1. Authorize Home Rule Request, Special Retirement Enrollment, Certain Deputy Sheriff’s – Mr. Elston moved adoption; seconded by Mrs. Brown. Mrs. Barber indicated that this is a repeat resolution. Senator Seward’s office has requested a new resolution; despite many efforts, we cannot get the Senator’s office to utilize what we adopted last year. Mr. McKee asked if there is any cost involved in this. Mrs. Barber explained that we will have to pay all retroactive costs for them to join the system. It was originally a clerical error on our part. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

2. Authorize Home Rule Request Amending Article 2, Section 3 of Public Officers Law to Permit Adjacent Residency for Certain Public Officers for Cortland County – Mrs. Breed indicated that we have discussed this on other occasions. Mr. Elston moved adoption; seconded by Mrs. Tytler. Mr. Schrader explained that this addresses some of the difficulties we have recruiting for a variety of positions. There may or may not be a good list for a certain position – such as correction – while the deputy sheriff is fine. This would have to be a policy of the Legislature to give up the potential to expand the pool of applicants/qualified candidates beyond those that are County residents at the time the test is given. This would give residents of adjacent counties to be "Public Officers" for this County. Mrs. Breed asked if individuals would have to be made to live in the County at some point. Mr. Schrader indicated that that could be part of the policy; currently we can’t even look at residents of other counties. Mrs. Brown asked if we aren’t looking outside the County anyway. Mrs. Tytler asked if we hadn’t had a conversation about the further point in the County where it would be acceptable for someone to live – particularly for response time with law enforcement issues. Mr. Schrader indicated that we cannot even look outside the County and develop a policy at response time. Chairman Steve indicated that if this is adopted and that if no policy were adopted about response time, etc., then this would kick in and departments could hire from any of the contiguous counties. Mrs. Tytler indicated that this could lead to everyone in the Sheriff’s Department living outside the County. Mr. Schrader indicated that a policy could be developed giving preference to County residents. Mrs. Breed indicated that the policy could be adopted stating a certain percentage of the department could be out of County residents. Mrs. Tytler indicated that she isn’t given any assurance that will happen. Mr. Williams asked why we would ask for something that we immediately have to change. Why can’t we put all the requirements we want (e.g. Sheriff’s Department within 20 minutes outside the County) in the Home Rule Request? If you look at a map and this gets enacted, it opens it up to someone in Fair Haven, which is quite a distance from the County. Why not make the request specific? Mrs. Breed asked if we could do this? Mr. Schrader indicated that the issue will become at the State level – their judgment as to whether what they are passing is something that will be easily administrated. The language is stated as it is because that is what has been adopted for other counties. There will be less debate on the floor because they have already adopted this for other counties. This language is exactly what was adopted for Madison County. The language that is being suggested has not been done before and I believe they would have reservations about adopting it. Mr. Williams asked if it is something mechanical to find if someone lives within the specific district. Mr. Schrader feels that that will be the problem in the State Legislature – how do you administer to a line? Mrs. Tytler stated that a "line is a line" – how is this any different from a County line. Mr. Schrader indicated that these are established boundaries – how do you administer to a line? Chairman Steve indicated you could use a compass or the GIS system and get very specific. Mrs. Brown is concerned that the policy be established and how it is upheld. We are asking the State to adopt something without any firm policy in plan. Mr. Schrader feels that the hiring authority should be with the local Legislature not with the State Legislature. Mrs. Tytler explained that perhaps that is what we are stating – we want all hires to live within the County. Mr. Elston spoke that we are having trouble hiring for the Jail. Mrs. Barber gave an overview of how hiring from an eligible list is conducted. The Sheriff always prefers for County residents first. Mr. Elston asked if we could enact a policy stating 25 miles from the County line? Mrs. Barber indicated that it would be difficult to administer in her office because she has no idea how far 25 miles out is. Chairman Steve indicated that the GIS system could pinpoint any address and how far out it is. Chairman Steve indicated that we have an ADA, jail staff, and road patrol officers who live out of County. Mrs. Barber indicated that we are not allowing any new hires as public officers who are not County residents. Mrs. Breed indicated that putting any type of restriction in what we send to the State leaves us with difficulty in amending it in the future – it would take much longer than amending a policy at the local level. Chairman Steve agrees that as a County we should have the authority to decide who we want to hire, but we should also have a policy in place identifying exactly what we want. We should have the policy in place before we make the request to the State. He does not see the policy being that different from the conversation that is taking place. He considers the residents of Groton as part of our community and they should be eligible for employment in the County. Mrs. Breed asked why we can’t adopt a policy contingent upon approval of the Home Rule Request. Mrs. Tytler feels that we have the cart in front of the horse. Mr. Williams feels the same way; why can’t these things happen simultaneously. Mrs. Breed asked how the committee feels about her pulling this from consideration with reintroduction after more conversation. Mrs. Tytler would like to see the policy first. Mrs. Breed pulled the resolution for consideration at a later meeting. The policy will be discussed at the next meeting.

3. Abolish/Create, Buildings and Grounds Department, Building Maintenance Foreperson/ Assistant Buildings & Grounds Supervisor – Mr. Elston moved adoption; seconded by Mr. Williams. Mrs. Tytler asked about the "needs of the agency" – agency will be changed to "department." Mrs. Breed asked how long this position has been vacant. The response was since February 28, 2005. Mrs. Tytler asked if this is changing the position from union to management comp. She asked how is then affects things. Mr. Schrader indicated that we are fitting it in based on the going rate for the position and the responsibilities that the position will have. It will be a Grade F – recognizing that the department head is also a Grade F. This will be corrected in the amended Management Compensation Plan. The difference in this resolution from the one adopted in Buildings and Grounds is the last resolved clause has been added to allow to fill the position up to the maximum salary. The person who left was making a little over $28,000 per year. Mrs. Tytler asked if the position has changed. Mr. Schrader indicated that it has – more trade experience and more supervisory experience. Mrs. Brown asked what we are going to gain. Mr. Schrader indicated the goal is to eliminate hiring outside vendors to do things like electrical or HVAC. Also, we need some supervisory experience within that department, given the increase of the square footage. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

4. Authorize Agreement, Board of Elections (Kardveyer 300) – Mr. Elston moved adoption; seconded by Mrs. Brown. Mr. VanDonsel explained what the Kardveyer system is and how it is used by the department. This is for continuing maintenance and the money is in the budget. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

1. Vacancy Report – Mrs. Barber distributed and reviewed the vacancy report. Mrs. Breed asked if there is anything of particular interest. Mrs. Breed noted the RP Assessor has been filled. There are six part-time dispatcher positions filled; there are several offers pending. There will be ten part-time positions filled in the near future. There is an issue with vacancies in Correction Officers. Mrs. Tytler asked about the SLP that sits on this list. This position is not in the budget. Social Welfare Examiner vacancies are becoming an issue – particularly in Temporary Assistance. Mrs. Tytler asked if it is a salary issues. Chairman Steve indicated that it is – Tompkins County pays $12-$15 more with a lower caseload. Mrs. Tytler asked why they can pay so much more. Mrs. Brown indicated that it is due to the County demographics. Mr. Schrader indicated that Tompkins County is paying too much money; we cannot compete with that.

2. Set salary at midpoint – Mrs. Barber indicated that she is recruiting for Personnel Clerk. The low range is a little over $18K. She would like permission to hire at mid-point at $23,202. She has numerous applicants and it would be a significant cut in pay for any of the applicants. Mrs. Tytler asked where we are with the CSEA contract. The response was in negotiations. Mrs. Tytler asked if that means we won’t do anything with Management Comp until the negotiations are completed. Mr. Schrader indicated that to a degree that is true. We can’t act on Management Comp until the language issues are cleaned up. Chairman Steve indicated that by June or July we must do something compensation wise for our management staff. It was the consensus that that was true. By unanimous consent, the committee granted permission for Mrs. Barber to hire the Personnel Clerk at mid point.

3. Annual Report – Mrs. Barber reviewed her report and indicated that her job is now approximately 75% records management and 25% historian. She indicated that the Records Center is coming close to reaching capacity. Mrs. Breed commended Mrs. Barber on the articles in the newspaper. Mrs. Tytler asked if we are making certain that we are storing our records only – and not the complete file. We can remove any records that are not generated by the County. Mrs. Barber indicated that she doesn’t oversee the contents of the box, just the physical storage of the boxes. Mrs. Tytler would encourage the departments to ensure that we store only our records – not records generated by other agencies. Mrs. Breed suggested that this would be a good topic for each oversight committee.

The meeting adjourned at 8:53 a.m.

BACK