MINUTES
JOINT MEETING
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT QUALITY COMMITTEE
JUNE 21, 2005        3:30 P.M.        LEGISLATURE CHAMBERS
Facilities and Infrastructure Committee
Present:  P. Penniman, Chair (arrived at 3:48 p.m.); D. Winch; D. Kiefer
Excused: N. Schuler and T. Todd

Government Operations Committee
Present:  M. Lane, Chair; G. Totman; K. Herrera; D. Kiefer; D. Booth

Planning, Development and Environmental Quality Committee
Present:  K. Herrera, Chair; M. Lane; B. Blanchard; F. Proto
Excused:  N. Schuler

Staff:      C. Covert, Clerk of the Legislature; E. Marx, Deputy County Administrator/Planning Commissioner; J. Wood, County Attorney; S. Whicher, County Administrator; W. Skinner, Public Information

Guests:  T. Joseph, Chair of the Legislature; M. Robertson, Legislator; M. Koplinka-Loehr, Legislator

Called to Order

    The meeting was called to order at 3:36 p.m.  Mr. Joseph spoke about protocol for joint meetings and asked if Legislators wanted him to run the meeting and if so requested unanimous consent.  It was MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Mr. Lane, and unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to have Chair Joseph run the meeting. 

Proposal to Create Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Position

    At this time, Mr. Joseph reviewed the material distributed by staff and Legislators and reviewed the process for discussing and approving the proposal to create a Commissioner of Planning and Public Works.  He said there have been several concerns raised including a desire to have an engineer in the position and an opinion that the Planning Department has been short changed by having a half-time Commissioner; Mr. Marx responded to these concerns in the memorandum distributed. 

    Ms. Blanchard requested that this proposal be looked at as a structure and not creating a position with one particularly person in mind.

    Mr. Whicher began with reviewing the existing structure and the problems that he has experienced with the interim proposal.  It has become apparent that more direct management oversight is needed in Public Works and Administration is in need of a full-time Deputy County Administrator to manage and lead the changes in the culture of the organization--especially in the areas of diversity and performance measures. 

The following three options were presented and the pros and cons for each were reviewed:

Options:
1. Continue with existing structure
a. Administration would continue Administrative oversight
b. Ed would return to position of Planning Commissioner
c. Cabinet structure would continue as it currently exists
d. Administration will need to elevate the responsibilities and job duties of the proposed Deputy County Administrator position to include upper level management responsibilities and experience.  This may mean that Administration would have less capacity to lead the anticipated changes in culture.

Pro
 i. Least costly
 ii. Least disruptive - Allows Cabinet model to continue as it currently exists
 iii. Restores fulltime Planning Commissioner
Con
 iv. Does not address the identified need for additional direct management in Public Works
 v. Lost opportunity to take advantage of improved synergy between Planning and Public Works
 vi. Increases workload in Administration


Estimated Cost:  There may be some additional costs if the revised Deputy position is rated at a level above the proposed position due to increased direct management responsibilities.

2. Create a combined Planning and Public Works Commissioner position
a. Eliminate the dual role of Deputy County Administrator and Planning Commissioner
b. Fill the proposed Deputy County Administrator position with primary responsibilities for the culture of the organization and administrative oversight
c. Cabinet structure would continue as it currently exists

Pro
 i. Potentially minimal cost
 ii. Takes full advantage of improved synergy between Planning and Public Works
 iii. Provides needed management and accountability in Public Works
 iv. Provides needed fulltime Deputy in Administration

Con
 v. Concentrates a good deal of authority and responsibility in one position
 vi. May be perceived as undermining Cabinet responsibilities
 vii. May be perceived as avoiding desired diversity recruitment goals  

Estimated Cost:  Potential cost of up to $50,000 to fund one half of Commissioner position.

3. Fill the Public Works Commissioner position
a. Eliminate dual role of Deputy County Administrator and Public Works Commissioner
b. Ed would return to position of Planning Commissioner
c. Future of cabinet structure would be determined by Public Works Commissioner
d. Fill the proposed Deputy County Administrator position with primary responsibilities for the culture of the organization and administrative oversight

Pro
 i. Provides maximum management and accountability
 ii. Restores fulltime Planning Commissioner
 iii. Provides needed full time Deputy in Administration

Con
 iv. Most expensive
 v. Lost opportunity to take advantage of improved synergy between Planning and Public Works
 vi. May be perceived as undermining Cabinet responsibilities

Estimated Cost:  Approximately $150,000
    Mr. Whicher stated his recommendation is option two.  Creating the combined Planning and Public Works Commissioner position will provide increased synergy between Planning and Public Works, needed management responsibility, and accountability for Public Works at a cost that would not exceed $50,000.  This option would also provide the resources necessary to restore the full-time Deputy in Administration at no additional cost.

    Mr. Penniman arrived at this time.

    Mr. Winch spoke about his opinion on this issue and feels the position should be filled by a P.E.  (Professional Engineer).  One of his strongest reasons is how the organization is perceived from the outside.  He believes someone of this stature would be held in high regard in areas of building intermunicipal cooperation.  Mr. Marx referred to his memorandum that addressed these comments and said there two reasons he believes a professional engineer is not necessary.  The first reason is there currently exists engineering expertise in the divisions and the service contracted out when necessary.  The areas needing to be addressed in Public Works include assistance with management, the structure, and leadership with community relations.  The need for engineer expertise has not been identified as an area of need.  The second reason he stated is in discussing a combined position the Planning Department is not interested in being managed or led by an individual with a P.E.

    Ms. Kiefer spoke about the information she distributed.  She feels the Planning Department needs and deserves a full-time Commissioner and that the Public Works Commissioner should have a P.E. for many of the same reasons stated by Legislator Winch.  She spoke in support of two full-time Commissioners in each of the Departments with the understanding that financially it is the most expensive.  At this time, she highlighted the changes she would propose making to the County Charter.  She recommends the language in the Public Works section parallel other departments.  The Commissioner of Public Works would be a competitive position and a P.E. required.  The unique cabinet structure would continue and could be expanded to include other programs.  Powers and duties of the Commissioner and reference to other titles mentioned in New York State law added similar to the Charter article prior to changing the structure of the Public Works Department.    She feels that "adhering to parallel structure of the sections of the Charter, and attempting to include language that allows for full-time Commissioners (when we can afford that) as well as a combination of two positions (if and when deemed absolutely necessary) may be an acceptable compromise."  One comment made at this meeting she does not agree with is that synergy would be lost; she feels that departments can work closely together. 

    Mr. Lane reported the Charter Review Committee has looked at the issue of a fulltime Public Works Commissioner, but did not take action to re-instate the position.  He is not convinced there is a need for a fulltime Commissioner of Public Works mainly because the various divisions report through the cabinet system are basically autonomous within themselves.  He again commented that he does not see how the cabinet structure has failed.  He understands that one major division has had problems, but with the new hire he hopes the issues will be resolved.  He supports maintaining status quo and hiring a Deputy County Administrator. 

    Mr. Totman spoke about the proposed position and cost estimate of $50,000.  He reminded Legislators that when the position of Public Works Commissioner became vacant a few years ago, the County did not take back the money that was funded for said position.  He supports having one person on-site serving as Public Works Commissioner.  The people he has talked to about this issue feel the position should include engineering experience.  He also feels the individual being considered for the proposed position should not be present for the discussion.

    Ms. Blanchard reiterated her support for the proposal and feels it is an important function of County government.  She said she was disappointed with the remarks made by Legislator Winch.  She has been a professional planner for forty years and disagrees with the comments made about analytical thinking.  The response from Mr. Marx concerning leadership, management, etc. completely describes what the Planning Department and Public Works Department need in her opinion.  The most successful Public Works Administrator she knows has worked in major cities and is now a Facilities and Public Works Manager for the University of Pittsburgh and has a Planning Degree from Cornell University.

    Mr. Joseph clarified that the issue is not just whether to create a joint Commissioner position, there are several issues to resolve and choose options.  Three options have been presented by the County Administrator and said a decision needs to be made. 

    Mr. Whicher explained in more detail the responsibilities he would require of a Deputy County Administrator.  Following a lengthy process with staff, the conclusion and recognition was the messages about diversity and performance measures need to be clear and come from Administration.  He said these are the areas identified that he needs help with.

    Ms. Kiefer feels that oversight in the public safety area is also needed. 

    Mr. Proto asked if the County were obligated to solicit applicants if the joint Commissioner position was created.  Mr. Whicher said that by creating the joint position it does not require the open recruitment process because fifty percent of the position is already filled and Mr. Marx holds the civil service rights to the Planning Commissioner position. 

    Mr. Proto clarified that the three options presented do not preclude other Legislators from making or offering other ideas or suggestion. 

    Mr. Proto further commented that he, too, does not feel that synergy would be lost between the two Departments.  His concern is only having "one set of eyes" looking at things.  Mr. Whicher commented that it is not implied that synergy would be lost, the joint Commissioner position could maximize it.

    Mr. Penniman spoke in support of the proposal as submitted by Mr. Whicher to create a joint position.  He trusts the County's managers because he feels they know what the issues they are trying to address.   There are many options an organization can use to structure itself and one criteria is to make best use of what we have.  He did comment that he could be persuaded to have separate Commissioners, but feels the current proposal is the best option. 

    Ms. Robertson agreed basically with the comments made by Legislators Penniman and Blanchard.  She spoke briefly about the layers of management and Mr. Whicher replied that he felt it was a similar structure to the Department of Social Services. 

    Mr. Booth said when this was first proposed, he was the one that was most concern with the top level position in Public Works not having a P.E.  However, as this subject has been discussed by division managers, he is now convinced the Department can be managed without an individual having a P.E.  The one concern he continues to have is that he does not feel it will be a 50/50 split between the two Departments as more time will be spent at Public Works.  He does feel, however, there are important synergies. 

    Ms. Herrera agrees that Mr. Whicher needs more help; however she does not feel the proposal for a joint Commissioner is the best "fit" for the organization.  She wants to find a way to help Mr. Whicher and get the Departments of Public Works and Planning what they need.   

    No further discussion followed and Mr. Joseph asked each of the Committee Chairs to ask that a motion be made for each of the resolutions presented.

   Facilities and Infrastructure Committee
    Mr. Penniman, Chair, asked if a Committee member wished to make a motion.  No member of the Committee wished to make a motion.

    Government Operations Committee
    Mr. Lane, Chair, asked if a Committee member wished to make a motion.  It was MOVED by Mr. Booth, to approve the resolution to amend the Charter as proposed by Mr. Whicher.  MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

    It was MOVED by Ms. Kiefer, seconded by Mr. Booth, to approve the following resolution.  A voice vote resulted as follows:  Ayes - 2 (Booth and Kiefer); Noes - 3 (Herrera, Lane, and Totman).  MOTION FAILED.

RESOLUTION NO.     - CREATION OF POSITION - COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS

WHEREAS, a principle of good government is that public investments in infrastructure be made in accordance with a long range plan, and
WHEREAS, Tompkins County’s infrastructure is managed by the Department of Public Works, and
WHEREAS, long-range planning activities of County government are conducted by the Planning Department, and
WHEREAS, integration of the Planning and Public Works functions of County government offers many opportunities for more effective management of County infrastructure and for maximizing the benefits of that infrastructure to the community, and
WHEREAS, Tompkins County government has previously had the position of Commissioner of Public Works which position, for financial reasons, was not filled when it was vacated five years ago, and
WHEREAS, current and future challenges facing the Public Works Department warrant the oversight and leadership provided by a Commissioner level position in Public Works, and
WHEREAS, financial constraints continue to work against looking at a full-time Public Works Commissioner at this time, but filling the positions of Commissioner of Planning and Commissioner of Public Works with a single individual can provide for the better integration of the Planning and Public Works functions, and
WHEREAS, the organizational structures for the Planning and Public Works Departments are amenable to oversight and leadership by a single individual, and
WHEREAS, a savings to taxpayers can be realized by filling the two positions with a single individual, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That until such time as we can afford a full-time Public Works Commissioner, the positions of Commissioner of Planning and Commissioner of Public Works may be filled by a single individual.
SEQR ACTION:  TYPE II-20
* * * * * * * * * *

    Planning, Development and Environmental Quality Committee
    Ms. Herrera, Chair, asked if there was a motion a Committee member wished to make.  It was MOVED by Ms. Blanchard, to approve the resolution to amend the Charter as proposed by Mr. Whicher.  MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

Adjournment

    It was MOVED by Mr. Lane, seconded by Ms. Herrera, and unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to adjourn the meeting at 4:55 p.m.


Tompkins County Home Page
 Tompkins County Legislature's Page
Comments or questions