MINUTES
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
JULY 20, 2005
2:30 P.M.
SCOTT HEYMAN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present: M. Lane,K.
Herrera, R. Booth, D. Kiefer
Excused: G. Totman
Staff: S. Whicher, W. Skinner, County Administration; G. Potter,
Information Technology Services; S. Dewitt, E. Cree; Board of Elections;
V. Coggin, Assessment; J. Wood, County Attorney; D. Squires, Finance
Legislator: M. Robertson
Guests: P. Hubbell, Town of Enfield Board Member
Called to Order
Mr. Lane called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.
Changes to the Agenda
No changes were made to the agenda. In response
to Mr. Proto's comments at the Legislature meeting last evening, a preliminary
discussion was requested by Ms. Kiefer on the subject of the Supreme Court's
decision with regard to a broader use of eminent domain. Time
constraints did not permit this discussion to take place.
Chair's Report
Mr. Lane distributed copies of a memorandum that was received
from Peter Stein several weeks ago with regard to assessments. He also
distributed copies of a response to Mr. Stein from Valeria Coggin, Director
of Assessment.
County Administrator's Report
Mr. Whicher said at the last meeting he was asked to prepare
goals and objectives; he will try to have a draft of these by the end of
this week. He reported he has been working on the 2006 County budget
and said at this point he is facing $1.8 million of needed reductions to
get to a zero percent tax levy increase. He noted this is before considering
any over-target requests.
Ms. Kiefer spoke of the resignation of Mikel Shakarjian
and asked how her work duties were going to be handled. Mr. Whicher
said Heather Stewart will likely be working on revisions to the Administrative
Manual. He stated that the position is presently funded through the
capital program and will be transferred to Facilities.
Finance Director's Report
Mr. Squires updated the Committee on this year's foreclosure
process and stated there was one parcel that was recommended to not be foreclosed
upon and sold to New York State instead. He said someone was reported
to be living on the property and he went to the site and tried to locate
the individual. He could not find the person; however, he found a mailbox
with the parcel address on it and left a note asking the person to contact
him. Three weeks later he received a phone call from the person
living on the property and informed them that the County now owns the property
and intends to sell it to the State. He said the person he spoke
with is the owner of record and is currently residing in a shed on the property.
He questioned whether the person is in need of assistance and said he referred
the situation to the Department of Social Services.
Mr. Squires also reported that gentlemen came in to his
office to pay back taxes on a land-locked parcel that was sold at the auction.
The man was shocked but was provided with copies of notification of the foreclosure
that he not only received, but signed for. Mr. Squires
said the land was purchased by an individual who has bought other parcels
in the past, and he believes there is a possibility the two parties can work
out an arrangement.
In July the foreclosure process started all over again
with the inventory as of this date for commercial properties being 101 and
totaling $209,000 in unpaid taxes. He noted it will probably be a lot
less at the end of the process. He also reported one of the properties
in foreclosure is Biggs A with $17,000 in unpaid back taxes and another is
a mobile home park. There are currently 83 residential properties totaling
$663,000.
Ms. Robertson inquired about the status of tax payments
by Lakeside Nursing Home. Mr. Squires said they are paying their
current taxes. They are also making serious efforts to have the courts
liquidate their liabilities.
County Attorney's Report
Mr. Wood had no report.
Public Information Coordinator's Report
Ms. Skinner reported that a small group of employees got
together to discuss the County's newsletter "County Corridors" and decided
to conduct a survey of employees. She provided the following statistics:
219 of 750 surveys were returned; 90% of employees want the newsletter to
return; 50% like it posted on the County's website and 50% prefer a paper
copy. Ms. Skinner said she has received a lot of price quotes for printing
and if a quarterly newsletter was produced that was kept to minimum size,
the cost would be approximately $2,000 per year plus postage. She said
there probably is enough money in the Administration budget this year and
hopefully it can receive future funding and become a fixture again.
She said she sees the newsletter as a useful tool for a number of reasons,
including that it fosters a sense of togetherness while also being a means
to get information out to employees.
Information Technology Services
Mr. Lane said there has been a lot of press lately about
abuse of computers by employees in areas across the country and thought it
would be useful to this Committee to hear a report from the Director of Information
Technology Services on the County's Communications Policy.
Mr. Potter said has been working on revisions with Anita
Fitzpatrick, Commissioner of Personnel, and department heads on this issue.
He provided the Committee with a history of equipment that was put in place
on the County's server. A part of this equipment acts as a firewall
and intrusion detection system, and another that acts as an e-mail filtering
system that identifies SPAM and also automatically deletes e-mail with known
viruses. He explained that a proxy server is also in place, which is
an appliance that all internet access goes through and tracks many different
areas such as where an employee has been on the internet and how much time
has been spent there. Mr. Potter said this automatically blocks access
to sites such as pornography, gambling, violence, and other categories that
can be turned on or off.
Mr. Potter said when talking about Internet use and the
County's Communications Policy there are three different categories:
policy, standards, and guidelines. As they try to deal with the ever-changing
use of the internet and changes that occur on the outside they left the standards
clause open-ended to deal with those types of things.
Mr. Potter explained that the ITS Department has been
testing the proxy server since Fall, 2004, and started with ITS, Administration,
and Personnel Departments. In addition, the entire Mental Health
and Public Health Departments were involved in the initial test phase.
The next step that has to occur is the Communications Policy needs to be
revised. For example, it now states that ITS does not automatically
monitor an employee's internet use and in cases where usage is monitored
it is done so following a request by the department head. Mr. Potter
said now that employee computers are being placed on the proxy server ITS
is receiving usage information, which means they are, in fact, now monitoring
usage. Also, in 2001, the County was just beginning to get into
internet usage for County business, and that has now gone way beyond that
as many departments are doing some of their work on line and the County hosts
data that are housed on the internet. Without placing restrictions
on usage, a request will inevitably be made to purchase more equipment to
deal with the usage or there will need to be more strict usage rules relating
to employee computer use.
Mr. Potter said they are now ready to roll out the remainder
of the program and will be meeting individually with departments.
He and Ms. Fitzpatrick will also be revising the Communications Policy to
inform employees that that are being monitored. There will also be
a consent and acknowledgement form that will be signed by employees stating
that they have read and understand the terms and conditions of having access
to the County's network and communications system.
He also stated the standards and guidelines are posted on the ITS website.
Ms. Herrera said this consent would mean the first step would already be
in place to hold an employee accountable for wrongful use of the internet.
There was a discussion by the Committee on the overall
changes in the workplace in businesses and County government as the use of
the internet became available. Mr. Lane felt strongly that employees
should not be using County computers to conduct personal business.
Ms. Herrera said the world has changed a lot in the last 15 years in terms
of usage of computers and contended that internet usage is soon going to
be considered an integral part of communication between people and that limiting
personal use of the internet is going to get very difficult.
Mr. Whicher said by alerting employees to the fact that
they are being monitored he thinks there will be a change in behavior across
the County.
Ms. Robertson said she has received an e-mail from employees
after hours and thinks the real issue is productivity. She gave an
example of a situation where one employee is taking a cigarette break and
another is reading a newspaper online, and asked how those types of situations
would be handled.
Mr. Booth said he thinks that putting the word out that
internet usage is going to be monitored, the abuse will be minimized and
that egregious problems can then be addressed.
Mr. Lane said he feels the entire policy is weak and is
glad to hear it is being revisited. He stated that he is troubled
by number three in the Policy and asked that Shawn Martel Moore, Director
of Human Rights, and Anita Fitzpatrick, Personnel Commissioner, review the
language.
Board of Elections
Mr. Dewitt said since the last time they came to the Committee the State
had passed enabling HAVA Legislation and the Governor signed it into law
last week. They are waiting for the State to put together their interpretations
of some of the regulations that the Board of Elections is going to have to
administer. With regard to machines, he estimates they will not be
choosing them until the beginning of next year because most of the manufacturers
will not have a product that is ready to be certified until then.
Ms. Kiefer asked if the certification standards have been adopted yet.
Mr. Dewitt said he did not think so.
The Committee discussed how machines will be chosen.
Mr. Dewitt said they will evaluate each machine to see how it will impact
the cost of running an election. He said it will be up to the County
Election Commissioners to decide what machine will be used, and in cases
where there is a disagreement the State Board of Elections will resolve the
matter. Mr. Dewitt said input from voters and any other interested
party will be welcomed as they would like to have a system that is both voter
and commissioner friendly.
Mr. Booth asked about machine warranty and durability.
Ms. Cree said she has heard a minimum of five-year warranty.
Ms. Herrera expressed her appreciation for posting information
on the internet in a very timely manner. She also suggested that machines
be displayed in areas such as town halls and the Pyramid Mall so that voters
can have a chance to become acquainted with them and see what they will be
using in an election. Ms. Cree said as long as the vendors agree she does
not think there would be any problem doing this.
Ms. Robertson said although the decision is ultimately
up to the Election Commissioners, she feels this Committee should develop
an objective set of criteria and pass it along to them. She also said
the public would greatly appreciate the opportunity to see the various machines
and have an opportunity to provide some input before a decision is made.
Mr. Lane also agreed there should be public input.
Ms. Cree spoke of the cost and administration of the machines.
She said the State is allocating money according to a formula and it appears
there will be enough funding provided to cover the costs of the machines.
As of November 15 they are required to warehouse all of the machines in one
central location. She noted the State is calling this "consolidation"
at the County level, not "centralization". At the present time the
municipalities have their own machines; and not all towns were in favor of
consolidation. She also stated a decision needs to be made about inspectors
and whether they will be a County or municipality cost. Currently,
all municipalities pay inspector costs. The Board of Elections has
been charging back elections costs to the municipalities with the cost fluctuating
depending on what type of election it is. She questioned whether they
will now charge costs back to the towns and said this is being handled differently
across the State. Mr. Lane said the Municipal Officials Association
will meet on July 26 and one of the items on the agenda for discussion is
the election process.
Mr. Lane said a decision will need to be made at the County
level about how much this is going to cost and how it will be paid for. He
said the County is always complaining about the State charging the County
for things the County has no control over and sees the County possibly doing
the same thing to municipalities. It was stated that a decision
needs to be made at least for this year so that towns can prepare budgets.
Ms. Robertson suggested that towns be advised to budget for what they have
been and the County will pay the additional costs at least for this year.
Ms. Kiefer, Mr. Booth and Ms. Herrera agreed. Mr. Lane summarized that
the consensus of the Committee is to hold the towns harmless for any increased
cost in 2006 and that a decision on future costs be made when more information
is received.
Ms. Hubbell said the old machines work well. Ms.
Robertson responded that it is important to understand the disability issue
that is involved with HAVA.
The Committee reviewed a document showing current pay
for all election inspectors by municipality compared to suggested pay for
future elections. Ms. Kiefer suggested moving to a uniform rate for
inspectors that would be charged back proportionally to what they are now
paying. Mr. Lane said he will work with staff to prepare a resolution
to address elections expenses for 2006 and payment for elections inspectors
for the next meeting.
A question was raised about what will happen to the old
machines. A suggestion was made that the Dewitt Historical Society
be contacted. A comment was also made that the Old Library could be
used for storage of machines.
RESOLUTION NO. - APPROPRIATION
FROM CONTINGENT FUND AND INCREASE IN HOURS– BOARD OF ELECTIONS
MOVED by Ms. Herrera, seconded by Mr. Booth. Ms.
Cree spoke of the increased workload as a result of HAVA and said while they
are looking for new initiatives to save staff hours, they feel this increase
in hours is very much needed. A friendly amendment was made to
remove the following language: " RESOLVED, further, That the fiscal
target for the Board of Elections for 2006 be adjusted by $26,260.00”.
A voice vote resulted as follows: Ayes – 4, Noes – 0, Excused – 1 (Totman).
MOTION CARRIED.
WHEREAS, the Federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and New York State’s Election
Reform Modernization Act (ERMA) mandates substantial changes to the systems
and procedures of the election process, and the Board of Elections is charged
with carrying out these mandates, and these mandates have extremely short
timelines for compliance, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Elections Commissioners and staff will need to spend
substantial time evaluating, seeking public input, selecting, and implementing
new machines, planning subsequent secure storage, maintenance programs, programming
procedures, and recruiting election inspectors and machine custodians, and
educating voters so that they will have confidence in the new machines, and
WHEREAS, ERMA requires the Board of Elections to consolidate all aspects
of voting machines, and these duties are currently carried out by ten municipal
clerks and their staffs, and
WHEREAS, these new duties and responsibilities are such
that they can only be accomplished by increasing the amount of time trained
staff are required to work, and
WHEREAS, in discussions regarding the 2005 budget request
it was noted that extra help would be needed as the HAVA mandates took effect,
but it was requested that the Board of Elections return to the Legislature
to remedy these issues closer to the final HAVA implementation dates, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Government Operations
Committee, That the Deputy Republican and Democratic Commissioners and the
Republican and Democratic Senior Clerk positions be hereby increased from
35.0 hours to 40.0 hours per week effective August 1, 2005,
RESOLVED, further, That the Director of Finance is authorized
to make the following appropriations:
FROM: A1990.54400
Contingent Fund
$ 11,112
TO: A1450.51000175
Salary - Deputy Commissioners
$4,444
A1450.51000691
Salary - Senior Elections Clerk
$3,550
A1450.58800
Fringes
$3,118
SEQR ACTION: TYPE II-20
* * * * * * * * * *
County Attorney - Request to Fill Position
It was MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Ms. Herrera, and
unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to approve the County
Attorney’s request to fill one 17.5 hour/week position of Assistant County
Attorney at a salary of $30,727; 100% local funding.
Assessment Department - Veterans Exemption (Local Law)
Mr. Lane said many questions were raised at the last Legislature
meeting about this so he withdrew it and brought it back to this Committee.
He said one of the questions he could not answer that evening was related
to the figures that were presented for the actual cost to the County and
whether or not the total cost to the County presented also included the initial
add-on costs for the exemption of people who were disabled or in the combat
bracket. Ms. Coggin said the figure presented to the Legislature represented
the full loss.
It was MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Mr. Lane, and unanimously
adopted by voice vote by members present, to send this item back to the full
Legislature in the same form it was presented previously.
Assessment Department – RPTL Section 420-b Exemption
Ms. Coggin began her presentation by stating she has no
position on this subject and the information being presented is for information
only.
She distributed copies of a memorandum and a corresponding
chart showing the tax-exempt parcels and the assessed value. She stated
that there have been several questions raised lately as to why the County
has so many tax-exempt properties. Of the County’s total tax base,
$3.4 billion (54%) is tax exempt. She noted that for taxable
purposes the County only has control over $200,140. There
was discussion by the Committee on the various entities listed on the chart;
Ms. Coggin said by law those listed qualify for all exemptions that they
receive. Mr. Booth asked that titles be added to the columns and that
agricultural districts and partial exemptions be included as well.
Following receipt of the revised document copies will be distributed to all
Legislators.
Ms. Kiefer referred to language in section 420a, p3:L,
and said there is an increasing concern about roads and drainage improvements
on streets and asked if this section of law allows a county to charge a town
for these types of things. Ms. Coggin said if the County were able
to charge a town it would be for a very minor amount because of how it is
coded in the real property tax data base. She also said the information
that would be needed would be very difficult to gather.
Ms. Herrera commented on the chart entitled County Summary
of Exemptions and Exempt Value by Municipality and Taxing Purpose – 2003
Assessment Rolls, and called attention to the City of Ithaca having 73.45
percent of property exempt for school purposes.
Mr. Lane thanked Ms. Coggin for the information that has
been presented (memorandum, chart, and information from the Office of Real
Property Services). He requested that copies be distributed to all
Legislators.
Availability of Information on the Internet
Ms. Coggin said it is too late to discuss this for the current year.
Mr. Lane suggested this be addressed again in the Fall.
Next Meeting
Due to time constraints, the item relating to eminent
domain was deferred to the next meeting.
Approval of Minutes of June 15, 2005
It was MOVED by Ms. Herrera, seconded by Mr. Booth, and
unanimously adopted by voice vote by members present, to approve the minutes
of June 15, 2005 as corrected. MINUTES APPROVED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.
Tompkins County
Home Page
Tompkins County Legislature's
Page
Comments or
questions