Changes to the Agenda

Mr. Penniman said he would like to discuss the upcoming joint meeting with Department Heads.

Approval of Minutes

It was MOVED by Ms. Davis, seconded by Mr. Penniman, and unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes of March 4, 1999 with corrections that will be submitted by members. MINUTES APPROVED.

Chair’s Report

Mr. Joseph said Chair Mink referred to this Committee the issue of how to use funds that will be received as a result of the tobacco settlement. He said he needs to be clear that this Committee is only to look at how to treat those funds -- as just revenue or to recommend whether there should be a special use for it. He said the Committee would not say what the special use would be, just whether the tobacco revenue should be treated as distinct from other revenue and reserved for a special purpose. Mr. Joseph said before the Committee discusses this he wants to have the closed-out books from last year. This way the Committee can be aware of the County’s fiscal position before beginning discussion.

Mr. Proto asked if the County can be assured that there are no strings attached to the settlement money. Mr. Erb felt that assurance has been received; however, there is no way to predict future legislation.

Mr. Penniman said he would be interested in seeing a copy of the settlement and the arguments that were made.

Report from the County Administrator

Mr. Erb distributed a document notes from the February 24 joint meeting with department heads and also his recommendations on the budget process. He doesn’t believe the suggested changes in the budget process require any change to the County’s Charter and Code. He said the idea is to come up with a more cohesive budget presentation with a more global look at what happens with the budget than happens right now. The document read as follows:
 
 

CURRENT PROCESS:

Cost Saver and Fiscal Lever applications are due in April

Formal Budgets are due in early July

County Administrator reviews in August

Program Committee reviews Requests and County Administrator Recommends in September

During the discussion, it was stated that if the Board were to institute an across-the-board cut, it would make sense to have cost savers. Mr. Proto supported leaving cost savers in the budget process, and stated that just because they are there does not mean they have to be approved. Ms. West said there currently are between six to eight cost savers, and they have to go through an annual application process. There was a suggestion made to change this to a bi-annual application process. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr felt that even if the Board were to do away cost-savers, staff will still have institutional memory on which programs had cost saver status.

Mr. Joseph said he would like to hear from department heads who do it. He asked Ms. West and Mr. Erb to poll them and get their feelings on this.

Following discussion, the Committee agreed this needs to be discussed again with department heads at the March 24 meeting. Following that meeting, these recommendations will formally come before the Committee for its approval.

There was a feeling by members that cost savers and fiscal levers should be treated separately, and not included in the same resolution. Ms. West said when this is brought back to the Committee it will be brought back in two separate resolutions.

Mr. Joseph withdrew the motion. It will be discussed further at the department head meeting on March 24^th.

Continued Report from the County Administrator

Mr. Erb continued his report and stated the recommendations have been submitted to department heads for their comments and about six have returned comments so far. Some of those comments include: concern that this lengthens an already long process, delays submission of final requests, much of this would be happening during summertime, concern about the proposed schedule as far as the time between different deadlines, and concern over the loss of cost saver and fiscal lever designations.

Mr. Erb said as far as the County Administrator taking the lead in budget presentation, he thinks for the most part, department heads like this; however, there is a concern over the level of in-depth knowledge the Administrator may have in a department.

Mr. Joseph said he sees two things being different in the proposed process. He said since department heads are saying they want to have the County Administrator represent them to the Committee, he does not have a problem allowing this to happen; however, he is skeptical that it will actually happen. He said under the current process, department heads prepare and submit a budget. The County Administrator then sits down with them and negotiates changes. The department’s budget with these changes then become the County Administrator’s recommendations. He said most of the time the department has agreed with the County Administrator’s changes; however, there are still times when the Board overrides the County Administrator and goes with the department’s original request. Mr. Joseph said the proposed changes allows the department to say the County Administrator changed the budget request and they don’t like it.

There was discussion about the proposed budget calendar. It was stated that the Board does not formally approve this schedule It was agreed that budgets will be distributed to the Board on August 28^th.
 
 
 
 

Discussion on public budget forum

There was discussion on the public budget forum that has been held in September in the past. Ms. Davis felt that while the forum is an excellent idea, she does not feel it has worked as well in recent years as it did when it was originally held and suggested it be held as early as June. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr suggested having a citizens panel do an in-depth review of the budget process, followed by a presentation at the forum. Mr. Proto felt if the forum is held too early there will be nothing to act on. Mr. Proto suggested going to different communities to reach people who don’t usually attend meetings and get their opinions. Mr. Joseph felt the first public forum worked well; however, the ones that have been held since then have not been great successes.

Wendy Skinner stressed the need to bring the public into the budget process further. She said during last year’s budget forum, she found that people want to talk about the broad issues that surround the budget.

There was also discussion about the capital budget review process. Mr. Joseph felt capital budgets have not been discussed as much as they should have been. Mr. Proto suggested having a separate section in the budget that would include capital requests. Mr. Joseph said he and Ms. West will discuss the format of the book and will take this into consideration.

The following resolution was MOVED by Mr. Koplinka-Loehr, seconded by Ms. Davis.

WHEREAS, the County of Tompkins is home to three academic institutions whose population represents nearly one-third of the total County-wide population, and

Whereas, the County of Tompkins has been significantly impact by the legislation to exempt sales tax on text books, and

WHEREAS, the annual impact of the college textbook exemption to Tompkins County is $460,000 on $11.5 million in sales representing approximately 1.5 percent of the total County-wide sales tax collection, and

WHEREAS, the direct impact on the County’s real property tax rate is $258,750 with the remaining $201,250 impact on the sales tax distribution to the towns and the City of Ithaca, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Budget and Quality Planning Committee, That this Board supports and requests an amendment to Section1210 of the Tax Law, adding a new subdivision, allowing the County of Tompkins to omit the college textbook tax exemption, provided for in paragraph thirty-four of subdivision (a) of Seciton1115 of the same chapter,

RESOLVED, further, That the County of Tompkins encourages Assemblyman Luster, Senator Seward, and Senator Kuhl to introduce and support this legislation to the State of New York,

RESOLVED, further, That Tompkins County also supports the proposed legislation to amend Section 1210 of the Tax Law for all counties in New York State.

SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20

It was MOVED by Mr. Koplinka-Loehr, seconded by Mr. Proto, and unanimously by voice vote to approve the following resolution and submit to the full Board:

WHEREAS, the Sheriff’s Department has not boarded out any prisoners since the 15^th of January, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Public Safety and Budget and Quality Planning Committees, That the Finance Director is directed to appropriate $7,269 from A1190.5440, Contingent Fund, to cover the cost of boarding bills and actual housing expenses for January, 1999.

APPROPRIATION

FROM: A1990.54400 Contingent Fund $7,269

TO: A3150.54469 Boarding of Prisoners $7,269

BEGINNING BALANCE AS APPROPRIATED $150,000

Tioga County (1/1-1/15/99) $3,750

Wyoming County (1/1-1/7/99) $2,160

Yates County (1/7-1/11/99) $1,359

TOTAL EXPENSES $7,269

BALANCE $142,731

SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20

Report from the Deputy County Administrator

Ms. West said at the last meeting she and Mr. Erb were asked to take the conflicting responses to some of the questions on the budget survey and analyze them. She stated there are three steps in the budget process: date submitted, evaluation, and recommendation. She said the areas where there were conflicting responses were in the data and evaluation phase; this is how she broke down the questions. She said the list distributed are those areas that will lead the discussion at the March 24 meeting with department heads. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr asked Ms. West to indicate how the voting went on each of the responses.

Mr. Penniman said he had asked to discuss the March 24 meeting; however, discussion that has already taken place answered many of questions. He did comment on the issue of program evaluation, and said it is a side issue to the entire budget process. Mr. Joseph said he is still not clear how this Committee will address program evaluation. He will continue to look for ways to address this.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.