Cortland County Legislature
Approved Minutes
of November 14, 2005 – 10:00 a.m., 1st Day of Annual Session
Chairman Steve called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. and led the Salute to the Flag.
The
Clerk called the roll and all members were recorded as present except Mr. Dafoe
and Mr. Williams who were recorded as absent.
On motion of Mr. Willcox, seconded by Mr. Hartnett and adopted by all members present voting aye, the minutes of October 20, 2005 were approved as corrected.
Resolutions:
On motion of Mr. Behrenfeld, seconded by Mrs. Brown and adopted by all
members present voting aye Agenda No. 1 became Resolution No. 337-05:
Revise 2006 Tentative Budget
Dr. DiGiovanni stated he is concerned about the timing of the Public
Hearing. He stated that during their caucus, they had a presentation by the
Chairman of Budget and Finance Committee which leads him to believe that there
needs to be more thorough discussion on the budget. If indeed there is merit to
the Budget and Finance Chairperson’s analysis, this may in fact, warrant
actually delaying the public hearing to allow continued work to be done by the
committee on the budget as it has been presented to further reduce the tax levy
for 2006. Chairman Steve asked Mr.
Behrenfeld if he would like to comment on that?
Mr. Behrenfeld said he would give some background on this.
Two weeks ago, the Budget and Finance Committee went through the budget
in detail and came up with about $150,000. in changes to the Budget Officer’s
Budget and that is the motion that was just passed.
However, on a global basis, we have had a chance to digest the
information and there are a lot of questions in comparing apples to apples of
the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, which has also been difficult to do in our
deliberations. When the 2004
numbers were looked at, there really wasn’t a good comparison.
The 2005 numbers are all just potential numbers because this year has not
ended yet, so the numbers are incomplete. We
do know by past history that the budgets have come in more favorably than they
were projected, which have allowed fund balances to grow.
For example, if you look at fund balances from 2002 to 2003, the budget
came in 2.6 million dollars favorable and in 2004, it came in 4.4 million
dollars favorable and that dropped into the fund balance.
This year based on the best projection that we have, based on the report
that has been given to us every month for the last nineteen months is that the
budget will come in 750,000 dollars under, which will add more to the fund
balance. However, in the Budget
Officer’s projection that was given out, it shows the budget to be even,
therefore adding nothing to the fund balance.
None of us has a crystal ball, so any predictions for the future have to
be made with a great deal of deliberation.
Given the difference of what the number will be for the end of this year
will make a difference in what should be put forward for 2006 for the property
tax increase. The committee had
requested items, for example there is a line item in the budget for health
insurance benefits for retirees with an increase of 60% which is a big number
and we had asked for support of that and we still have not received it.
There also were other areas of concern within the budget where the
committee had requested documentation and that has not been received as of
today. Mr. Behrenfeld said he could
go on, however what he believes has happened is that there are Legislators that
believe there is a need for the information that was requested to be given to
them for justification and for the committee to do further review of the
tentative budget before it is passed on for action.
After discussion with members of the Budget and Finance Committee it is
felt that the Public Hearing should be moved to a later date to give the
committee more time to go back and further review the budget.
Mrs. Tytler and Mr. Ross stated they had not been asked about moving the
date or doing further review of the budget.
Dr. DiGiovanni stated it was the members of Budget and Finance Committee
that were in the caucus. Mr.
Behrenfeld said it is believed that some more thought and deliberations should
be given to this and it won’t affect meeting the deadlines to adopt a budget.
Chairman Steve asked Mrs. Tytler, Mrs. Brown and any other Budget and
Finance members who were not in caucus if they feel there is information still
needed?
Mrs. Brown said there might be additional information that was requested
by the committee to be looked at and asked Mr. Schrader if he thinks there is
any additional information that could be given to the committee at this time
that will make a difference in this resolution and what will be taken to the
Public Hearing?
Mr. Schrader stated like Mr. Behrenfeld stated, no one has a crystal ball.
Until the year has ended who knows where the County will end up.
There were conversations in the Finance meeting in regards to sales tax
and the County will be lucky if they make the projection for what is in the 2005
budget. That could be a significant
amount of money, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in just one budget
line. Without knowing what Medicaid
holds for the remainder of the year, it looks like the County will spend the
amount that was budgeted. Who knows
what the last weekly shares will come in at and we won’t know until after the
end of this year. He would be very
uncomfortable saying there will be a 750,000 dollar surplus for this year.
To end a year with that amount of surplus in nothing with a 90 million
dollar budget. To hold up the
deliberations and the Public Hearing on the budget for that is not necessary and
there are also concerns with the Law regarding to doing this.
The Public Hearing has already been advertised and has to be advertised
five days before the Public Hearing. It
does not need to be on the Budget in its final form.
The Public Hearing is theoretically on the budget that has been presented
by the Budget Officer. We have the
luxury of having the changes before us that have been recommended by the Budget
and Finance Committee and are able to adopt them today to forward them to the
Public Hearing, however that is not necessary.
The Budget Hearing does not need to be on the budget as it will finally
be adopted. This Legislature has
the ability to make changes to the proposed budget up to and until their last
session, theoretically up until the 20th of December and not have to
hold another Public Hearing, if you have made changes.
The Public Hearing does not need to be held up because of possible
changes that this body would want to make.
The issue here will be whether when the vote to adopt the budget comes up
on the 17th of November, if it should be adopted as is or whether it
needs to go back to committee to be looked at further.
Dr. DiGiovanni stated what he is hearing from Mr. Schrader at this time is
that there is some uncertainty and if this body gives themselves another month
to adopt a budget there will be greater certainty.
If there is a hearing tomorrow night, because legally it can’t be
changed and he is not sure of that, is
there any reason why there can’t be another Public Hearing and why there can’t
be a delay acting upon the budget until this body feels that there is a more
acceptable budget to adopt. The
Budget and Finance Committee has looked at the budget line by line and done a
microanalysis and there are still questions about some of those lines.
The second part of the analysis is the integrated part, where we try to
integrate all the micro changes that have been made and try to put it back into
a coherent whole again and that is where we are not getting it.
The budget does not allow comparisons to different years to happen
because lines have gone off budget and sometimes true and accurate numbers are
not reflected in reports. He would like to see the Budget and Finance Committee
have an apples to apples comparison for them to be able to do the job needed of
putting forth the best possible budget for 2006.
He doesn’t think the Legislature is asking too much for that comparison
to be in front of them before they make final decisions regarding this budget.
The County ran surpluses in 2003 and 2004 and may indeed have one for
2005 and to go to the taxpayers of this County and ask for an 8% tax levy
increase under those circumstances doesn’t seem right.
It also binds the hands of the incoming Legislature in that it put them
at or close to the Constitutional Tax limit so what do we leave them for next
year in terms of leeway to do things within the budget.
He states he does not believe the Legislature has the data available to
them that is needed to make an educated decision on this budget by Thursday.
Chairman Steve said he is not sure how the Public Hearing works and
believes if they have this hearing and make substantial changes to the budget,
that the body would need to have another Public Hearing.
Dr. DiGiovanni said that is all he is asking and if that is a legitimate
request? Chairman Steve said he
doesn’t know why the body would not want to have another one after changes are
made. He said that legally perhaps
you would not need to schedule another one, however if big changes were made, he
thinks it would be wise to schedule another one that includes those changes.
Chairman Steve said that Management Compensation Committee is not meeting
until after the Public Hearing tomorrow night and that in itself could reflect a
rather large change in the budget. There
will be another Personnel and Budget and Finance Committee meeting within the
next week to expedite that. There
are certainly some concerns with numbers that are not included in the budget
that have been expressed all along and with the lack of details to justify some
of the numbers within the budget, those concerns only continue to grow.
He challenges the Budget and Finance Committee to wait and get the
information that has been requested and revisit the budget to make sure it is
the best possible before it is brought forward.
Mrs. Tytler said she is comfortable going ahead with the scheduled Public
Hearing however thinks if the Budget and Finance Committee is going to be able
to make substantial changes that would lower the 8 % she would be willing to
take more time to work on the budget. She
would like to hear from Mr. Schrader regarding if this is held up to be looked
at further, there will be additional information to look at that may make a
difference. Will there be
additional information on the Sales Tax that may make a difference or what other
areas would there be information on that might make a big difference?
Mr. Schrader said that December Sales Tax receipts would not be in to be
looked at before the end of the year. There
will be a portion of Sales Tax receipts for November, a couple more weekly
reports in for Medicaid and a couple more weeks experience to all the lines that
relate to every department. Mr.
Schrader does not think that this is needed to be able to make an informed
decision on the budget. He feels
there is sufficient information and history available to move forward with this
budget on Thursday, however, that decision is completely up to the Legislative
body.
Chairman Steve said his concern is that there is nobody that can pick up
his or her budget right now and find the salary increases for CSEA or Management
Compensation. None of those are
shown in this budget. These are
speculative numbers and have not been made permanent as of yet.
He thinks these should be reflected in the budget so that everyone voting
on the budget knows what they actually are.
He said that some of the projections and numbers for the 2004 budget that
are in the tentative budget are not even correct.
Mrs. Breed said that where the concerns are is to be able to have
apple-to-apple comparisons from one year to the next to see why the increases in
some lines are so different. Also,
the committee would like to see how grant monies being added in would effect the
budget lines and what is actual for department expenses when grant monies are
pulled out of those budgets.
Chairman Steve asked Mr. Schrader what would prohibit the Legislature from
suspending the Public Hearing? Mr. Schrader said there would be additional costs
for advertising and he doesn’t see any point in suspending it.
Mr. Elston said he has never heard of a legal reason to not be able to
cancel a Public Hearing. He said
everything in the Law always speaks to how to set a Public Hearing and the times
and procedures to do that. It would
seem to him to put forth a budget to the public where there are some concerns
and possible changes that will be made, would not be in the best interests of
the constituents of this County. He
asked what is the cost to advertise the Public Hearing?
The Clerk said it is about $ 40.00 to advertise.
Mr. Elston said that for $40.00 to re-advertise the Public Hearing, the
Legislature is going to be hesitant to hold off to a later date.
Mr. Schrader asked for what purpose would this body not move forward with
the scheduled Public Hearing. The
hearing is on the Tentative Budget as amended by the Budget and Finance
Committee. He doesn’t know that
sitting down for another month as a full Legislature is going to change the
publics input on this. It potentially may and if that is the case then this body
may schedule another Public Hearing. As
it stands right now, the Public Hearing has been advertised and there is a
Tentative Budget that has been amended by the Budget and Finance Committee that
has been approved by this Legislature so why not move ahead with the Public
Hearing that has already been scheduled?
Dr. DiGiovanni said that, as an example of why he thinks either we have a
second Public Hearing or we postpone the one scheduled for tomorrow to a future
date, is that this Legislature is on record as of December 2004 saying that 10%
of annual operating costs should be held in reserve funds.
The point that Mrs. Breed was trying to make is that, the total
expenditure lines of the budget have grant monies that are spent by the County
included in the totals, however, those lines are offset by the revenues that
have been derived from those grants. Therefore,
the actual expenditures for the County of Cortland when the grant monies are
subtracted only total approximately 74 million dollars.
To maintain a 10% fund balance for the County, which was the intent of
this body, would mean about a 7.4 million dollar reserve, which would mean we
are already budgeting above that. A
concern is that some of the expenses that are included in that 74 million may be
grant monies being spent by the County that should not necessarily be used for
calculating a reserve. Dr.
DiGiovanni would like those to be subtracted out of the expenditure lines for
this body to know the exact total of County monies being spent. Grants are
balanced monies and he doesn’t see any reason that the County should hold
money within reserves to cover expenses associated with the revenues.
He does not feel the body has enough information on the grant monies
within the budget to know where the reserve needs to be to maintain the 10%
desired by this Legislature.
Mrs. Brown said she feels they should go ahead with the Public Hearing
because it has already been advertised.
If anyone wants to change anything after that, then it can be done
through the process.
Chairman Steve said if any changes were going to be made they would have
to be done before Thursday.
Mr. Cornell asked when the Public Hearing was on the budget?
Chairman said the hearing was on Tuesday and the vote on the budget would
be on Thursday. Mr. Cornell said in years past the Legislature has had a
Public Hearing and then amendments have been made to the budget after the
hearing. Mr. Behrenfeld said the
Legislature has until December to adopt a budget.
Dr. DiGiovanni agrees with Mrs. Brown, in that the issue here is not the
Public Hearing, it is voting on the budget.
There is an issue with the Public Hearing that concerns him and that is
to be good representatives of the people. The Public Hearing should be on as
near of a finished product as the Budget and Finance Committee feels that they
can present. To have a Public Hearing tomorrow, if there are reasons that we
have to go ahead with it because of legal reasons or other expectations that is
fine, however he feel there needs to be a second Public Hearing if we go through
the budget comparing it apples to apples and find some substantial changes to be
made. Some of the changes that will
be looked at including the Health Insurance premiums for retirees, the amount to
be left in the reserve fund, and the salary adjustments could affect the budget
by millions of dollars. This could
change the impact of the tax levy tremendously and we as a body should be at
that number before we go forward with acting on the budget.
Dr. DiGiovanni said he does not have a problem going ahead with the
Public Hearing as long as they agree not to act on the budget on Thursday night.
He would also like to know that there would be a legitimate Public
Hearing scheduled after the Budget and Finance Committee has compared apples to
apples to finalize the budget.
Mr. Allen asked if after the Public Hearing are you only able to make
amendments that are balanced, that do not change the tax rate that is associated
with the tentative budget as amended by the Budget and Finance Committee?
Are the amendments that can be offered only those that take money from
one place in the budget and move it to another, always leaving the tax levy the
same?
Chairman Steve said that his interpretation is that if there were going to
be any substantial changes to the budget after the Public Hearing, there would
need to be another Public Hearing incorporating the changes into the budget.
That should be the philosophy either way.
Chairman Steve asked if numerous people are not comfortable with this
budget, then what are the wishes of this body?
Mrs. Brown feels they should take one step at a time by having the Public
Hearing tomorrow night and then moving forward from there.
If there are any substantial changes to be made, she doesn’t know of
any Legislator that wouldn’t want the public to know about it.
The first step would be to go ahead with the Public Hearing that has been
advertised.
Mr. VanDee agrees with Mrs. Brown. He
said he doesn’t understand all of these concerns being brought forward tonight
and wishes he had known about them a week or so ago.
Chairman Steve asked Mr. VanDee if he attended any of the Budget and
Finance meetings. Mr. VanDee said no he hadn’t, but every time he had come
into other meetings and the building he had asked how the process was going with
the budget and was always told there were no concerns. He also had talked to Mr. Schrader and was not made aware of
any issues. He doesn’t understand
how everything can be going so well and a revised budget done in committee and
sent out to the floor, only to get here today and have all these unanswered
questions and concerns be brought out.
Dr. DiGiovanni said he couldn’t help Mr. Van Dee's perception because
that was his as well. He explained
to him it was a two-step process, which included a microanalysis where the
committee looked at departments line by line, and the next step was the
integration of that information into the whole and that is where we have fallen
down. That wasn’t done in those
meetings of the Budget and Finance Committee at the beginning of the month, but
the information was requested at those meetings.
We asked for an analysis of the Buildings and Grounds Department
regarding the new positions and the cleaning contracts; within the Health
Department we didn’t feel we had a very good discussion regarding the clerical
staffing and requested additional information to justify; and the rate of
increase in the retiree health benefit was a concern with additional information
being requested to justify the increases suggested.
These were all open issues and I agree with the fact that this is all a
process and the process went along and we moved forward hoping to get the
requested information that has not been afforded to us.
The information that was requested was needed for us to be able to
complete the process and integrate that into the budget projections.
Mr. VanDee asked why this was moved forward last Thursday if there was
still information needed to finish the work?
Dr. DiGiovanni said they were voting on the micro part of the process,
which was the line-by-line part. Mr.
Behrenfeld said that unfortunately he was out of town for three days last week,
which included the day of the Budget and Finance meeting.
Dr. DiGiovanni is correct in that we had not moved on to do the
integrated part and put everything together. We aren’t saying that we know of
any specific changes that need to be made, if we knew of any or had known of any
they would have been made. What we
are saying is that we want to be able to review the requested analysis
information to be able to integrate that information into the proposed budget
changes. We would like to be able to do the comparisons for year-to-year
expenditures and increases to make sure they are in line. We would also like to
look at comparisons for the fund balance changes and analyze why they actually
occurred. We want to make sure that
expenditures were not being overstated to accomplish this.
There are still some open questions and we need the answers to be sure we
are comfortable with what we have recommended.
Mr. Schrader said that he is not aware that there are any open issues.
The issue of Buildings and Grounds was responded to in Budget and
Finance, there was a difference of $400. The
issue in regards to health insurance was resolved by getting a report from our
consultant supporting what was presented in my budget.
As far as he knows there are no other open issues.
Chairman Steve said it seems to him it is clear that this needs to be
addressed in Budget and Finance and that committee needs to revisit the budget.
Mr. Schrader said that with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this budget is
not Budget and Finance Committee’s budget any longer, it is now the
Legislature’s budget and any meetings that have to be held for deliberations
on the budget have to be held by the full Legislature. Mr. VanDee asked if this meant a meeting of the whole group
of nineteen Legislators? Mr.
Schrader said that is correct because this body just voted and accepted the
recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee with the Revised 2006
Tentative Budget resolution.
Chairman Steve said he would accept a motion to reconsider because it is
clear to him that there needs to be more work done and questions answered.
Mrs. Breed made a motion to reconsider Agenda No. 1 – Revise
2006 Tentative Budget, seconded by Mr. Allen.
Mr. VanDee requested a ten minutes caucus. Chairman Steve asked the
majority and minority leader if they would agree to caucus with this motion open
on the floor. Dr. DiGiovanni stated
that was agreeable. Mrs. Brown said
she was okay with that.
Chairman Steve called a ten minute recess at 10:40 a.m. Chairman Steve
called the meeting back to order at 10:55 a.m.
Mrs. Tytler asked for clarification as to the motion on the floor.
The Clerk stated the motion. The
motion on the floor made by Mrs. Breed and seconded by Mr. Allen is to: Reconsider
Agenda No. 1 – Revise 2006 Tentative Budget.
She
said the vote being taken now is whether to reconsider.
If this vote passes then the Legislature would revote on Agenda No. 1.
Dr. DiGiovanni said he would just like to clarify in that a yes vote would send
the budget back to Budget and Finance Committee for further review.
Chairman Steve said a yes vote would mean that the Legislature would
reconsider Agenda No. 1 and then there would be another vote taken on the actual
Agenda Item.
With a roll call vote and Mr. Allen, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Behrenfeld, Mrs.
Breed, Dr. DiGiovanni, Mr. Elston, Mr. Steger, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Steve voting
aye, and Mrs. Brown, Mr. Cornell, Mr. Hartnett, Mr. McKee, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Tagliente, Mrs. Tytler, Mr. VanDee voting nay, and Mr. Dafoe and Mr. Williams
recorded as absent the motion to: Reconsider
Agenda No. 1 – Revise 2006 Tentative Budget passed.
On motion of Mr.
Behrenfeld, seconded by Dr. DiGiovanni, Agenda No. 1 – Revise 2006 Tentative
Budget was moved to the floor to be reconsidered.
Dr. DiGiovanni stated to clarify this that a no vote would essentially refer this back to the Budget and Finance Committee to be able to revisit the budget and review and clarify some of the requested information that we feel we don’t have. Mr. VanDee asked if a yes vote would mean that any conversation that is going to happen on this budget will be done on the floor by the full Legislature and that it would not be sent back to the Finance Committee for additional changes to be made. Chairman Steve said that eventually the full Legislature will have input and be able to make changes, the action of sending it back to committee now only allows them to continue their work and perhaps lower the tax levy before the full body starts to work on it.
With a roll call vote and Mrs. Brown, Mr. Cornell, Mr. Hartnett, Mr. Ross,
Mr Tagliente, Mrs. Tytler, and Mr. VanDee voting aye, and Mr. Allen, Mr.
Armstrong, Mr. Behrenfeld, Mrs. Breed, Dr. DiGiovanni, Mr. Elston, Mr. McKee,
Mr. Steger, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Steve voting nay, and Mr. Dafoe and Mr. Williams
recorded as absent; Agenda No. 1 – Revise 2006 Tentative Budget failed.
Mr. Schrader asked for point
of order from the Chairman stating that Finance and Administration has until
Friday to issue a report according to Law. They have twenty days from the time the budget is filed with
the Clerk of the Legislature by the Budget Officer to work on the budget and
file their report with the Clerk and that time will end on Friday, November 18.
Dr. DiGiovanni said that given the time schedule and this being Mr. Schrader’s third budget, he is respectfully requesting that he present the Legislature with an apples to apples comparison of all three of the budgets that have been prepared by him and that Legislator’s receive all documentation that has been requested throughout the process in writing to justify what has been presented in his budget. He would like to see the numbers for the actual expenses, absent the grants received by the County; justification for the rise in the health insurance costs; the actual numbers for the CSEA salary costs so we are not double budgeting; the numbers associated with the Management Compensation Plan that is currently being worked on, for the same reason. He is requesting that Mr. Behrenfeld as Chairman of the Budget Committee to meet with Mr. Schrader as soon as possible so the committee will have that information available to them so the committee may make an informed decision by Friday.
Chairman Steve asked Mr. Schrader if he had any questions in regard to that. Mr. Schrader said he would do whatever was possible at this time noting it was a little late to be trying to redo this. Dr. DiGiovanni said that it is late, however, if the information that had been requested had been given to them, they would not have had to continue the process. Mr. Schrader responded that at no point was there a request for a break down of grant to be removed from the expenditures. Dr. DiGiovanni said this should not be very difficult and if Mr. Schrader could just get them into a close proximity he would be happy.
Chairman Steve said there needs to be a time schedule set and he is not
sure if Friday is going to work. Mr.
Schrader stated that the Budget and Finance Committee only has until Friday to
make recommendations to the budget and file a report with the Clerk and after
that any changes would have to be made by the full Legislature.
Mrs. Breed requested that the Budget and Finance Committee please be given
a copy of the comparison of previous budgets so that they can make an informed
decision by Friday. She noted she
has requested information from Mr. Schrader for analysis and that has not been
received and would like that to be able to proceed.
Mr. Schrader stated that everyone in the Budget and Finance Committee had
been told that a comparison was on file with the Clerk of the Legislature for
them to be able to review. He will
make copies of that information and distribute it to all Legislators.
As far as requests for other information, either the information has been
given or the questions have been answered as far as he is aware.
Mr. VanDee stated that he still doesn’t understand why everything seemed
to be okay up until last week with the budget being passed through to the floor
and now all of a sudden there is some new information that is going to make such
drastic changes that more review and time is needed.
He wonders how it could all be so good and the work be concluded with a
resolution coming to the floor for a vote and now the committee needs to do more
review and work.
Dr. DiGiovanni said to defend himself and the Budget and Finance
Committee, there were several requests for information to be given to them for
comparisons and to justify numbers. Because of the lack of that information
being forwarded and new information being brought to the attention of the Budget
and Finance committee, extra time and effort is needed to complete the budget
process and put forth the most accurate information within that budget.
Chairman Steve said there are several issues that need to be addressed at
Budget and Finance and would like to move forward. The issue of the budget has been referred back to that
committee, where any and all concerns need to be resolved.
Chairman Steve reminded everyone of the Public Hearing on November 15 at
6:00 p.m. in the auditorium.
The meeting was recessed at 11:10 a.m. until November 17, 2005 at 6:00
p.m.