Present:    P. Penniman, M. Robertson, D. Booth, L. McBean, T. Todd
Staff:       S. Whicher, K. Smithers, W. Skinner, D. Squires, M. Dolan
Board Members:  T. Joseph, D. Kiefer

    Mr. Penniman called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m.

Changes to the Agenda

    The resolution entitled Opposing New Unfunded Mandates to New York State Counties was withdrawn from the agenda and replaced with a discussion on the issue of savings in the 2002 budget. 

    A discussion on the use of rollover monies was added to the agenda.

Approval of Minutes of April 30, 2002

    It was MOVED by Mr. Todd, seconded by Ms. McBean, and unanimously adopted by voice vote to approve the minutes of April 30, 2002 with the changes suggested by the Committee.  MINUTES APPROVED.

Chair's Report

    Mr. Penniman said he wanted to clarify when resolutions approved by the Committee are going to the full Board and when they are not.  He referred to a resolution approved at the last meeting that did not go to the Board when other committee members had expected it to.  Mr. Penniman explained the miscommunication and misinterpretation that occurred.  He also explained that it has been the past practice of the Board to allow a committee chair to decide whether or not to bring a resolution forward to the full Board.   Mr. Joseph said there is nothing in the Rules of the Board that says a committee chair is allowed to pull a resolution, however, it is done all the time.   He said it happens so frequently that it probably would place an obstacle on the Board if a rule were adopted that to prevent this.   There are often times when something has come up and there is broad agreement that the resolution needs further work and it simplifies matters if the Chair can withdraw the resolution.

    Ms. Robertson made a request that when a committee chair plans to withdraw a resolution from the Board agenda, that Board members be informed as soon as possible.

Finance Director's Report

    Mr. Squires handed out a list of Contingent Fund Report showing transactions to date.   He reported on sales tax receipts and said the April sales tax receipts continue the upward trend.  He said it is an unusually large increase over April of 2001.  He said County received $600,000 more in sales tax in April of 2002 over what was received last year in April.   Mr. Squires also reported on tobacco securitization revenue and said he will be closing the books for 2002.  The County budgeted $695,000 for 2002 and ended up with $812,000.   He said the County increased the budget amount from 2001 by $45,000 and he feels confident the budget estimate can be increased again for 2003.   Mr. Squires reported on the foreclosure auction and said the County had budgeted $100,000 in gains from sales at that auction.  Although he did not have final figures, he felt comfortable assuming the County's receipts had exceeded that budgeted amount also.

County Administrator's Report

    Mr. Whicher reported he received a communication from the New York State Association of Counties.  He said the one thing delaying the State budget has to deal with retirement, however, the budget is very close to adoption.   He also reported on CHIPS money and said the funds that were expected to be put back into the capital budget will not be included.   Mr. Whicher commended Mrs. Smithers on the time she has dedicated to working on budget scenarios.   He said the process that is in place asks departments to bring their scenarios forward to program committees for review.  Departments will have the responsibility for clarifying the overall impact of the reductions.  Committees are being asked to perform a review and give feedback as to where the department is headed and what looks feasible.  Mr. Whicher said during this review programs committees should systematically be asking departments what savings are being accomplished now and how realistic is their plan.

    Ms. Kiefer asked that all Board members receive information as soon as possible of when program committees will be meeting. It was suggested that department heads also receive this notification.  The Board Office will follow-up on this. 

    Ms. Kiefer requested that the entire Board be kept informed as to the actions taken by all program committees during this process.  The Board Office will follow-up on this request.

    Ms. Kiefer also requested that she receive budget material for all program committees.   Ms. Robertson requested the same information.  It was suggested that the Board Office work with Administration to coordinate this and to see if other Board members would also be interested in receiving this information.

Deputy County Administrator's Report

    Mrs. Smithers reported that a final certified copy of the adopted 2002 Tompkins County Budget will be prepared.  She said they had not planned on producing anything other than the Citizen Friendly Budget; however, pursuant to the Charter and Code, the County is required to produce a budget showing line items, prior year amounts, and the Capital Program.

Discussion - 2002 Savings and Rollover Process

    Mr. Penniman said there are differing opinions on whether the Board should formally try to adopt changes in the 2002 budget or see changes on an informal basis. 

    Mr. Booth said he has been in complete agreement with not trying to change the 2002 budget but felt the Administrator should work with department heads towards a targeted goal of savings in the 2002 budget.  He made the following proposal to the Committee:

1. The Board would direct the Administrator to work with department heads to identify 2002 savings and undertake this effort towards an identified dollar goal that the full Board would set.
2. He would keep track of those identified 2002 savings and periodically report to the Board on the status of those savings;
3. All of this would be done with the intention of amending the 2002 to as little degree as possible;
4. Do this with a number of ideas that have to be juggled (i.e. the relative scale of savings that can be realized in different department budgets, the nature of expenditures that will not be made in 2002, and the nature of the impact of not undertaking certain expenditures); and
5. Any identified savings not automatically be part of rollover.

    Mr. Booth said he feels the most important ideas is to work towards an identified target and have the Administrator directed by the Board to work with department heads to try to identify savings in the 2002 budget.   He noted the goal should be an overall County target and not by department.

    Mr. Joseph said the key part of what Mr. Booth is suggesting that is different from what the Committee said before is naming an identified target of savings.  He said he has been persuaded that there is value to doing this to Board members because it takes away some of the vagueness of telling a department to save whatever it can.  There is also a lot of public value to it because the Board can say it has taken the situation in hand and is saving a specific amount in 2002 as a step towards dealing
with the larger problem.

    Mr. Whicher expressed concern that there needs to be communication with department heads on a regular basis as to the status of this budget process.  He also said there is enormous sensitivity among department concerning rollover.  This is the one area that departments use in their judgement of whether the Board respects their management ability and their autonomy.  He suggested the Board try avoid  touching rollover or changing its concept if at all possible.

    Mr. Penniman said he will bring the concept of taking action on the 2002 budget back to the next meeting.  He said this could be done in combination with the decisions on rollover and the target. 

    Ms. Kiefer said she understands the public value, but does not understand the basis for establishing the target.  She said she has not heard a report on savings that are being achieved so far this year.  She said it was made very clear at the Government Operations Committee meeting this morning that some departments have already made substantial cuts through reorganizations in the past few years.

    Ms. McBean said department heads have already asked the Board to provide them with an amount to save.  She expressed concern that 2002 is almost half-way over and to put this off even more will push the Board into the 2003 budget process.    Ms. McBean said departments have already done some creative things and would like the Board to hear what they have done and how much has been saved.   There was a general feeling that the Committee would like to hear what has already been saved in 2002.

    Ms. Robertson said she needs much more information than she has at this time in order to avoid making isolated decisions.  She requested information on how cost savings were generated, particularly the Sheriff's Department. .

    Mr. Joseph said department heads have asked that the 2002 budget not be cut.  He said he agrees with that request.  However, what Mr. Booth is recommending is a compromise because it doesn't impose cuts, but asks the County Administrator to find areas where there could be savings.

    Mr. Squires said at the Government Operations Committee meeting earlier he recommended that the Committee not approve any rollover be used in the 2002 budget.  He said by allowing departments to use rollover monies it sends a mixed message.  Mr. Squires said the use of rollover represents an increase in spending and this results in a mixed message when the Board is asking departments to decrease spending at the same time.   He said it would be more prudent for the Board to hold on to this money until the budget is put together and then make a decision on its allocation. 

Discussion and Review - Request to Use Rollover-Eligible Funds

     At this time the Committee began reviewing requests for Rollover Funds.  Committee members noted the importance of departments providing clear and detailed explanations for their requests.  During the discussion, the following questions were raised and requests made:
   
 DSS - additional explanation needed about what caused the changes and what positions were left vacant if possible. 
 Planning Department - why is more money needed for Commercial Revitalization?
 District Attorney - it appears the Department is asking to spend everything that is available; is it a coincidence that the Department's needs match all money that is available?   The types of spending outlined in the requests are the types of things that it would seem most departments would be reducing spending in at this time.  Further explanation requested.    
 Probation - Mr. Joseph commented that the budget for electronic monitoring now appears to be over-budgeted because cases have been fewer than expected for the last two years.
 Sheriff - What are the efficiencies, what's the revenue over budget, and why is the Sheriff purchasing PERS units?
 Corrections - What is the Jail Transition Program?
 Facilities - What is the status of filling positions in that Division?
 Human Rights Department - How critical is the need to replace that equipment?
 Assessment - Is this rollover money from a previous year?
 County Clerk/DMV - what is the DMV counter and can it be delayed, will they save money this year, and are they still under-budgeting revenues?

    Committee members requested information prior to the next meeting on what actions other program committees have taken on these requests.  The Board Office will compile this information.

    The following resolution was MOVED by Ms. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Penniman:

    Ms. Kiefer explained that EMC passed a resolution in support of this which outlined reasons why the County should move forward with this.  The resolution states the USGS will contribute thirty percent towards the cost of the needs assessment if Tompkins County enters into a contract within this fiscal year, and this is expected to lock in the thirty percent match for Tompkins County as a USGS cooperator in the future.  She stated that this does not commit the County to doing anything at any particular time.
       
    Mr. Joseph said he is having a hard time supporting this since it is making preparations to undertake a very large project at a time when the County is cutting back on all kinds of programs and services.  He said, however, the thirty-percent match that USGS would permanently lock in is a persuasive argument that may convince him to support this.

    Ms. Robertson said there are two municipalities that are already moving forward with this, and feels this would be a wise decision for the County to make for the future because it is something that inevitably needs to be done.

    Ms. McBean said she understands the comments that have been made but cannot support any new spending at this difficult budget time.  Mr. Todd agreed. 

    Mr. Penniman noted this issue is very important to the constituents of Ulysses.

    A voice vote resulted as follows:  Ayes - 3 (Booth, Kiefer, and Robertson), Noes - 2 (McBean and Todd).  MOTION CARRIED.

    WHEREAS, the Board of Representatives wishes to contract with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a needs assessment for the preparation of detailed aquifer studies, and
    WHEREAS, the total cost of the needs assessment is $7,500, and
    WHEREAS, the USGS will contribute thirty percent towards the cost of the needs assessment, now therefore be it
    RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Planning and the Budget and Capital Committees, That the Director of Finance be authorized to appropriate $5,250 from the Contingent Fund as follows:

    FROM:        A1990.54400    Contingent Fund        $5,250
    TO:        A8020.54442    Professional Services        $5,250

    RESOLVED, further, That the County Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the USGS for the purposes of preparing an aquifer study needs assessment.
SEQR ACTION:  TYPE II-21
* * * * * * * * * * *

Review of Cost Savers

    At this time the Committee reviewed cost saver applications.  While discussing the application for Alternatives to Incarceration, it was requested that the Public Safety Committee be asked if ATI should be separated into separate programs within the budget process.  Mr. Penniman also wanted to know how the Public Safety Committee viewed the use of $78/day for the savings per day when an incarceration is avoided.

Adjournment

    The meeting Adjourned at 4:30 p.m.