Present: T. Joseph, P. Penniman, N. Schuler, T. Todd, M. Koplinka-Loehr, F. Proto (arrived at

9:15 a.m.)

Excused: S. Davis

Staff: R. Erb, K. West, D. Squires, B. Grinnell-Crosby, M. Pottorff
 
 

Mr. Joseph called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m.

Approval of Minutes of December 7, 1999

It was MOVED by Mrs. Schuler, seconded by Mr. Todd, and unanimously adopted by voce vote by members present, to approve the minutes of December 7, 1999 as submitted. MINUTES APPROVED.

Chair’s Report

Mr. Joseph had no report.

Report from the County Administrator

Mr. Erb reported the wire transfer of tobacco funds has taken place and the dollar amount is only a few cents off from what was expected. He said he received correspondence from NYSAC that states tobacco consumption will play a role in the amount of money counties receive and that there has been a large drop in tobacco consumption. NYSAC is advising counties not to budget more than 85 percent of the anticipated money for 2000.

Mr. Todd asked if the amount of money received is based on tobacco consumed in New York State or nationally. Mr. Penniman said he believes amounts are based on national figures and the distribution would be based on a formula that includes population and Medicaid expenditures. Mr. Erb said the suit in New York City was about Medicaid expenditures, and that the formula that is being used is based on one-quarter of Medicaid and three-quarters on population.

Report from the Finance Director

Mr. Squires said the tobacco money that was received is now sitting in limbo, and he hopes that the auditors will not have a problem with it. At the present time he has the funds listed on a balance sheet as a preferred revenue because it is budgeted in the 2000 budget.

Mr. Squires distributed a report on monthly sales tax distribution. He said we are two months into the fourth quarter and first two distributions have been higher than last year. At the present time the collections total $18,100,000 against a budget of 19,350,000; and December payments are always the largest. He said the County generally retains 65 to 70 percent of whatever comes in, and he expects total sales tax revenue to be $20,000,000 for 1999. Because of this the County is not seeing impacts from things such as commercial users not paying sales tax on utilities. He also distributed a departmental payroll report. The biggest items are in the Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Social Services. He said the Sheriff's Department has been supplemented with overtime money so they are in good shape he noted the figure in the report does not reflect the $75,000 the Sheriff recently received. Most of the balances will be taken care of internally when departments clean up their accounts at year-end.

Changes to the Agenda

The resolution entitled Changes in Charge Structure - Tompkins County Home Health Care was added to the agenda.

Report from the Deputy County Administrator

Ms. West reported final printing of the 2000 budget is behind schedule because of a computer related problem. As soon as that is resolved they will be able to get it printed and distributed. She said it should be back from the printer by the end of the year.

The following resolution was MOVED by Mr. Koplinka-Loehr and seconded by Mrs. Schuler.

Mr. Proto arrived at 9:30 a.m.

RESOLUTION NO. - APPROPRIATION FROM 2000 CONTINGENT FUND FOR YOUTH PROGRAMS

There was confusion as to why this type of resolution is being proposed at this time. Following a brief telephone conversation between Ms. West and staff at the Youth Bureau, Ms. West informed the Committee that the Youth Bureau learned that State aid they were expecting would be less than they had budgeted for. Mr. Joseph said the County budget is full of estimates, and that it is too early to be making this type of adjustment before the year even starts. Following discussion and a need by some members to obtain further information, Mr. Joseph granted permission for the motion and resolution to be withdrawn.

Ms. Grinnell-Crosby said the County has an interim payment system with Medicaid at the present time; however, in January that will change to a prospective payment system. When asked by Mr. Joseph what this meant, she said she did not have the information and a clear understanding of what that will mean. Mr. Squires said this is a cost containment measure implemented by the government to lower the increase from year to year.

A voice vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Excused -1 (Representative Davis). MOTION CARRIED.
 
 

WHEREAS, Tompkins County's accounting consultant, Jack Venesky, CPA, has recommended changes in the Certified Home Health Agency fee structure to maximize Medicaid and Medicare revenues, and

WHEREAS, New York State currently promulgates rates on the day the County legislature approves them and it is therefore, desirable for Tompkins County to adopt the 2000 rates in December 1999, and

WHEREAS, all changes proposed were made to align charges with actual costs per unit of service as determined during Mr. Venesky's most recent financial and statistical analysis, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services and Budget and Quality Planning Committees, That the Tompkins County Health Department implement the charge structure below, as recommended by Jack Venesky, CPA, in order to maximize Medicaid and Medicare revenues.

Discussion - Budget Process

Mr. Joseph opened the discussion stating it has been about five years since the Board shifted to the current budget process. The Board has changed over to a process of program budgeting instead of departmental budgeting, and has used target and over target requests. A lot of tweaking and adjusting took place over the first few years, but by now everyone has become familiar to this system and Mr. Joseph said he wants to know whether it is meeting their needs. He said he would like to discuss whether members want to consider radical change, going back to the old way, or doing something entirely different. He said there are some department heads who don’t like what we are doing and have suggested such things as eliminating the carryover of salary money and doing away with rollover in salaries. He said if fiscal targets were adjusted by the contract increases in payroll, in exchange there would be no available rollover from payroll.

Mr. Joseph said his reaction to this is that change can't be made alone because as long as departments can still change things between lines, they can shift money to other budget lines; therefore, there would have to be a freeze on shifting money from the salary line.

There was discussion on ways departments have managed their budget by using the tool of salaries.

Mr. Koplinka-Loehr said he feels the process works alright, until the Board gets to the internal program evaluation process feeding into the budget process. He feels that until there is enough information, the over target request information is good enough. He felt that although it is a bit of work for departments, it is probably worth it until a more rigorous prioritization can be done.

Mr. Joseph said there have been some consistent complaints from departments and he is taking this opportunity to discuss those concerns and to also discuss why the budget is being handled the way it is. He feels the Board has lost the sense of why the budget is done the way it is.

Ms. West said the narratives and the requests are essentially going to be the same year after year because as long as they are dealing with a bare bones budget with no increase, departments will continue to ask for a maintenance of effort request. She feels it has become a rhythmic process that does not have much value.

Mr. Penniman thinks the process was designed to accommodate situations of fiscal stress where cuts need to be made and where there are areas of emphasis that need to be changed.

Mrs. Schuler said the County cannot be all things to all people and that the Board needs to ask itself if it wants to continue providing the same services, or whether it should be cutting back on services. She said this Board has never come up with a process or measurement to do this.

Mr. Proto said if the Board doesn't wish to see the same type of presentations it did this year, should be coming up with a process for reviewing those programs and evaluating new ones. Although this responsibility keeps being assigned, it never gets completed because of the extensive work involved.

Ms. West said she sees problems with the current budget because there are a lot of ongoing scenarios where ongoing expenses are being paid for with one-time money. She suggested that the Board establish a fund balance appropriation and stick with it.
 

Mr. Proto said a process needs to be developed to evaluate capital program requests. He feels a lot of work is put into reviewing the regular budget with little attention being given to the capital budget when that could throw the entire budget off.

Mr. Joseph said what Ms. West was suggesting was making the Over Target Request process stronger and doing it earlier. By changing the target from a zero percent budget to a five percent budget decrease, more information would be provided without necessarily changing the way the budget is being done. This is something that could be done during any budget year.

Mr. Todd asked if there are any places where there is data on programs the County is supporting where there is not a County department head in charge. Ms. West said she can provide him with a list; however, of the approximately $1 million that is allocated to non-County departments, $500,000 goes to Cooperative Extension.

Mr. Proto asked Mr. Erb what changes he would suggested making to the budget process. Mr. Erb said although he would ask for guidance on where the Board expects to end up, he feels the current system is a good one.

Mr. Joseph spoke of establishing a tax rate ahead of time and said although that is an administrators’ and department heads' fondest wish because of the stability and predictability it would provide, Board members needs are very different and to set the tax rate up front is to do so blindly without knowing what the consequences would be. He said the rate cannot be set until the Board knows what the impact is going to be on services. He doesn’t think the Board will ever set the tax rate without knowing what the consequences would be.

Mr. Erb asked if the Board would ever say what an acceptable level of fund balance spending would be. Mr. Joseph said he did not think this would ever happen.

There was discussion about how over target requests keep the Board from taking an in-depth look at base budgets. Mr. Joseph said all Board members receive copies of base budgets; however, it is true that attention is taken from them because it would be impossible to do a thorough examination of all budgets.

Mr. Koplinka-Loehr asked if there is a better way for the Board to get the information it wants. He sees the Board using the over target process as a blunt instrument to find out departmental priorities and needs when we should be aligning departmental requests with the County's Vision and Mission. He suggested asking Board members if they have any suggestions on sorting priorities and needs.

Mr. Penniman expressed concern that there are some very costly capital projects coming up in the next couple of years, and said it would be easier to handle those increases if there was a lower target. He thinks having more over target requests can be painful but could be necessary and prove to be helpful. In general, he feels it is natural for people to want to know what is going to happen than to have positions in limbo.

Mr. Proto thinks that program committees should be charged with doing periodic reviews throughout the year because committees are not being used as effectively as they could be during the budget process. He emphasized that each Board member represents a different constituency whose residents have different needs. He said he does not feel operating as a committee of the whole during the budget process is effective because the majority depends on who shows up for the meeting. He questioned how fair this is to departments, and asked that this process of working as a committee of the whole be reviewed.

Mrs. Schuler said the Board spent a lot of time and effort developing its mission and vision and departments should know how their programs fit into them. She commented she likes the committee of the whole process.

Mr. Erb said the main difference from his current position to his previous job in the State of Maine is that he has had to shift from the role of advocate to gatekeeper. Since there is not a substantial growth rate here he has to try to slow spending down. He said he will be working with Kathy West in January on some projections for 2001 using what it now known about the capital program. Mr. Erb thinks the capital program was shortchanged this year and he has concern over the lack of a relationship between the operating and capital budgets.

Ms. West agreed with Mr. Erb and said more emphasis needs to be made in January and February for budget forecasting on next year and the year beyond. She said she would not suggest establishing a tax increase ahead of time because at that time the Board would not know what would be acceptable. She stated establishing budget guidelines are going to be critical this year because of capital projects and items that are being paid for with one-time money.

Mr. Proto said the Board needs to be aware of changes in the community such as the impact of Cornell University building housing on campus will have on sales tax.

Mr. Joseph said the subject of program evaluation has been discussed several times. This committee was charged with program evaluation; however, when he was about to bring it to the Committee a while ago, Mr. Erb and Ms. West convinced him not to because they had an idea in mind. Mr. Erb thinks individual departments need to develop their own mission if they haven't already done so. He does not feel the Board should jump into doing a County-wide evaluation because of the amount of time that would take. He suggested a more modest beginning to the process and the possibility of obtaining outside expertise.

Following a lengthy discussion, there did not seem to be a lot of interest in revamping the budget process. Minor modifications in the budget process may be made in response to comments made on this year's budget survey.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:09 a.m.