level.
(Hawk) If they don’t have it they can’t spend it.
(Stoops) The bottom line is still correct? All right.
(Woods) There’s a $40,000 item in the bond to remodel the front lobby for
security, I think that’s the one that we were talking about that has been
expressed to us that there might be changes in the situation at the Justice
Building it doesn’t make a lot of sense to remodel your office for probation
security if it’s going to…..
55
(Hoff) I think the Commissioners are basically on the same page also, they don’t
think that it would make sense to do that at this point since we’re not sure what
the future holds. One proposal that we’ve tried to make it that the probation
space in the Justice Building could be remodeled to add court rooms and court
offices because we’re facing adding another court in 2008. And we have to put
them some where. And it is something that the Commissioners are considering I
don’t know if they have reached a decision. But it doesn’t make sense to remodel
a space that could be remodeled again.
(Hawk) Did you leave that 1000.04 in there?
(Brady) This is match money. We just received notice that we will get one more
year of funding for our Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant from the
Federal Government. We’ve previously been told that funding was going to be
zeroed out. But we recently found out we are going to get $20,000 that’s about a
48% reduction from what we got this year. This amount of money will supplement
and is the match money to be able to continue the SHOCAP position one more
federal year and will expire September 30, 2006.
Motion passed
Year:
County:
Fund:
Department:
Salaries and Wages
2006
Monroe County
0507 Adult Probation User Fees
Probation
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$200,000.00
$11,535.00
$12,360.00
$27,317.00
$21,000.00
$272,212.00
2006
Requested
$200,000.00
$11,535.00
$12,360.00
$27,317.00
$21,000.00
$272,212.00
2006
Approved
1000.21
1000.22
$20,885.00
$12,600.00
$20,885.00
$12,600.00
1000.23
1000.24
1000.25
1000.50
Category 01
Total:
$15,000.00
$240.00
$0.00
$800.00
$15,000.00
$240.00
$0.00
$800.00
$49,525.00
$49,525.00
1000.01
1000.02
1000.04
1000.05
1000.20
FICA
PERF
Insurance
Supplement
Unemployment
AES
Longevity
56
Total
$321,737
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.01
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
3000.04
3000.07
3000.11
$100.00
$100.00
$2,000.00
$100.00
$100.00
$2,000.00
3000.02
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
3000.09
$0.00
3000.05
3000.06
3000.12
3000.14
3000.16
$0.00
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
$100.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$71,300.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
$100.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$71,300.00
4000.02
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
03 OTHER SERVICES &
CHARGES
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
57
$411,037.00
$411,037.00
Moved and seconded
(Brady) This fund is the adult probation user fee fund or supplemental probation
user fee fund. By statute it’s to be used to supplement probation services for
adult offenders and to supplement probation officers salaries.
(West) This is for the record. I have checked all the revenues for these funds and
the fund balance is for the past and they appear to be in line with current revenue
trends plus the balance that we currently have.
Motion passed
Year:
County:
Fund:
Department:
2006
Monroe County
0523 Project Income/Job Release
Probation
Salaries and Wages 1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.08
1000.09
1000.10
1000.11
1000.12
1000.13
1000.14
1000.15
1000.16
1000.17
1000.18
1000.20
01 PERSONAL
SERVICES
Salaries and Wages
1000.21
1000.22
1000.23
Director
Community Services Coordinator
Office Manager
Field Officer
Juvenile Case Manager
Field Officer
CASP Supervisor
Road Crew Officer
Road Crew Officer/Floater
CASP Case Manager
Field Officer
Special Programs Supervisor
Receptionist
Juvenile Alt. Management Services (JAMS)
Coord.
Juvenile Facilitator / PO
Field Officer
Day Reporting Coordinator
Juvenile Intensive Supervision Officer
Hourly and Part-Time
Category 01 Total:
FICA
PERF
Insurance Supplement
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$15,226.00
$37,377.00
$5,317.00
$3,982.00
$15,377.00
$3,982.00
$6,114.00
$25,982.00
$25,982.00
$21,170.00
$3,982.00
$44,496.00
$1,070.00
$15,226.00
$37,377.00
$5,317.00
$3,982.00
$15,377.00
$3,982.00
$6,114.00
$25,982.00
$25,982.00
$21,170.00
$3,982.00
$44,496.00
$1,070.00
$16,007.00
$15,377.00
$3,982.00
$36,197.00
$15,377.00
$55,000.00
$351,997.00
$16,007.00
$15,377.00
$3,982.00
$36,197.00
$15,377.00
$55,000.00
$351,997.00
$26,928.00
$14,850.00
$100.00
$26,928.00
$14,850.00
$100.00
58
1000.24
1000.30
1000.50
Unemployment
PO Supplement
Longevity
Category 01 Total:
Total
$700.00
$0.00
$0.00
$42,578.00
$700.00
$0.00
$0.00
$42,578.00
$394,575
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.01
Office Supplies
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
Operating Supplies
2000.02
2000.30
Road Crew Supplies
Drug Test Supplies
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
Other Supplies
2000.03
2000.21
Wearing Apparel
Vehicle Maintenance
Category 02 Total:
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$16,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$16,000.00
CARES Grant
Special Services
$0.00
$14,000.00
$0.00
$14,000.00
3000.20
3000.41
Telephone
Travel & Training
$6,000.00
$10,000.00
$6,000.00
$10,000.00
3000.01
Printing
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Insurance
3000.08
3000.25
Vehicle Insurance
Vol. Insurance
$0.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
Utility Service
3000.99
Utilities
$100.00
$100.00
3000.09
Rent
$61,900.00
$61,900.00
3000.02
Drug Screens
Computer Software &
Maintenance
Electronic Monitoring
Refunds
Equipment Expense
Postage
Category 03 Total:
$96,000.00
$96,000.00
$0.00
$115,000.00
$100.00
$10,000.00
$3,000.00
$319,100.00
$0.00
$115,000.00
$100.00
$10,000.00
$3,000.00
$319,100.00
3000.12
3000.16
Communication &
Transportation
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.05
3000.06
3000.10
3000.11
3000.14
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
59
Buildings
4000.01
4000.02
4000.03
Equipment
Vehicles
CARES Grant
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
Category 04 Total:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Department Total:
$734,675.00
$734,675.00
Moved and seconded.
(Brady) Project Income is the user fees that are paid by Community Corrections
participants on work release, day reporting, road crew, and community service all
the different Community Corrections programs. The offenders pay a fee and that
goes into this fund. This fund also supplements the Department of Correction
Grant that we receive for our Community Corrections Program. To run our
Community Corrections program you have to take the grant and combine it with
Project Income and that’s how we run the Community Corrections program in
Monroe County.
(West) I have a question on the insurance supplement that went from $12,000 to
$100.00
(Brady) The insurance is paid primarily by the grant now. The Department of
Correction Grant pays almost 100% of the insurance for the staff, so this just
supplements what doesn’t come out of the DOC grant.
(West) Can I ask the Auditor to review your insurance budget to make sure we
have some number coming out of that grant that matches personnel benefits?
Before we approve personnel benefits that include our health insurance I want to
make sure that Sandy is okay.
(Brady) $78,000
(Stoops) We never did move to move the Auditor’s budget did we?
(West) I was going to wait until it comes up on the agenda tomorrow.
Motion passed
Year:
County:
Fund:
Department:
2006
Monroe County
0532 Family Preservation
Probation
60
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.20
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Probation Officer
Family Preservationist
PO Supplement
Category 01 Total:
1000.21
1000.22
1000.23
1000.24
1000.50
FICA
PERF
Insurance
Unemployment
Longevity
Category 01 Total:
Total
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$47,487.00
$29,114.00
$37,377.00
$32,387.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$152,365.00
2006
Requested
$47,487.00
$29,114.00
$37,377.00
$32,387.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$152,365.00
2006
Approved
$11,656.00
$7,568.00
$19,000.00
$960.00
$0.00
$39,184.00
$11,656.00
$7,568.00
$19,000.00
$960.00
$0.00
$39,184.00
$191,549
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.03
Office Supplies
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
Operating Supplies
2000.01
2000.02
Education Materials
Wearing Apparel
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
Professional Dues
Subcontractors
Special Services
$300.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
$300.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
3000.01
3000.02
Phones/Equipment Expense
Travel/Training
$3,000.00
$7,000.00
$3,000.00
$7,000.00
3000.09
Rent
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
3000.05
3000.10
Computer Maintenance & Software
Refunds
$1,000.00
$100.00
$1,000.00
$100.00
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.13
3000.16
Communication & Trasportation
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
61
3000.11
3000.14
Drug Screens
Postage
$500.00
$2,500.00
$24,400.00
$500.00
$2,500.00
$24,400.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Category 04 Total:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Department Total:
$228,949.00
$228,949.00
Category 03 Total:
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.01
Equipment
Moved and seconded
(Brady) The Family Preservation Fund is operated by a contract with Office of
Family and Children. We build Office of Family and Children per hour of service
for juveniles who are on the Family Preservation Program. We’ve been doing this
now for 11 years and it has been very successful program, saving the County a
lot of dollars in placement costs, but more importantly serving families and
working to prevent future crime. And this fund’s for probation officers.
Motion passed
Fund: 0585 County User Fee Fund
Department: 805 SADS
Salaries and Wages 1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.20
1000.25
Salaries and Wages
Probation Officer Supplement
Drug Court PO
Clerical - Adult Probation Secretary COMOT II
(b)
Drug Court PO Case Mngr
Drug Court PO Field Po
Clerical - Bookkeeper COMOT II (b)
AES / PRIME / PRIME Plus
Category 01 Total:
1000.21
1000.22
FICA
PERF
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
$200,000.00
$41,114.00
$200,000.00
$41,114.00
$23,809.00
$23,809.00
$23,809.00
$40,000.00
$45,000.00
$373,732.00
$23,809.00
$40,000.00
$45,000.00
$373,732.00
$28,805.00
$16,727.00
$28,805.00
$16,727.00
62
1000.23
1000.24
1000.50
1000.51
1000.52
Insurance Supplement
Unemployment
Longevity
Little 500 Gap Time
Little 500 Overtime
Category 01 Total:
Total
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
$25,000.00
$480.00
$800.00
$1,500.00
$500.00
$73,812.00
$25,000.00
$480.00
$800.00
$1,500.00
$500.00
$73,812.00
$447,544
2000.01
Office Supplies
$7,000.00
$7,000.00
2000.02
2000.03
Drug Court Supplies
CARES Grant Supplies
$1,000.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
Professional Membership
Drug Screens
Contractual/TIPP
IMPACT Panel
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
Travel & Training
Drug Court Travel & Training
Equipment Expense
Rent
Refunds
Electronic Surveillance
Postage
Special Services
Category 03 Total:
$11,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$6,100.00
$100.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$33,200.00
$11,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$6,100.00
$100.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$33,200.00
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.11
3000.12
3000.15
3000.17
Communication &
Transportation
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.03
3000.04
3000.06
3000.09
3000.10
3000.13
3000.14
3000.16
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
63
Buildings
4000.02
4000.03
4000.04
Equipment
Drug Court Equipment
CARES Grant Equipment
$10,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
Category 04 Total:
$10,500.00
$10,500.00
Department Total:
$499,244.00
$499,244.00
Moved and seconded
(Brady) The SADDS is the court Alcohol and Drug services budget. The Monroe
County Probation Dept. is a state certified court alcohol and drug program in the
adult division. This budget is collected from persons who are on probation for
alcohol or drug related offenses. And the money is to be used to pay salaries and
to provide services to offenders who are on probation for alcohol and drug
related offenses.
Motion passed
Fund: 4521 Drug Court Fees from Clerk
Department: Probation
2006
Requested
Salaries and Wages
2006
Approved
1000.20
Hourly and Part-time
Category 01 Total:
$0.00
$5,383.00
$5,383.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2000.01
Supplies
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.12
3000.06
3000.16
Professional Dues
Contractual
Special Services
$500.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
3000.02
Training / Travel
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
64
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
3000.01
3000.05
3000.07
3000.10
3000.14
Equipment Expense
Drug Screens
Computer Maint. &
Software
Refunds
Postage
Category 03 Total:
$500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$100.00
$500.00
$6,100.00
$1,000.00
$100.00
$500.00
$6,100.00
Equipment
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Category 04 Total:
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Department Total:
$17,483.00
$17,483.00
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.01
Motion and seconded.
(Brady) This fund comes from drug court participants; they pay a user fee of $500.00
which is the statutory maximum to be on the Drug Court Program. We have really not
tapped into this fund because it’s a very small fund. We’re hoping to leverage the dollars
that are in this fund to help continue to get grants. Right now we are operating on a
federal grant called the Burne Grant, and we hope to build it up some so we’re able to
leverage possibly another grant to help continue drug court into the future.
(West) Linda, will you go over that Burne Grant and the fund balance again?
(Brady) We’re hoping to use this for the future for match money for a future grant. The
Burne Grant is matched right now out of the SADS account, with one Probation Officer
who’s funded out of that budget is the match money for the Burne Grant. But the Burne
Grant is a federal grant that is renewable annually. So we were actually given an
65
extension until March of 2006 on the Burne Grant, but we will have to reapply, there is
no guarantee we will be funded for another year. It’s a maximum of three years of
funding, so we’re just ending the first year of funding in March of 2006. Sustainability for
the drug court is very important, it’s an issue we’re trying to work on and trying to figure
out. We know there’s not extra money in the county, so trying to figure out ways we can
sustain drug court through user fees, through grants and other kinds of funding.
(West) You also have $12,600 budgeted this year in the 03’s you’ve only spent $200.00
so I assume your just letting this fund build up?
(Brady) That’s what we’re doing because at this point we don’t really need to tap into
this money for the drug court we’ve been able to get some extra grants. We got a
CARES Grant to help us with some supplies for drug testing, so we haven’t had to tap
into this money. You’re right we’re trying to build it up for future.
Motion passed
(Hoff) I have a question about the mechanism that you’re going to use. You are
intending to consider all of the other requests to operate courts at the hearing on
Thursday?
(Stoops) Thursday night at 6:00 p.m. And we will also be taking public comment at that
time for the publics benefit. At the same time we will be taking public comment for the
bond requests. Currently it looks like we will not be pursing the bond.
(Hoff) So for those items you do approve to seek an excess levy for you will fill them
back into the budgets by the vote at that time or at a later time?
(Stoops) I will leave that to the Auditor, but I assume after our excess levy is approved
by the State we will know exactly what we are working towards. And the line items will
basically go back in your budget. Is that correct Sandy?
(Rice) Their included in the budgets now, they’re sort of on a separate spread sheet that
the council asked them to separate out for their discussion purposes.
(Hoff) So you’re just considering those items Thursday?
(Rice) Yes.
(West) So it’s important that you be here to make your case Thursday evening at 6:00
p.m.
(Hawk) If the DLGF does not approve the levy as requested and we’ve already had it
plugged in all of the budgets, then we would have to go back and open up all those
budgets and make changes, it would be very confusing.
(Unknown) On September 13th Commissioner Donovan of the Department of
Corrections is going to be at the program at the Bloomington Rotary Club any of you
66
who would like to hear him are invited to be my guests on that date. We meet at the
Union.
0101 County General
011 Extension Services
2006 Requested
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.20
Office Manager
Education Assistant
FNP
Hourly/Work-study
2000.01
Office Supplies
2000.02
Educational Supplies
7.50 per hr
Category 01 Total:
Category 02 Total:
2006
Approved
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
$9,844.00
#REF!
$23,809.00
$23,809.00
$7,353.00
$9,844.00
$64,815.00
$6,500.00
$6,500.00
$1,000.00
$7,500.00
$1,000.00
$7,500.00
$97,800.00
$850.00
$1,000.00
$97,800.00
$850.00
$1,000.00
3000.03
3000.05
3000.06
Professional Fees & Services
Education
3000.02
Travel Expenses
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
3000.04
Repair Equipment
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
3000.01
Postage
$6,100.00
$114,250.00
$6,100.00
$114,250.00
Category 03 Total:
67
4000.01
4000.02
Office Furniture
Office Equipment
Category 04 Total:
Department Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
#REF!
$0.00
$186,565.00
Moved and seconded
(Jeff Holland, Extension Office) The budget that you have before you today represents
what we are asking the county council to look at this year. We’ve asked for a 3% per
your guidelines for office manager, extension assistant, F&P assistant, summer
assistants in our special programs. We have asked in the contractual services line for
$97,800. To give you a little history of what happens under the contractual services line.
Purdue University basically regulates that line. They have asked for a 2% increase to
our contractual services in the year 2006, however, they are also asking all 92 counties
effective 2006 to contribute an additional $5,000. That $5,000 will be used because
Purdue University will be picking up additional costs that the county will not have to do
in the coming years. So what you see there before you represents basically our budget
that we would like to present to you for ratification or for consideration this year.
(Jones) I asked Jeff to go through a quick overview of the changed items.
(Stoops) Did you include the 04’s in that?
(Hawk) No 04’s were proposed.
(Jones) The 04’s it was zero.
(Travis) Office furniture and equipment
(Jones) Okay, that was from the bond right?
(Stoops) Right. I never zeroed that out of ours, but maybe you did that.
(Jones) Let me revise that. For the 04’s it would be a total dollar amount of $2,141.00
and a total of $188,706.00.
(Woods) Could you tell me where that is exactly?
(Hawk) I don’t see it requested here, am I missing it?
(West) It’s in the bond.
(Stoops) Look on the 2005 actual. I think it’s misplaced in the excel spreadsheet.
68
(Jones) Instead of in the requested it was under the “05 actual”.
(Hawk) So what you’re saying is, “What you have down is what was actually extended,
which looks like an additional appropriation was not, but was put in the wrong line item?
Did you request office furniture and equipment for this coming year?
(Holland) Not that I’m aware of.
(Hawk) I think that when you’re looking at that 2005 year to date actual that may very
well have been an additional appropriation for 2005, it wasn’t approved originally. Are
you seeing something in this bond?
(West) No there’s two bond lists, one is not correct.
(Jones) Let’s just back up and go with what was requested and go with zero with a
bottom total of $186,565.00
Moved and seconded.
(West) The only question that I have, I think we might want to consider making the
$5,000 one time appropriation. Because it is a one time fee the 2% it’s showing a 7%
increase in that contractual services line now. It’s really not 7% it’s 2%, so I’d like to see
that $5,000 goes as a one time appropriation because it is a one time request. And then
it will not be left in this vote that tends to get voted over and over again in future years. If
the Extension Office is okay with it.
(Stoops) So this is an increase that they are asking for every year?
(Holland) Next years base, will be based upon the final figure that we have here. So it
will be a continual figure it will be (inaudible) next year if there is to be a raise, it’s based
on $97,800.00.
(Hawk) Right, so you can’t take that out of there.
(West) Okay I thought you said a 2% and one time $5,000
(Holland) A one time $5,000 they will not come back and ask for an additional $5,000
ever again. But all 92 counties are asked by the year 2006 to contribute $5,000 to the
contractual services line.
(Dan Ball) One of the things that I decided to do and I decided to do fairly early in the
year, because I plan on retiring and Purdue when they said Ag Educator or C.F.S.
Educator was going to retire in 06 then this request had to be made with the $5,000
extra. And so that was why I wanted to make sure that I announce my retirement and
we could put it in our budget early.
(West) But is it $5,000 for 2006 only or will that $5,000…
69
(Ball) It will continue on for them from that point is my understanding.
(Stoops) So really it’s $5,000 every year.
(Ball) right
(Hawk) It just raised the bar.
(Ball) Right that’s what they’ve done.
(Holland) And this is the contractual services, we’re not asking for more, it’s just, we’re
not any different from any other county of the 92 counties. There are some counties
who have already gone through this process.
(Stoops) So we are back to the budget as presented. Are there other questions?
(Holland) I might ad that this is to maintain the staff as we currently have it. The bottom
line that you see there $97,800 is not a penny more than what our contractual services
line has said that we need in order to sustain three professional educators in Monroe
County. We’re not trying to hide anything; we’re trying to be up front with that. If it is not
approved under contractual services we need to go back to the board and re-evaluate
how we do things.
Motion passed
Fund: 0101 County General
Department: 004 Recorder
2006
Requested
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.03
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.20
Recorder
First Deputy
Chief Deputy
Second Deputy
Third Deputy
Fourth Deputy
Hourly/Clerical
Category 01 Total:
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
$5,000.00
#REF!
Office Supplies
2000.02
2000.03
Printing/Copy Supplies
Office Supplies
$0.00
$0.00
Operating Supplies
2000.01
Books, Official Records
$0.00
Other Supplies
2000.04
Postage
$0.00
$0.00
2006
Approved
$47,433.00
$25,530.00
$35,575.00
$23,070.00
$23,070.00
$23,070.00
$5,000.00
$182,748.00
02 SUPPLIES
Category 02 Total:
$0.00
70
3000.05
Recorders Association, Dues
$0.00
3000.02
Travel
$0.00
3000.07
Office Equipment Maintenance
$0.00
Rentals
3000.06
Archival Space Rental
$0.00
3000.03
3000.04
Training
Copy Machine
Category 03 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Insurance
Utility Service
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
Department Total:
#REF!
$182,748.00
Moved and seconded
(Pat Haley, Recorder) The only thing I have on my budget is the salary of my staff. All
the rest of the things that I need and use in the office I pay for out of my perpetuation
fund.
(Hawk) She reduced her hourly 1000.20 from $10,000 down to $5,000 she’s hoping that
we will remember she did this when we get ready to look at the 4-H budget, as she has
reminded me several times.
(Hawk) I’d like Pat to talk about her other fund that she covers some of these expenses
with. Between you and the Clerk you were going to cover the rent. Where is that
covered?
71
(Haley) Actually it’s all through my office now. The storage room that we have on north
Washington Street I’m also paying out of my perpetuation fund.
(Hawk) And the perpetuation fund monies come from?
(Haley) It comes from copies of documents there’s two or three funds that when we
collect on mortgages, deeds and so forth that go into that perpetuation fund.
(Hawk) It’s not property taxes?
(Haley) No. No tax involved its user fees.
(Stoops) For some reason I thought we approved the perpetuation fund.
(Hawk) No we don’t.
Motion passed
Fund: 0101 county General
Department: 003 Treasurer
2006 Requested
Salaries and Wages
1000.01
1000.02
1000.04
1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.20
Treasurer
Administrative Asst/Chief Deputy
Deputy/Computer
Deputy/Bankruptcy
Deputy/Mortgage Co.
Deputy/Board of Review
Clerical/Part-time Hourly
Category 01 Total:
Office Supplies
2000.01
Miscellaneous Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
2000.02
2000.04
Official Records
Miscellaneous Printing
2006
Approved
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
$19,000.00
$198,629.00
$47,433.00
$35,575.00
$24,951.00
$25,530.00
$23,070.00
$23,070.00
$17,000.00
$196,629.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$26,000.00
$26,000.00
$29,500.00
$29,500.00
$10,070.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$800.00
$800.00
02 SUPPLIES
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.03
Travel/Education
3000.07
TREASURER'S BOND
Insurance
72
Utility Service
3000.04
Office Equipment Repair
$600.00
$600.00
Rentals
3000.02
Tax Receipts Storage
$500.00
$500.00
3000.13
Postage
Category 03 Total:
$23,000.00
$36,970.00
$20,000.00
$25,900.00
Equipment
Manatron Software
Miscellaneous Office Furniture
Furniture
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Department Total:
$265,098.00
$252,029.00
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.01
4000.03
4000.04
4000.06
Moved and seconded
(Barbara Clark, Treasurer) I went through my budget and on some of the things I raised
and some I cut. I was able to cut the contractual services because now they are with
Technical Services. We pay for the county safety deposit box. Our tax statements one
of the things that I raised for the miscellaneous printing is because we will be doing two
mailings to the conservancy next year so we can get them caught up.
Motion passed
Fund: 2391 Cumulative Capital Development
Department: 000 Commissioners
2006
Requested
2006
Approved
Salaries and Wages
Category 01 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
73
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
Category 03 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
4000.01
4000.03
4000.04
4000.05
4000.25
4000.37
4000.38
Justice Building Repair/Remodel
Courthouse Repair
Hwy Building Repair/Projects/Maint
Parks/Alternative Transportation
Health Building Repair
Curry/Fiscus Bldg Repair
Justice Bldg Holding
$50,000.00
$115,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
$50,000.00
$115,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
4000.02
4000.07
4000.26
4000.27
4000.29
Airport Development
Industrial Infrastructure
ADA
Radon
Environmental Quality
$250,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$25,000.00
$5,000.00
$25,000.00
$250,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$25,000.00
$5,000.00
$25,000.00
Machinery and Equipment
4000.31
Voting Machines
$35,000.00
$35,000.00
4000.06
4000.28
4000.30
Parks
Justice
County Space Needs
$25,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$250,000.00
$25,000.00
$1,278,000.00
$250,000.00
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
74
4000.32
4000.33
4000.36
4000.35
Storm Water/Drainage Support
Sheriff's Vehicles
Security for Buildings
Computer Replacement
Category 04 Total:
$100,000.00
$130,000.00
$50,000.00
$4,410,000.00
$100,000.00
$192,000.00
$50,000.00
$250,000.00
$4,500,000.00
Department Total:
$4,410,000.00
$4,500,000.00
Moved and seconded
(Stoops) There is a disagreement with what is considered public comment and what is
presentation by people involved in departments under the Commissioners budget. In my
opinion when we first talked about public comment at the beginning of the meeting and
said that we would have a public comment section on Thursday at 5:00 p.m. is that
commonly how we have done it?
(Margie Rice) Yes.
(Stoops) Okay so there’s the typical public comment at the end of the budget hearings
right? That doesn’t preclude the commissioners for instance asking people to present
items they are responsible for?
(Rice) Certainly if you want. Again there is no requirement in Indiana law for public
bodies like this to except public comment so there’s not going to be a legal prescient
that I’m going to be able to tell you. It is typically done by what the majority of these
members want to do. Typically the majority of council has wanted the departments to be
able to give the information that the departments deem necessary for you to understand
the budget. If for whatever reason you decide that because of time constraints or
whatever else that you wouldn’t want that to happen, then that’s fine too.
(Stoops) Public comment wouldn’t preclude presentations by departments within a
budget that for instance make it more clear to the council what the expenses are for.
They may have more knowledge of it.
(Rice) I don’t consider that public comment. I consider that information that this council
needs to make its decision. It’s more insider information then someone off the street
coming in and making a comment about the budgets.
(Stoops) I just wanted to make that clear.
(Joyce Poling) We did not understand and the people that we did ask to come we asked
them not to come.
(Stoops) As long as you will present for them. In no way did the council say, “that wasn’t
going to happen”.
(Poling) The one change since we submitted the budget is that you did put a quarter of
a million dollars in for computer replacement. So that is a change from the time we
submitted the budget, but that’s the only change.
75
(Henegar) What line is that?
(Poling) 4000.35
(Stoops) The computer replacement, is it a four year or five year cycle?
(Jones) I’m not clear on this on this 2006 council line item.
(Poling) The 2006 requested is what we requested and then at the work session you
added where it says council. You added the 250,000 in computers.
(Jones) Okay council requested not voted on that’s the point I wanted to make.
(Stoops) Nothing is approved until the council votes on it. So if you see an item in that
line it’s basically a place holder until the actual approved line is voted on.
(Poling) I have Bill Williams here to talk about projects that he has in mind to use for
industrial infrastructure. One of the major projects is a project at Airport Road as you
know on the southern part of the airport there is a railroad overpass and fire trucks can’t
get through that and it’s dangerous. Bill would like to have about a million dollars out of
this fund to use for that road infrastructure. That was an area in which you had
wondered about the amount of money in that line.
(Stoops) That will be this year, is that correct?
(Poling) Yes.
(Hawk) Which line is that again?
(Kiesling) The 4000 line.
(Poling) Most of these funds we keep money in the funds like the Airport so if something
happens that we are able to match federal or State grants. Those are very important
lines for us to keep that cash there to use for those kinds of items. As you know we
continue to buy voting machines. Parks we have $25,000 in. We have quite a bit of
money in the justice area and that is because as you know we’ll be doing lots of
remodeling for the Public Defender, the courts, perhaps for Packing House. All of this
we expect much of it to be taken care of if we take over that building but we don’t know
for sure so we have put that money in that line in case. We’ve increased storm water
drainage support because as we continue through the years and have more to do in
that area. As you know that’s used for Todd and the work that he does. And we have
the sheriff’s vehicles we have $50,000 in security for buildings and then the computer
replacement. And we always have ADA. We always put about $25,000 in that because
many times something happens or a building we’ve purchased or needs those types of
accommodations made and we like to have the money in the line to be able to do that.
(Stoops) The level of funding for sheriff’s vehicles is similar to the amount requested in
the bond?
76
(Poling) No. It’s my understanding that the amount in the bond was transportation that
could not come out of CUM CAP. Now it’s my understanding that we have a controversy
about whether or not those vehicles can come out of this or not. But the attorneys’
opinion is that those vehicles cannot come out of this, we can take sheriff’s cars but not
transport.
(Stoops) I think we’re talking about two different items. There’s the squad cars, plus
radios, emergency lights and installation for $132,000 which I believe can come out of
CUM CAP. Maybe the item that is questionable is the transport vans for the correctional
facility. That’s $60,000 so you don’t believe that could come out of CUM CAP?
(Poling) That’s correct.
(Stoops) So when we’re talking about the jail we’ll have to have another look at that
item. Parks and recreation is…
(Poling) Security cages for those cars costs $12,000
(Stoops) You have water in there for storm water drainage, parks and recreation needs
to create a storm water detention pond to meet Rural 13 guidelines and this would also
enable them to irrigate their fields and save money on water. The total is $35,000. And
again this is something that came up yesterday so there hasn’t been a lot of discussion
on it. Is that something we can take out of CUM CAP?
(Poling) I would imagine, there’s money here for parks and so between what’s there for
parks and storm water drainage support. We do have some money in for alternative
transportation for parks.
(Stoops) Is that for any of the purchase of railroad easements that are being abandoned
towards Ellettsville?
(Poling) We leave that to the parks department. They are also very interested in going
from karsts Park by Highland Village and then connect with the TIF district.
(Stoops) From what I understand the Parks Board is interested in pursuing the
easement, but from the abandoned trail lines that go to Ellettsville, but the Parks Board
is unsure if they have the support of the commissioners. I think they were told if there’s
any litigation the Commissioners would not support it. Do you know anything about
that?
(Poling) I do not. The parks have several areas in mind. They talked about having a trail
west of Ellettsville. They’ve talked about the one to Ellettsville. And then they’ve talked
about rails to trails connecting from Karsts Park up to the T.I.F district so it would go
very close to where it would connect on the other end.
(Stoops) As far as the commissioners are concerned you’re 100% behind the parks
board pursing the rails to trails to Ellettsville?
77
(Poling) We want to be sure that it is done correctly. We’ve been there done that. And
we want to be sure that our legal people tell us that this is the thing to do and this is the
right thing to do and then I’m all for it.
(Hawk) (Inaudible) hired an attorney and prepared for litigation.
(Poling) Well there’s different ways of doing these trails. You can do sidewalk
easements, which usually we have enough county easement to do that anyway. So
there are several ways to do this.
(Stoops) Right, but the rails to trails is typically an item that’s removed from the road. It’s
more of a trail that’s separate from the road infrastructure.
(Poling) I understand.
(Stoops) As long as the Commissioners support what’s pursued by the Parks Board.
(Poling) But you did hear my caveat. And they must have some legal authority.
(Stoops) I’ve been told by a member of the parks board that the commissioners would
not support it if there was any litigation from outside parties, which I think would be a
shame, maybe I heard wrong.
(Poling) Obviously the parks department has not come in and discussed this with us.
(Kiesling) I don’t remember anything about rails to trails. I know we’re working on a trail
but nothing with rails that I’m familiar with.
(Stoops) So sheriff’s vehicles are in. Transport vans for $60,000 we’ll have to look at
within the correctional center budget. What do you think about the transport vans for the
jail and including those in CUM CAP?
(Rice) I’m the attorney that thinks it can be included in CUM CAP under the language. I
talked with Steger about it. The language is that it’s for the purchase or paying of all or
part of the purchase price of motor vehicles for the use of police. I say a transport
vehicle for the sheriff is a motor vehicle for the use of police because our sheriff has the
obligation of maintaining the jail and it’s one of his statutory duties, and it’s going to be
used by the police. Steger said, “he would not have interpreted it that broadly”. But he
doesn’t think that it would cause us to get written up or anything if we did it interpret it
broadly and said that it was a transport vehicle was a motor vehicle for use of police.
(Stoops) Are there any other questions from the council and maybe you could also
address whether you feel the transport van should be included in CUM CAP or not.
(West) I would like to know if there’s anything else from the bond that we’re including in
CUM CAP. I can’t tell from these broad amounts and descriptions whether there’s
anything else that we’re trying to include in here.
78
(Stoops) I haven’t seen any. That doesn’t mean that’s exactly what anybody else does.
(West) The Commissioners have a four wheel drive, a generator. In law enforcement
we’ve already said it’s coming out $132,000 again the transport vans, I feel that it would
be reasonable to expect it out of CUM CAP but I just want to make sure we have
everything from the bond located someplace. And this is one of the funds that I think a
lot of stuff would come from. So that’s the only question that I have.
(Poling) How much do you have in your different funds that you have as cash accounts?
How much do you have in County Option Income Tax is that $2,000,000 this aside?
(Stoops) Almost exactly I guess.
(Poling) So you have $2,000,000 in that fund? What other funds are there they you’re
using?
(Knight) We do some have in the COIT money that you were talking about. We also
have another much smaller COIT I believe we still have that $300,000 special COIT that
we had, it was a real small amount compared to the $1.9 that was being talked about
previously. Those are the two major funds that we have for that.
(Poling) It’s my understanding we can’t use those funds to match federal dollars, so if
you have those kinds funds elsewhere I don’t see why you don’t use those funds.
(Stoops) Is there a reason why we couldn’t use any funds available to the county to
match federal dollars?
(Rice) The $1.9 that is now $2,000,000 with interest is in the special projects fund. And I
believe we said that, that could be used in any way that county option income tax
money could be used because that’s what it came from. I don’t know if there is a
restriction on that one.
(Stoops) I think in general I remember voting on that and we earmarked it for the
juvenile facility.
(Hawk) No we did not.
(Rice) We made it very broad and did not limit it.
(Stoops) But we made it broad it’s up to the council’s discretion.
(Hawk) We can use it for anything.
(Rice) We can use it for anything. At one point you talked about limiting it, but I think it
was Marty who said, “if I want to buy a stamp with it, we should be able to or whatever
we need.”
(Hawk) Whatever the needs of the county happen to be.
79
(Rice) I could pull that ordinance.
(Hawk) Because I was concerned that they have labeled it something and during that
discussion…
(Rice) We called a special projects fund is what it’s called.
(Hawk) During the discussion it was made very clear that we could use that fund for
anything that we could use county option income tax for.
(Poling) And what about the gaming money has it been spoken for or where is it or how
much is it?
(Hawk) Last year it was 290 and we just got it…
(Knight) Last year it was $290,000. We just received that, I believe the EFT came in
today. I do not have the break down with me, it’s approximately the same amount as
last year. Our portion in county general will be $290,000 and three other portions will be
disbursed to Ellettsville, and the other two I can’t remember off the top of my head it’s
downstairs.
(Stoops) So what you are trying to tell us is that you prefer that we did not take the vans
out of CUM Cap?
(Poling) I would appreciate that.
(Kiesling) Sue was suggesting that we take some other things that were listed in the
bond out of the CCD. The one that we can not take out of the CCD is the pick-up truck
for our maintenance folks, that need to come out of somewhere. The generators which
ends up being about $110,117 are things that we need to start having because right
now we don’t have the back-ups for anything.
(West) I wasn’t suggesting anything. I just want to make sure that everything on this lists
ends up with a home somewhere and people don’t get disappointed.
(Kiesling) I hear you, but that’s why I am repeating that.
(West) Right now the only thing that I show coming off the bond list is five sheriff
vehicles or $132,000. That’s the only thing that I show coming off this bond list and into
CUM CAP.
(Kiesling) I think that’s correct, yeah.
(Stoops) Into CUM CAP
(Kiesling) That was duplicated.
(Woods) What is the county space needs line again?
80
(Poling) We put the money in there and for instance like the Fiscus Building if we have
to buy something. We probably put some of those lines together to make those
purchases. So this year I don’t know what we’re going to be doing as they start shifting
the courts around. We may be looking for a home for probation. And that may mean we
need to purchase something. We also know that if Packinghouse goes forward that we
will probably have to buy something for parking. Although I can’t give you list of this is
what we have, that’s going to happen. We have so many unknowns at this moment. If
Packinghouse does go through, then we’re going to have expenses and we are going to
have to purchase some property. Then if the courts move around as they want to move
then we’re going to have some people for whom we are going to have find space and so
that’s what the money is for.
(Woods) Under the 4000.28 Justice, you said part of that was for what we were just
talking about doing various remodeling to adapt to the new court at least in part. Could
the generators come out of that line?
(Poling) You know we would like the generator to come out of Homeland Security
because I just feel that’s where it should be. I think that’s one of the first things they
should have done with homeland security money is to get generators. If we’re having
trouble imagine small counties. We’re supposed to be taking people to the fairgrounds,
they have generation. So to me had I been that director, the first thing I would have
done would be to get generators out to folks so that had back up so they could continue
to function. And so that will be first place we try to get generators. And then anything
that looks like we’re able to get into, we’ll try to do that.
(Stoops) The Justice Building has a generator is that correct?
(Poling) Yes. I wanted portable ones and I guess they just don’t function well because I
thought if we had to go to the fairgrounds then we could take that out there and set up.
But apparently that’s not a very effective way to do things so.
(Woods) Looking at the bond list under the same category as the transport vans there’s
an item that covers for cells to replace the vent covers inside the cells.
(Poling) Yes.
(Woods) Is that the type of project that would normally be picked up by Justice Building
repair and remodel?
(Poling) It would be picked up by the Justice Building holding corporation at this point,
but that money, we have a line to have that money shifted back into CUM CAP and we
would probably use that money for those expenses.
(Woods) I don’t see any reason why legally transport vans couldn’t come out of CUM
CAP, the only way I could see it being true is if just by our Sheriff’s S.O.P the people
who drive the transport van are not actually sheriff’s deputies.
81
(Rice) It comes down to your interpretation of use, is it used by police. Is the transport
vehicle used by the police? Even if it’s ran by a correctional officer it’s used by the
police because we’re using it for the Sheriff’s department. And he’s the county law
enforcement officer. Again I think it’s legal but whether you should do it or not is council
call based on what you hear from the Commissioners and how you guys want to handle
it. I don’t think nobody’s going to slap you on the hand for doing it, but I’m not saying
you should or you shouldn’t.
(Stoops) Michael did you say the vent covers were covered by CUM CAP?
(Poling) The holding corporation is probably sending the money to us and that would be
about $280,000 and those are the kinds of expenses they have been taking care of. So
I would expect to do that out of that fund.
(Hawk) When you say, “They’re send it to you”. Do you mean to say it won’t be in a
separate fund in County General?
(Poling) No it will be CUM CAP.
(Hawk) That makes it difficult because CUM CAP has for specific.
(Poling) Bill Steger told us that’s the way it could happen. He’s been working with the
holding corporation, If you have questions about that he is not here, but he’s been
working on this for three months.
(Stoops) We do and Bill and the Commissioners also knew that we did not want holding
corporation money to go to CUM CAP it was supposed to be funds that we could use at
our discression. We talked to the attorney who has advised us it that’s the case the
county council can take that money into County General and use it not just for CUM
CAP.
(Poling) So you could use…
(Rice) Can I clarify that? I remember sending a memo to this… when we talked to the
people at the state about it, it had to go into a fund with a tax rate associated to it, so it
would have to go into county general or a CUM CAP. The State Board of Accounts
written opinion that they gave to me and I forwarded it to you last year, said, “It could go
into one of those funds, but the Commissioners get to pick which fund it goes into”. And
I recall how the conversation with Sue, that Sue said, “I don’t care where you put it, put
it in CUM CAP as long as it comes back to the holding corporation. Steger and I have
talked about it based on State Board of Accounts opinion that the Commissioners would
get to pick the fund and there was some council comment that CUM CAP would… you
know a fund that would be a tax rate fund that, that was okay and I think (inaudible)
Steger give it to the Commissioners.
(West) And my comments were based on, I sat in with the State Board of Accounts who
said that, that money should not be over there anymore. The purpose had gone away
and it should come back into a county… so my motivation was to get in compliance with
the State Board of Accounts on a financial statement.
82
(Rice) And the thought was that it was a capital.. those monies were originally used for
capital projects so it made sense to put it in the CUM CAP fund. When State Board of
Accounts came out with their opinion and I had a phone conversation with them about it
they said, “I don’t know the strings that were attached to it before when it was bond
money would still be strings that would be attached.” and I think you were like, that’s
crazy they should still be attached.
(Hawk) Absolutely, the way the documentation was written was that then became the
construction fund after (inaudible) had been completed and after a certain number of
years that construction fund, which could be used for any county building, not just the
justice building, or equipment for any county building or to buy any county building. And
then after a certain length of time if that wasn’t used for that, if there was any left over it
was suppose to be used to pay down the bond and we just simply no matter how many
times I’ve reminded folks it just never got used to pay down the bonds and the
taxpayers still had it sitting out there not being used. It would be my feeling that if it’s
sitting over there we could be using it for equipment for any building or repair of any
building that it ought to be able to come back here and be able to do the same thing
here in county general. And it cannot do that under CUM CAP.
(Rice) It can for that out of CUM CAP.
(Hawk) No, because we can use it for any piece of equipment as long as it was over
there we could use it for any piece of equipment for any county building, now if it’s
under CUM CAP we can’t use it for certain things that we want for the sheriff’s
department or for some other. If this is the Commissioners decision and not ours we are
just wasting time.
(Poling) The Justice Building is 20 years old. Every year we have problems. We have
problems with the locks, they have been replaced. We had to replace the toilets all of
these are on going expenses the holding corporation has been making those repairs
and I would suggest that the money coming from the holding corporation should still be
used for the Justice Building on going maintenance because running a jail is a very,
very expensive thing. It’s very hard on the building we have had numerous…
(Stoops) So you’re saying the vent covers for cells can be taken out of CUM CAP?
(Poling) Yes.
(Stoops) It looks like there’s 3.1 million dollars cash balance in CUM CAP. Again most
of the lines the commissioners have requested are just place holders. It doesn’t mean
what’s going to be spent. Otherwise we would over spend by quite a bit. Each year we
get just under a million dollars in the CUM CAP. Personally I think the $290,000 should
come back to County General, but as Marty said, “it’s you decision”. We can find a was
to use it probably some other way.
(Poling) That’s correct.
83
(Rice) I do want to point out that CUM CAP one of the listed uses to purchase
construction equipment and maintenance of public buildings, so I think any building we
have you could use CUM CAP to maintain it, to construct equipment.
(Stoops) It’s not like we won’t use it eventually.
(Hawk) But with the exception that before we were told no we couldn’t do this or that or
we can’t buy the van or whatever.
(Poling) Well we have different legal opinions don’t we?
(Jones) The security for your buildings was that cameras related or what is that?
(Poling) That was to secure the north side of the Courthouse.
(Hawk) I want to ask Margie, if she agrees with me, this is a rate; it’s a rate controlled
fund? It says at the frozen levy and so when the assessed valuation goes up then this
has the opportunity to go up it is at very near the rate that it’s allowed to go to, but the
amount of money it will draw in will go up according to our total assessed valuation. It
however will not affect our county general money. That money will come into that CUM
CAP fund whether or not we appropriate one penny in this. Because they don’t look at it
and decide that they’re only going to raise so much having to do with whatever their
cash balance is in there now. They could just go ahead and keep drawing in that money
and saving it every year and then use it for one big thing. So you could either vote it all
in and let them spend it all every year or vote in none of it and then as they got ready to
do a major project then they would need the council’s cooperation.
(Kiesling) I believe this is capped in the amount that we can raise is $1.1million and
that’s also controlled by how much we have in the fund itself.
(Hawk) That’s really not true.
(Kiesling) Well that’s what it’s been in the past.
(Hawk) I did check with the Department of Local Finance because I was concerned
about the bridge fund. I was the $1.1 million wouldn’t be high enough and it doesn’t
matter what the levy amount is that you have advertised because on the rate control
fund it depends on the rate that’s already set. We use the same rate every year and
then it is adjusted once we know for certain what the assessed valuation is. If our
assessed evaluation should really go up high enough the rate that you have in place
could bring in more money you’ll just get in more money but it won’t affect county
general at all.
(Kiesling) I don’t think it has ever happened. As a matter of fact we’ve gotten less than
one million usually. Part of the reason being is we’ve had a nice balance because we’ve
been lucky enough not to spend it, we’ve used it as a savings account. I don’t think we
can.
(Hawk) It doesn’t have anything to do with the balance.
84
(Kiesling) Legal will have to review that.
(Rice) It is a rate fund. I can’t tell you how much we’ve gotten in every year, but I do
know the reason. You guys have been saving some for big projects as you say that’s a
legal thing to do and we will continue to get money every year they don’t have to spend
it if they don’t want to. I think your interpretation is correct Marty.
(Poling) We haven’t spent it generally.
(Hawk) It’s usually when you’re saving for something really big.
(Stoops) Michael do you have an amended motion?
(Woods) I would move to amend the bottom line to $4,722,000.
(Stoops) And that includes what exactly?
(Woods) That includes changing 4000.33 to $192,000 and it includes the 4000.35 which
is not in the original request, which is $250,000 for computer replacement.
(Stoops) Vent covers?
(Woods) The vent covers wouldn’t be in a particular line item as I understood what we
were doing. It would just be under an existing request. 4000.33 would be $192,000
(Stoops) Because this is a rate fund we can’t actually raise. We have to remove or
reduce another line. Is that right?
(Rice) I don’t know. What level did you advertise it Brandon?
(Hawk) Whatever the rate brings in is what goes in there and they can only spend what
is in there. We can appropriate it and if it doesn’t bring in that kind of revenue then they
can’t spend it.
(Stoops) That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m just talking about whether we can
actually raise the requested amount.
(Knight) You can raise it up to $4.5 million dollars because it was advertised as the
budget estimate.
(Stoops) So we need to reduce a line. And I think the most appropriate one would be
industrial infrastructure.
(Poling) Don’t do that one.
(Stoops) Well you’re spending a million this year, do you have a million…..
85
(Poling) Well if Bill has anything that comes besides that so please don’t do that.
(Rice) Is that the matching money you’re talking about?
(Poling) Yes.
(Henegar) If we have to reduce it what items would you chose to do that with?
(Hawk) Why would we have to reduce it? We approve it and the State Board of
Accounts…..
(Poling) How much are we looking for? How much money?
(Woods) $122,000
(Stoops) We have to drop that down to $1,250,000 County (inaudible) is at $250,000 so
drop it down to $28,000
(Stoops) What about reducing the Justice Line?
(Poling) Because I think we’re going to be spending so much on Justice this year I
would really….. okay take it out of there.
(Hawk) You don’t have to cut it guys.
(Stoops) It’s not a matter of cutting it. It’s a matter of what we approve it at. Our
maximum is $4,500,000
(Hawk) But if the money doesn’t come in, if the assessed evaluation doesn’t go up high
enough that the rate used to… it won’t come in. It is not capped at $1,100,000 that’s
been advertised it’s capped at whatever the rate that is tied to this fund.
(Stoops) That isn’t the issue. The issue is what the CUM CAP development fund is
advertised at. So we can’t approve it at a higher level than it’s advertised. It doesn’t
matter what they are spending out of it or what we receive for it.
(Hawk) It’s the rate, not the levy.
(Poling) 4000.28 we can take that money out of that line.
(Woods) Isn’t that the line you’re most likely to need though?
(Poling) Well we’re going to use all of them a lot.
(Stoops) They’ll use it and they can come for cash.
(West) We will also be able to additionally appropriate the money that’s moved over
from the Justice Building Bond Fund into this line after we get that money. So whenever
86
they bring that money over then we can do an additional appropriation into this line for
the amount of that money and they will still have the same money to spend.
(Poling) That’s a good idea.
Woods seconded, West moved to withdraw the motion and make a new one for the
bottom line of $4,500,000 and with line 4000.28 being $1,278,000 in addition to the
$250,000 for 4000.35 and the $192,000 for 4000.33.
Motion passed
Fund: 0620 Telecommunication/Cable
2006
Requested
Salaries and Wages
1000.03
1000.04
Comm/Pres/Secretary
Comm. Members
Category 01 Total:
2000.01
Supplies
2006
Approved
$1,800.00
$1,200.00
$3,000.00
$900.00
$600.00
$1,500.00
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
Community Access Television
WFIU Weatherwire
$150,000.00
$3,500.00
$100,000.00
$3,500.00
$150,000.00
$32,000.00
$110,000.00
$33,000.00
$100.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50.00
$335,650.00
$0.00
$246,500.00
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
3000.04
3000.05
3000.07
Telephone Service/Data Processing
Sheriff/General Communications
3000.02
Legal Ad/Franchising
3000.06
Maintenance/Data Processing
3000.03
Postage
Insurance
Utility Service
Rentals
Debt Service
Category 03 Total:
87
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.01
4000.02
4000.03
4000.04
4000.07
4000.09
Office Workstations, Treasurer
Computer & Printer, Coroner
Equipment Lease/Extension Office
Law Library Software Jail
Emergency Notification Equipment
Dispatch Equipment
$0.00
$0.00
$5,900.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,250.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Category 04 Total:
$5,900.00
$5,250.00
Department Total:
$344,600.00
$253,300.00
Moved and seconded.
(Kiesling) We cut it in half I believe at the work session and talking to some other people
involved in it I don’t know if we’ll be meeting every month, but we might have some
meetings with the City.
(Stoops) Okay, you’re talking about the actual cable television committee. So what Iris
is talking about it the fact that the requested amount is $1,800 for I guess that’s
commissioner president secretary we dropped that to $900.00
(Hawk) Who dropped it to $900.00? We haven’t voted on that.
(Stoops) Marty, we know that and I think everybody knows that we’ve talked about that
20 times today.
(Kiesling) You all suggest that at the work session.
(Stoops) The fact is we discussed dropping it to $900.00 because of past use. If the
commission met every month maybe they would use the amount that was requested but
it doesn’t appear that they have in the past two or three years. The commission
members requested was $1,200 and that was attentively dropped $600.00. Now this
isn’t in the form of a motion, I’m just talking about Iris’s remark.
(Jones) As it’s put on the floor by Warren we’re talking about what’s requested the 2006
requested.
(Henegar) That’s correct.
88
Stoops moved Woods seconded to amend telecommunications cable 1000.03 to
$900.00 1000.04 to $600.00
(Henegar) Is this the one you said that doesn’t cover the meetings?
(Kiesling) The members, president and secretary are paid by ordinance a certain
amount that Patty articulated earlier. And we are not meeting monthly necessarily.
(West) I don’t know if we talked about this in the work session or where we talked about
it, but the employee benefits category was separate there was no dollar amount in there
and I show that we added $115.00 in there for FICA.
(Kiesling) That’s probably a good idea.
West moved, Stoops seconded the 01 line total would be $1,615
(Hawk) The way Warren has it presented at 3000 plus whatever it would be….
(West) I guess I’m amending Mark’s amended motion to include what we discussed in
the work session.
(Stoops) Now for discussion on the second amendment, which includes the benefits.
(Woods) Looking at the actuals that looks like more usually comes out of 1000.04 than
1000.03 for some reason it’s a requested flip flop and we’ve suggested cutting it flipped
flopped.
(Stoops) In 2004-2005 were the negotiations with Insight so there were more meetings
than there typically would be.
(Kiesling) And more members were probably attending those meetings. What are they
$25.00 a meeting?
(Pat Smith) I think $25 to $35.00
(Stoops) I don’t think I would suggest cutting it unless I thought it’s probably what they
are going to use or at least not up to that. I would imagine that if the money in there is
getting short that you let us know. It’s not a matter of saying, “No we don’t want them to
meet”. It’s just trying to get our budget down.
Motion passed.
Stoops move Woods seconded to approve the 03 category as presented
with the following amendments: 3000.01 Community Access Television
requested amount $150,000 reduced to $100,000. 3000.05 telephone service
data processing $150,000 reduced to $110,000. 3000.07 increase from
$32,000 to $33,000. 3000.02 Legal Advertising Franchising requested
amount is $100.00 that is reduced to $0. 3000.03 Postage requested amount
89
$50.00 that is reduced to $0. For a new bottom line total of $246,500 for the
3000 category.
(Stoops) Would you mind if we took Commissioners comments now and then
make council comments?
(Kiesling) I think you probably have seen the budget from them. I believe they
submitted a budget to you of what it costs to operate and do the transmission of
these meetings. I think if we contributed a little more then $100,000 it would be
nice. They have requested that we contribute half of what our franchise fees are,
which is what the City and Ellettsville are doing. In looking at that, that’s why I put
in there $150,000 for CATS. I believe that was a more equitable thing. Although I
have looked at the bottom line of how much I think that we will get in and I think
my estimate for $344,000 is what’s pretty close to what we will receive next or
between the last quarter of this year and the next three quarters of next year. So
there is some money there available even with the T.S.D. money that we’re
putting in for the telephone. We have under contributed in the past the other thing
that we have… there’s two things…when I was home I noticed that the
transmission is excellent from here. You guys look great. Secondly they do have
to take their equipment and bring it in here and that is wear and tear not just on
people and takes more time for people to transport that equipment but also wear
and tear on the equipment. So I think we need to keep that in mind as that goes
out. So that’s the only place where I would see some possible change.
(West) The voice over I.P. system that we are installing will continue to make the
line go down 3000.05 was reduced this year $40,000 and that was an estimate
from Larry Smith as we continue to implement the voice over I.P. system I think
that number will continue to go down. So there may be more money available in
this Telecommunications budget in the future.
(Kiesling) From my estimate you have appropriated less then $100,000 of what is
expected in next year.
(Hawk) I did hear at the debate at the Commissioners level when they changed
the ruling on the CUM CAP that there would be money here in this budget to
move some I.T. people over here so are you still saying there’s money to move
for personnel here?
(Kiesling) What do you mean?
(Hawk) I don’t know, you were the one who said it.
(Kiesling) I don’t know what you are talking about.
90
(Stoops) When you changed the CUM CAP ordinance in the Commissioners
meeting.
(Kiesling) I did say something that could be something coming out for TSD from
here. We have $110,000 I think, that you’re putting in for TSD at this point.
(Hawk) I don’t see personnel in there.
(West) No the $110,000 is for the phone bills.
(Hawk) But it was specifically said that we could put personnel in here. I didn’t
dream that.
(Stoops) They probably suggested it when they removed our option for taking
Tech Services salaries from CUM CAP.
(Hawk) And that’s why I voted against CUM CAP.
(Stoops) Would you like to make a motion to amend the CATS 3000.01 line?
(Hawk) I just wanted to make the point that the Commissioners had said that we
could put some personnel in there and I don’t see it.
(Kiesling) The budget had already been completed at that point I believe.
(Stoops) I know everybody on this council and Commissioners as well thinks
CATS does a great job and we like to have them not only cover the meetings that
they currently do, but hopefully cover more of the meetings. As Marty mentioned
if CATS could be here on work sessions it would make a big difference getting
the amount of detail that probably the council members and commissioners get.
Some of the feed back I got from different council members was that maybe for
this year we’re able to reduce some of the expenses in telecommunications
cable. In the past it’s always been used as the dumping ground literally for
everything that we couldn’t afford otherwise. Maybe this gives it an opportunity
because of the renegotiated franchise fee at a higher rate to build it up. The
reason why I suggested $100,000 for CATS rather than $150,000 is that. So the
fund can possibly build up, but at the same time I know in work sessions the
council has expressed support for funding CATS with capital items for instance if
there is any way to rewire our rooms or maybe make it easier for you to film
meetings in the courthouse meeting room or other locations or if you have
projects in mind that you feel would benefit. Right now I think that is something
the council would support. I don’t know if other council members feel the same
way.
91
(West) I think we also have to remember for the sheriff’s budget for tomorrow
everything we’ve kind of kept track of back and forth and we have $33,000 in
here for him so we need to make sure that isn’t duplicated someplace else when
we get to him tomorrow. Or do the Commissioners know exactly what that’s for
the $33,000 in there for the sheriff?
(Kiesling) I think that’s for a contract.
(Stoops) It’s for Ameritech B&L Communications. I think $16,400 of it.
(West) I just want to make sure it’s not duplicated tomorrow.
(Hawk) Do you want to vote on that one line item separately in case there’s any
discussion because that one’s higher than? 3000.07 has been raised $1,000 do
we need to vote on that separately?
(Stoops) Well we have to have five votes to approve this as it is. If it doesn’t pass
if you want you could always amend it again.
(Jones) We can just throw in the bottom line total correct?
(Rice) The bottom line total is going to be higher.
(Stoops) On the 03 category.
(Rice) Okay I’m wrong. The bottom line is not going to be higher so I would vote
on the one higher line item and get your five votes for that before you vote on
everything else.
(Stoops) If we got five votes for the bottom line it would serve the same purpose?
(Rice) Then you’re okay.
(Stoops) If we can’t get five votes it’s not supported in general by the council as
far as I’m concerned.
Motion passed
(Stoops) As CATS have said they will be interested in coming forward with a
proposal.
Stoops moved Woods seconded. to approve the 04 category as presented with
the following amendment: 4000.03 Equipment lease for the Extension office
requested amount is $5,900 to be reduced to $5,250.
92
(Jones) What was the reasoning?
(Stoops) That’s what the contract is.
(Kiesling) The thing is we didn’t have that letter when we put this together.
Motion passed
(Stoops) So we don’t need to vote on a final bottom line is that correct?
(Rice) You voted on each grouping?
(Stoops) Yes
(Rice) You’re okay.
(Stoops) Employee benefits is separate is that correct?
(West) The bottom line total of the 620 that was approved was $253,415. So you
have a lot of room for additional appropriation.
(Travis) We’re moving onto Economic Development.
Stoops moved to approve the Economic Development Fund with the following
amendment 3000.05 BEDC amount requested $5,000 reduce that to $0 and
again that was just a mistake that was made in past years where the BEDC
funding was taken out of this budget accidentally.
(West) It wasn’t a mistake it was a fund that had money so we raided it for the dollars.
(Stoops) We raided that fund in the past now we’re going to allow it to be used. What is
the new bottom line?
(Knight) I have $3,750.
(West) Mark didn’t make a motion yet to reduce that bottom line.
(Stoops) Which line?
(West) 2000.01 that we talked about in the work session.
(Stoops) I would like to amend my motion to also reduce 2000.01 from $250 to $0.
(Kiesling) Why are you reducing it?
93
(West) We talked about it in the work session because you spent $0 in 2004 $0 in 2005
that’s why.
(Kiesling) I think we will be using some of that as we are doing tax abatements and so
on.
(Stoops) From what I understand you just use the commissioner’s office supplies. So
the new bottom line is $3,500.
(Merkel) I have to publish legal notice for a variety of the commissions that I call. So
that’s what I use that money for. And then some of the other lines are postage, travel
and training etc.
(West) The other discussion we had at the work session was this fund only has $1,700
in it right now so they would have to collect more fees to be able to spend the amount
that they have budgeted. But since they can’t spend more than they have budgeted
anyway, but I think that’s also why we reduced it because the fund balance is not very
healthy right now.
(Stoops) What would happen with the new abatement? I imagine the fees on that are
pretty high.
(Merkel) With Cook coming in is that what you’re referring to? The only fee that is
applied to that one is $500.00 for the application fee to administer down in soon to be
the Assessor’s office.
(Knight) Mark, you’re voting on the bottom line correct?
(Stoops) Yes, bottom line total $3,500 as amended.
(this portion was not taped, if this needs to be viewed look at video)
Motion passed
Fund: 0101 County General
2006
Requested
Salaries and
Wages 1000.05
1000.06
1000.07
1000.08
1000.08
1000.09
1000.10
1000.11
Financial Manager
Executive Director
President of Commissioners
Commissioners (1)
Commissioners (2)
Office Manager
SWCD Secretary
Economic Development
Coordinator
2006
Approved
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
$30,260.00
$47,433.00
$27,773.00
$26,525.00
$26,525.00
$27,316.00
$23,809.00
#REF!
$35,536.00
94
1000.12
1000.20
Drainage Board (4 @ $25 per
mtg)
Part-time Hourly
Category 01 Total:
$2,400.00
$5,000.00
$2,400.00
$0.00
#REF!
$247,577.00
Stoops moved to reduce the 1000.20 part time line to $.0
(Poling) If you need to do that.
(Stoops) It doesn’t appear that it was used in 2004 and it seems like it hasn’t been used
in 2005.
(Kilmer) If we had someone who was sick that’s where the money would come from.
(West) we would be willing to do an additional appropriation if that would happen.
(Stoops) Would they still be able to find an hourly person if it wasn’t available in a line?
(West) Yes.
(Hawk) They can move money from another line temporarily.
Stoops moved Woods seconded to a new bottom line total of $247,577.
Motion carried unanimously.
02 SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
2000.04
2000.06
2000.05
SWCD Supplies
Commissioner Supplies
SWCD Technical Services
Supplies
2006
requested
$2,500.00
$1,500.00
approved
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
Operating
Supplies
Other Supplies
Category 02 Total:
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
(Poling) Under office supply, Soil and Water would like that number to be $1,500 in
supplies and $1,000 in Tech Services and I don’t know if it’s possible to do that at this
time or not.
(Stoops) yes, we can create a line 2000.05
Henegar moved, Stoops seconded to amend 2000.05.
95
(Brandon Knight) You’re creating 2000.05 of that $2,500 you want to put $1,000 in that
line?
(Stoops) Yes. We’ll call it S.W.C.D. Technical Services.
(Rice) Is the line you’re putting in the same type of fund? It has to be the same nature.
Motion carried unanimously.
3000.06
3000.11
3000.12
3000.14
3000.17
3000.20
3000.25
3000.27
3000.35
3000.37
Indirect Cost Recovery
Legal Notices
Ambulance Service
Social Services
Care of Patients & Inmates
Dues & Memberships
Animal Testing
Juv Commitments/DOC
Juvenile Detention
PCB Projects
$15,750.00
$20,000.00
$125,000.00
$100,000.00
$4,000.00
$10,000.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
$485,163.23
$450,000.00
$5,000.00
$15,750.00
$20,000.00
$125,000.00
$100,000.00
$4,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$300,000.00
$1,000.00
3000.04
3000.36
3000.40
Travel/Training/Promotion
SWCD Telephone
Employee Shuttle Service
$7,500.00
$750.00
$26,863.00
$7,500.00
$750.00
$20,000.00
3000.10
3000.29
Publications
Printing
$500.00
$2,500.00
$100.00
$2,000.00
Insurance
3000.07
3000.08
Official Bonds
Umbrella Liability/Workman's Comp.
$3,800.00
$556,303.15
$1,000.00
$556,303.15
3000.24
Equipment Maintenance
$5,000.00
$500.00
Mental Health Funding
3000.13
3000.23
3000.42
Stone Belt Center
Center for Behavioral Health
Options for Better Living (New)
$400,000.00
$450,280.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
$450,280.00
$300,000.00
3000.03
Postage
Burial of Soldiers/Government
Markers
Memorial Day Expense
Change of Venue
Software
4-H Clubs
PHNA/CHAPS
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$22,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$200,000.00
$22,000.00
$800.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$200,000.00
Communication &
Transportation
Utility Service
Debt Service
3000.15
3000.16
3000.18
3000.19
3000.22
3000.26
96
3000.30
3000.31
3000.32
3000.33
3000.34
3000.39
3000.41
3000.43
Historical Museum
Area 10/Rural Transit
BEDC
Animal Control Interlocal
Support for Boards
Homeland Security
Life Science Initiative
SBDC
Category 03 Total:
$6,000.00
$25,000.00
$60,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
$5,000.00
$25,000.00
$60,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,362,609.38
$2,683,683.15
(Poling) We had professional services at $10,000 you reduced it to $1,000. We had
hoped to use that for an update of our financial plan.
(Stoops) Which line is that?
(Poling) 3000.25
(Stoops) We discussed adding a line for small business center with the Commissioners
support in the 3000.43 line.
(Poling) I think that would be 3000.38. I don’t know. I would put it with the BEDC.
(Stoops) I think what’s happening is the council is approving specific amounts for
specific organizations.
(Poling) Options is not in the budget with a line and it is in this budget.
(West) It was included in the total.
Stoops moved, Woods seconded to move to approve the 3000 line as requested except
for the following amended lines.
3000.10 Publications fro $500.00 to $100.
3000.29 printing from $2,500 to $2,000
3000.07 Official Bonds from $3,800 to $1,000
3000.16 Memorial Day Expense from $1,000 to $800.00
3000.18 Change of Venue from $2,000 to $1,500
3000.30 Historical Museum from $6,000 to $5,000
3000.32 BEDC from $60,000 to $20,000
3000.34 Support for Boards from $2,000 to $0
3000.39 Homeland Security from $20,000 to $0
3000.41 Life Sciences from $40,000 to $20,000
3000.43 SBDC at $20,000
(Rice) Is the umbrella liability insurance new bottom line is that in the 3000 lines? So
you want to put the costs in the Commissioners line or excess levy?
(Stoops) Moved to put it in the excess levy line.
97
(Knight) I still have a different amount.
Stoops added to amended motion
3000.20 to $0
3000.25 to $1,000
3000.27 to $0
3000.35 to $300,000
3000.37 to $1,000
3000.40 to $20,000
3000.36 $750.00
3000.25 $10,000
3000.24 to $500.00
3000.15 $22,000
(Travis) We want 4-H to know that they will be getting their $4,000
(West) I would ask that we honor the Commissioners request and to back to what was
presented. I would like to ask the attorney to comment. The $300,000 what could that
potentially be increased to?
(Rice) Under state law if you go with the estimated and I think Brandon would agree. It
was upwards of 1.2 million. It’s .033 per one hundred dollars of the assessed
evaluations. So by state law you could fund developmental disability centers from zero
up to 1.2 million or whatever the math turns out to be.
(West) I can not support this budget. I could support a budget that included Options. But
I won’t support this budget now. Nor will I support an increase of a line that we added
unless all of this is up for public discussion, which I don’t think it has been.
(Jones) I don’t agree with it as amended. I think we should allow the commissioners to
prioritize where they think their money should go as it’s been amended. I also can’t
support it because B.E.D.C has been substantially cut. I could support Options for
Better Living.
(Woods) I think it’s our job to prioritize and work with the Commissioners on their
budget. I’m willing to make an amended motion to bring the B.E.D.C line 3000.32 back
to $60,000 and putting $100,000 in Economic Development.
Woods moved, Henegar seconded.
(Woods) My motion is to take line 3000.32 B.E.D.C Back to the requested $60,000
making between the three Economic Development line a total of $100,000 which was
the Commissioners original request. We simply cut part out of Life Sciences and shift to
fund small Business Development. It would be changing the bottom line to $2,683,683.
98
(Henegar) I would be happy to support the budget with Michael’s amendment. I think it’s
a great compromise it doesn’t jeopardize Options for Better Living and it makes some
good points.
(Travis) I disagree. I don’t want to support that motion and I think that we came to a very
good decision to create a new line item for something that broadens the definition of
economic development and I think the time has come to really make that a mission in
the county. The City has done that by leaps and bounds broadening the definition of
Economic Development.
(Stoops) I’d like to touch on a couple of issues. One is public discussion of the B.E.D.C.
As far as being limited to this budget’s hearing cycle and the B.E.D.C has had the
chance to present to the public both the City level and the County level, State level,
Federal level. It’s been covered in the media level. Time and time again they have a
very good marketing networking arm, which is their mission. I don’t think the B.E.D.C
lacks for recognition in Monroe County. I think Options for Better Living does so I find it
difficult to compare those two as far as what type of presentation have been made
before the council. As far as $20,000 for the B.E.D.C, $20,000 for Life Sciences and
$20,000 for the Small Business Center this actually represents an increase over the
past years funding of Economic Development for the Monroe County Commissioners in
this budget. For instance, the B.E.D.C in 2003 was funded at $50,000 this year we
proposed $60,000 in 2004 the B.E.D.C. was funded at $25,000 this year we propose
$60,000 in 2005 the B.E.D.C was funded at $30,000 this we propose $60,000.
(West) Thos numbers aren’t correct. As we saw earlier in the 2402 budget $20,000 from
the B.E.D.C came from the Economic Development fund in 2004.
(Stoops) Okay in 2004 $25,000 plus $20,000 from the fund Sue just mentioned. This
year we funded the B.E.D.C at $60,000 so it’s an increase. Let me tell you a little bit
about small development center. Right now they have funding of about $80,000. They
can use every fund they get for federal matching dollars. Every dollar we give the Small
Business Development center is worth twice of what we give. Every think is doubled.
That doesn’t happen in Life Science Initiatives. Maybe eventually it will.
Stoops moved, Travis seconded to make an amendment to Michael’s amended motion.
It would be the BEDC at $50,000. Life Sciences at $20,000 and Small Business
Development Center at $30,000.
Hawk – No
West – No
Jones - No
Henegar – Yes
Stoops - Yes
Woods – Yes
Travis - Yes
Motion fails, needs five to pass.
99
Michael moved to have the B.E.D.C at $60,000, Life Sciences At $20,000 and SBDC at
$20,000. The amendment includes the bottom line.
Hawk – No
West – Yes
Henegar – Yes
Stoops - Yes
Woods - Yes
Jones - Yes
Stoops - Yes
Motion carries.
04 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Land
Buildings
Buildings
4000.03
Fixtures, Files, Desks
Category 04 Total:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Stoops moved to accept line 4000 as presented.
Motion carries.
(Stoops) We will continue the Commissioners budget on Wednesday, August 17th at
11:45 a.m.
Meeting was recessed until August 17th at 9:00 a.m.
100

MINUTES MONROE COUNTY COUNCIL 2006 BUDGET

Transcription

Similar documents

voodoo3 3000 no tear

Northwest Woodworkers` Guild - Northwest Woodworkers Association

Modélisation et simulation des turbines éoliennes en vue du

Comfort Curve Keyboard

2016 Sponsorship Prospectus

Oxylog 3000

April 2008 - Sikorsky Archives

Hawk Plant Hire

ILOC Program

What I`ve learned: Tony Hawk