Present:  M. Koplinka-Loehr, N. Shinagawa, R. Booth, M. Sigler, P. Mackesey (arrived at 3:15 p.m.
Legislators:  T. Joseph, J. Dennis
Staff:  S. Whicher, N. Jayne, D. Squires, P. Meskill, P. Carey, J. Grogan, W. Skinner
Guests:   News Media
 

Called to Order

 Mr. Koplinka-Loehr called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

Approval of Minutes of December 22, 2005 and January 9, 2006

 It was MOVED by Mr. Shinagawa, seconded by Mr. Booth, and unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes of December 22, 2005, and January 9, 2006, as submitted.  MINUTES APPROVED.

Changes to the Agenda

 No changes were made to the agenda; additional information pertaining to items listed on the agenda was distributed.

Comments from the Public

 No member of the public was present.

Chair's Report

 Mr. Koplinka-Loehr had no report.

Finance Director's Report

 Mr. Squires reported on the creation of an audit subcommittee and said that would likely happen sometime soon.  He also reported on final sales tax figures for 2005 and said the County's share was $26,837,390.  He stated figures were basically flat for the month of December and if it weren't for some positive adjustments he believes the County would have been below last year's fourth quarter receipts.  Mr. Booth suggested there still may be some adjustments sales tax on utility/fuel cost forthcoming as December was a very cold month.  Mr. Squires noted the 2006 sales tax estimate is $27,171,000.

 Ms. Mackesey arrived at 3:15 p.m.

County Administrator's Report

 Mr. Whicher had no report.

Public Information Officer's Report

 Ms. Skinner had no report.

Budget Tutorial

 At this time Mr. Whicher and Ms. Jayne continued to provide the Committee with an overview of the County's budget process which was begun at the January 12, 2006 meeting.  The first area covered was the fringe "pool" and what items drive the 39 percent rate on all salaries charged to departments which determines the "pool".  Those items are:  payroll, retirement, FICA, Worker's Compensation, supplemental benefits (EAP and/or Emp. Recognition), and unemployment insurance.   Mr. Whicher explained that 11 percent of the pool this year is driven by retirement costs.  Mr. Whicher is predicting in 2007 retirement costs will drop to ten percent, however, he said this is an optimistic forecast.  He noted the County pays as it goes and the age of employees is not relevant in terms of the County's costs.  The State makes the retirement calculation and the County has no control over this figure as it is based on actual payroll dollars.   Worker's Compensation is dependent on claim activity related to the prior year; because Tompkins County is self-insured it has a relatively low cost for Worker's Compensation, but has a higher exposure if many claims are filed.

 Mr. Whicher reviewed a survey of fringe costs with other counties and also Ithaca College.  Conclusions from that survey were that Tompkins County has a lower percent of costs for health coverage than most other counties in the survey; however, Ontario County and Ithaca College figures were significantly lower.   He said one of his goals is to reduce the fringe rate charged to all County departments from 39 to 37 percent over the next few years.    He spoke of the reality of increasing health care costs and said the County cannot continue to sustain the large increases that have been experienced in recent years.  He noted the negotiated change in the prescription drug formulary (to 3-tier) is predicted to result in a -4 percent increase for prescription drug costs; however, health insurance costs overall have increased by 16 percent.   He expects the current fringe rate to hold through 2006 and possibly 2007 due to a "buffer" fund we have set aside due to a change in New York State accounting in 2004, but would not be sufficient in 2008.  Mr. Whicher said this will be a high priority in the coming year and many options will be explored, one of which will be a "cafeteria-type" health insurance program.

 Mr. Booth requested that one page of the document included in the advance agenda packet entitled "Budget Comparison by Committee" be produced in color. Jayne will prepare and distribute it.

 Mr. Whicher stressed that new legislators should pay particular attention to the local share as this is the part of the budget that needs close monitoring.  He said legislators will notice increases in many of the numbers; however, often those increases are also tied to corresponding revenues and may not affect the bottom-line local cost to the County.

Fiscal Targets

 Ms. Jayne explained that a "fiscal target" is the base dollar amount approved by the Legislature for a future budget year which a department will use to develop its budget.  Typically, a percentage figure of departmental budgets in the present year is applied across-the-board for County departments, enterprise units, and contract agencies.

 Mr. Joseph explained that the "target" is not intended to be what the eventual department budget will be.  It is set to some extent by where the Legislature wants to direct the whole budget.  The reason for doing this is for the department to prepare and present a budget that is within the overall guideline the Legislature intends.  Departments then submit "over-target requests" (OTR's) to justify the need for funding for those items that would be cut if not approved.  Generally, the most important areas of the department's budget are placed in the "base" budget.

 Mr. Joseph recalled the history behind this is because it is not possible to look at each and every line item within the budget vigorously.  There is simply too much complexity for any one citizen or legislator to understand.  Our present process provides a mechanism that pulls the things out that are the most marginal in the community value to consider.   The most necessary items go into the target budget and the things that a department could give up are submitted as over target requests.  When items such as plowing roads are submitted as an over target request and you assume everyone is acting in good faith, it basically means that there is not a lot that can be cut from that particular budget.

Discussion - Appropriations and Budget Adjustments for Negotiated Salary Increases

 Mr. Whicher provided the Committee with a brief history regarding the 2005 process for handling contract negotiations that were not finalized during the year, in the budget process.   He said departments were told that they would be made whole for negotiated salary increases once contracts were finalized, and accordingly, a sum was set aside within the General Fund.   He said the question at this point relates to the issue of some departments having rollover as a result of circumstances such as having had positions left vacant because mid-year adjustments were made for Management and Confidential salary increase decisions which has resulted in rollover.  He said the Legislature needs to answer the question of whether, in cases of perceived inequity regarding this policy, the department should be made whole or provided with funds only in cases where it is needed.  Mr. Koplinka-Loehr said it may not have been clearly communicated to departments that "potential" 2005 rollover funds due to staff turnover may not be allocated.   Mr. Booth said although he has a fairly clear understanding of this he would like additional information detailing specific amounts for each department before an "omnibus" resolution is designed. .

 Sheriff Meskill said although the 2005 process of handling this matter does not materially impact his department, he is concerned over the impact of a department head's ability to use rollover to manage a budget going forward if this 2005 anomaly is eroding trust in the spirit of the rollover policy.  He said he focuses on the bottom line of the budget and the only area he often has to shave is in labor costs.    He also said he would like to see a resolution adopted in a similar format to Resolution No. 139 of 2005 detailing each department's impact.   It was agreed that calculations would be prepared for each department with figures being presented to department heads.  Following that, this will be presented to this Committee for action in a different form similar to the format of Resolution No. 139, but may not be part of the resolution wording.

RESOLUTION NO.     - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $4,000,000 SERIAL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, NEW YORK, TO PAY PART OF THE $10,246,000 COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SHARE OF THE TOMPKINS CORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENT

 MOVED by Ms. Mackesey, seconded by Mr. Shinagawa.    Mr. Squires said this resolution proposes to borrow money to advance funds for the TC3 project due to delays in State reimbursement and College fundraising as it relates to construction cash-flow needs.  New York State has not yet financed its share of the Master Plan project; they have approved it but have not gone to market for the money.  New York State will not reimburse for expenses until paid bills are submitted. Mr. Squires said this project is going to start moving quickly and $20 million could be expended in the next 18 months to three years.  He also stated the true local share of this project for Tompkins County is $4 million.  He noted that Tompkins Cortland Community College intends to reimburse Tompkins County for the interest associated with these bonds but New York State will not.  A voice vote on approving the resolution and submitting to the full Legislature resulted as follows:  Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.  MOTION CARRIED.

RESOLUTION NO.    -  A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $10,000,000 SERIAL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, NEW YORK, TO PAY PART OF THE COST OF ROAD AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY

 MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Ms. Mackesey.  Mr. Squires explained that over the next two years the County will be working on several large roadway projects that are primarily financed by federal and state aid.  It is projected that several projects could be underway at the same time, and if this happens it would be difficult for the County to advance the cash outlay for the improvements without impairing the liquidity requirements of the organization.  This resolution would provide the authorization to borrow up to $10 million to finance the advance cash needs of the projects.  The federal and state guarantees grant reimbursement on the projects would be pledged to pay down the debt.  The cost of the borrowing would be a short-term expense limited to interest on the advanced grant funds.  Actual borrowing will not occur until firm bids are received on the projects for which we are advancing funds.  It is anticipated that the cost of any such borrowing in 2006 would be at a rate of 3.5 percent.   A voice vote on approving the resolution and submitting to the full Legislature resulted as follows:  Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.  MOTION CARRIED.

RESOLUTION NO.     -   INCREASE HOURS – STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY COORDINATOR

MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Ms. Mackesey, and unanimously adopted by voice vote, to approve the following resolution and submit to the Health and Human Services Committee.

WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Department of Social Services has a need to increase the standard work week of one Staff Development and Quality Coordinator position from 37.5 hours to 40 hours per week, and
WHEREAS, funding for this increase in hours was included in the 2006 budget and no further funding is required, now therefore be it
 RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services and Budget and Capital Committees, that the standard workweek for one position of Staff Development and Quality Coordinator (12-681) shall be increased in hours from 37.5 to 40 hours per week effective January 1, 2006.
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20

RESOLUTION NO.     -   REDUCTION IN HOURS – DIRECTOR OF OFFICE FOR THE AGING

MOVED by Ms. Mackesey, seconded by Mr. Shinagwaa, and unanimously adopted by voice vote, to approve the following resolution and submit to the Health and Human Services Committee.

 WHEREAS, the position of Director of the Office for the Aging was reduced from 40.0 hours per week to 35.0 hours per week effective July 21, 2002 and continued through December 31, 2005, as part of a program to reduce expenses due to budgetary constraints, and
 WHEREAS, the need for reduction of hours of the position Director of the Office for the Aging needs to continue from January 1, 2006 through February 28, 2006, now therefore be it
 RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services Committee, That the hours for the position of Director of the Office for the Aging (86/215) management labor grade P, should be continued at 35.0 hours per week from January 1, 2006 through February 28, 2006.  As of March 1, 2006 the position will revert back to 40.0.
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20

Review of Committee Goals

 At this time the Committee reviewed the list of goals included in the agenda packet.  Although not listed in priority order, Mr. Booth noted that the first goal: "Oversee implementation of the 2006 budget and the development of future budgets that maintain the County's fiscal health" be the top priority.

 Mr. Booth suggested for discussion by the relevant program committee the subject of County financing bridges on town roads.  He said he would like to have consideration given on the subject of whether the formula should be changed in the future in a manner that would reduce the County's cost.

Next Meeting

 Mr. Koplinka-Loehr announced the next meeting will be February 13; an agenda-setting meeting till be held on Tuesday, February 7th at 11:15 a.m.

Adjournment

 The meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Michelle Pottorff, TC Legislature Office