Budget and Capital Committee
January 22, 2007
3:30 p.m.
Scott Heyman Conference Room
Present: M. Koplinka-Loehr, R. Booth, K. Luz Herrera, N. Shinagawa, M. Hattery (arrived at 3:37 pm..)
Staff: S. Whicher, N. Jayne, County Administration; P. Carey, DSS; S. Estes, Personnel; B. Grinnell-Crosby, Health Department; D. Squires, Finance; M. Pottorff, Legislature Office
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m.
No changes were made to the agenda.
Approval of Minutes of January 8, 2006
It was MOVED by Ms. Herrera, seconded by Mr. Shinagawa, and unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes of January 8, 2007 as submitted. MINUTES APPROVED.
Chair’s Report
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr reported on the upcoming NYSAC Conference and stated there are several items of interest to counties on the agenda. He has a copy of the agenda for anyone who is interested.
Finance Director’s Report
Mr. Squires distributed a sales tax receipt summary and General Fund statement. He said he will not know what the first quarter of sales tax receipts are until May. He also noted that it is very unlikely the County will be able to use sales tax to fill budget gaps in the upcoming year. He reported the Audit Subcommittee will meet on February 12th following the next Budget and Capital Committee.
Mr. Hattery arrived at 3:37 p.m.
County Administrator’s Report
Mr. Whicher had no report.
Road Patrol
RESOLUTION
NO.
- APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENT FUND – AUTHORIZATION TO PAY ROAD PATROL
CONTRACT NEGOTIATOR COSTS FROM THE CONTINGENT FUND
It was MOVED by Ms. Herrera, seconded by Mr. Hattery, and unanimously adopted by voice vote, to approve the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Employees Union of the Tompkins County Sheriff’s Department has been working without a contract since March 1, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Legislature authorized the negotiating team to hire a professional negotiator by Resolution No. 162 of 2006, and
WHEREAS, the negotiating team has entered into an agreement with Roemer Walens & Mineaux, LLP to provide negotiating services in the amount of $15,000, and
WHEREAS, no funds have been budgeted or allocated for these costs, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Budget and Capital and Personnel Committees, That negotiator fees n the amount of $15,000 will be paid from the Contingent Fund,
RESOVED, further, That the Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to make the following payment from the Contingent Fund:
FROM: A1990-54440 Contingent Fund $15,000
TO: A1430.54442 Professional Services $15,000
RESOLVED, further, That this Contingent Fund appropriation will not affect the Department’s 2007 rollover allocation.
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20
* * * * * * * * * * *
Budget Survey Results
The Committee reviewed an updated document containing responses from department heads and Legislators to the recent budget survey. Ms. Jayne highlighted some of the key conclusions she found in going through the responses:
Those areas where there was alignment between department heads and Legislators:
No Legislative Directed Reductions should be requested late in the process;
There is a desire to review the Over Target Budgeting process;
There is a strong feeling that it would be useful to have a session between Legislators and department heads; and
Program review would not be a good way to determine County-wide priorities.
Those areas where there was not alignment between department heads and Legislators:
Budget Training;
Adequate time for presentation;
“Expanded Budget Committee process worked well”; and
Periodic spending review by department at Program Committees would not be useful
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr will try to
develop some proposals based on survey responses for the Committee to consider
at the next meeting.
Mr. Hattery said he does not think LDR’s should be part of the process; they are cumbersome and add complexity to the process that is already being undertaken by the Legislature. He would rather just hear from the County Administrator that the Administrator is being asked by the Legislature to do something that is not possible. Mr. Hattery also expressed disappointment at the survey response rate and suggested requiring all departments and Legislators to respond with the assurance they would be given anonymity. He also asked that if a survey is conducted in the future, that an outside source conduct it.
The Committee discussed the response rate and offered ideas as to ways to improve the process. Ms. Carey suggested including department heads at the front end of designing the survey; Mr. Koplinka-Loehr noted this an another example where there needs to be dialogue between Legislators and department heads. She also said community-based public forums are a good idea but that they should happen at the same time as discussions are being held between department heads and Legislators.
Public Information Program
Ms. Lynch said community input in a balanced way early in the budget process would be valuable. The Public Information Advisory Board (PIAB) would like to put together some community forums early in the process and before the April budget retreat of Legislators to try to get input and a sense of what some of the challenges are going to be this year. One of the challenges they will face in setting these forums will be making them representative of all the communities. They are planning to have three public forums and have tentatively scheduled the following areas in which to hold them that they feel would accommodate most of the public: City of Ithaca, Town of Enfield, and the Town of Dryden. The Public Information Advisory Board will meet next on January 25th to discuss this further.
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr suggested a
one-time reconvening of the Community Advisory Panel that was created three
years to examine the County’s budget process. The purpose of reconvening that group would be to present
them with budget survey and community forum responses and obtain their
perspective, while also getting feedback about what they are hearing in the
public.
Ms. Herrera said although it will not be the intention, the forums will be somewhat self-selecting. She said if the PIAB has a goal of being completely representative it is going to be difficult to attain that. She said this should be understood at the beginning - what the end result may be, and stating to all present at the forms that an attempt was made to include as many people as possible.
Mr. Booth said a general ground rule should be established at the beginning that everyone participating in the forum should identify themselves and any connection they have to associations or groups.
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr asked the Committee if they felt these public forums would have value.
Mr. Hattery said these types of forums do not provide him with any information about priorities. They do provide value in terms of public input.
Mr. Booth said it can be valuable to get a “pulse” from the community but it will not provide him with any useful information in terms of priorities. Allowing people to speak and grouping comments together may, however, be useful.
Ms. Herrera said a public forum is for the public; it is a way the public gets more familiar with the terms that are used and what the County is trying to explain. This is one way for the County to obtain the public trust.
Ms. Carey cautioned that the forum not be framed around the idea of taxes versus services.
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr asked Ms.
Lynch to start circulating a memo about the forum after the January 25 PIAB
meeting.
Mr. Whicher noted that department heads need to be brought in and made a part of the process. It was the consensus of the Committee that there needs to be discussions with department heads sooner rather than later. He referred to the responses from the survey and said one of the strongest comments relate to the desire for there to be a forum between Legislators and department heads.
The Committee discussed possible ways in which to hold a forum between Legislators and department heads. Comments included: meetings could be a combination of large, facilitated discussions and also a cabinet structure format; meetings should not be organized around program committees; meetings should not be held in Legislature Chambers particularly if television cameras were on; meeting could be held after a Legislature meeting at a different location.
Mr. Koplinka-Loehr and Mr.
Whicher agreed to meet to discuss what message should go out from this
meeting to let staff know their
voices are being heard and that efforts are being undertaken to establish a
dialogue with the Legislature and department heads.
Sales Tax Medicaid Intercept Option
Mr. Whicher reported on the New York State Medicaid Intercept Option that was enacted under Governor Pataki’s program to cap county Medicaid costs. Under this reform, effective January 1, 2008, counties have the option of either paying to the State a certain percentage of their local sales and use tax revenues or remitting a “capped” Medicaid payment which grows at annual rate specified in law. The State of New York will calculate how much a County will be spending on Medicaid and then calculate a percentage based on the sales tax piece.
Mr. Whicher said Legislators need to read the information presented and consider the many variables that exist. A decision will need to be made in September.
Budget Strategies
The Committee discussed the
following budget strategies that were identified by the Legislature during the
2007 budget process:
1. Convert existing manual payroll system to an electronic system. Note: ITS has initiated a business process analysis on this proposal. The Committee felt that costs should be compared and if there are efficiencies that can be attained, proposals should be brought forward.
2. Review Rollover Policy. The Committee agreed to take this up in the upcoming months prior to the budget process beginning. Mr. Booth stated that salary and fringe benefit monies should be kept in the County’s central budget rather than placed in departmental budgets when there is not federal or state aid reimbursement involved. Ms. Herrera said there are often cries to examine the Rollover Policy during the budget process and this not the time to look at it; it should be done before the process begins. Mr. Hattery said he is in favor of finding a way to include representatives of department heads on this. Mr. Booth said the issue with the Rollover Policy doesn’t center around saving dollars; it is a philosophical question about the Legislature’s authority over spending and authorizing that spending.
3. Explore local early retirement incentive; this is a policy decision. Ms. Herrera cautioned that there would likely be a required contribution from the County. The Committee thinks this should be explored in tandem with the State and that department heads should be asked for input.
4. Continue revision of health insurance plans; this is a policy decision.
5. Review energy efficiency initiatives (vehicles, buildings, temperature settings, etc.); this should be done.
Budget Calendar
The Committee reviewed the tentative calendar for the 2008 budget process.
Solid Waste Annual Fee Refund List
The 2006 Solid Waste Annual fee Refund List was presented to the Committee; no action was required.
Goals
The Committee reviewed the
list of goals presented for 2007 by Mr. Koplinka-Loehr. He asked that members review the goals
and will present them at the next meeting for adoption.
TC3
Mr. Hattery said Dr. Carl Haynes, TC3 President, will be contacting Mr. Joseph and Mr. Koplinka-Loehr with a request to discuss long term fiscal targets for TC3.
Request by Committee Member
Mr. Hattery said he would like this Committee to review examining if the
County wants to broaden what it does with the Room Occupancy Tax. He suggested allocating it between its
current use and economic development.
He also would like to receive history of Room Occupancy Tax monies.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Michelle Pottorff TC Legislature Office