HomeMy WebLinkAboutAd Hoc Fiscal Committee Minutes - June 17, 2009_201402060901511807
Town of Nantucket
Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee
Minutes – Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee Meeting, held June 17th, 2009
Approved July 1st, 2009
A duly noticed meeting of the Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee was held in the conference room at #2
Fairgrounds Road on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009, commencing at 9:00 AM.
Present: Facilitator Dual Macintyre, Rick Atherton, Jenny Garneau, C. Elizabeth Gibson, Greg
Keltz, Neil Paterson, Dr. Robert Pellicone, Dr. Janet Schulte, Justin Strauss, John Tiffany, and
Constance Voges.
Absent: Joe Aguiar
Also present: James Kelly, Irene Larivee, Malachy Rice, Marcus Silverstein, Whiting Willauer and
Craig Abernathy
Call to Order:
Mr. Macintyre called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.
Review and Approve Agenda:
The agenda provided by Mr. Macintyre was approved as presented.
Approval of Minutes; 3 June 2009:
After noting that the record of attendance for June 3rd, 2009, should be amended to
include Jason Strauss, Mr. Macintyre asked for unanimous consent of the meeting to approve
the minutes of June 3rd, 2009. So voted unanimously.
Reports on Research of Communities:
Mr. Tiffany began the discussion, stating that he looked at Chebeque Island, Maine, and
several other municipalities that were “started from scratch.” He commented that he found
most of the information to be of little use since many of these communities utilize the services
Minutes – Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee
June 3rd, 2009 Page 2 of 5
of a neighboring town. Mr. Tiffany cited one exception in Long Beach, California. He explained
that Long Beach had a large budget gap and had continued to raise taxes but the taxpayers were
becoming tired of continued tax increases.
Mr. Tiffany pointed out that Long Beach looked at its municipal services and first
removed essential services before surveying its citizens on the necessity and value of the
remaining services. He noted that the survey received a good response and as such it was a
valuable tool in finding out exactly which non‐essential municipal services the community
valued. Mr. Tiffany pointed out that these actions helped Long Beach address eighty percent of
its budget gap with expense reductions and the other twenty percent through increased taxes.
Ms. Garneau stated that knowing which items were immediately considered as essential would
be valuable information. Mr. Tiffany agreed, noting that there apparently was a first cut prior to
preparing the surveys.
Mr. Keltz reported similar difficulty in performing the research. He pointed out that
Nantucket’s unique Town system preclude some management measures employed by city
managers or town councils. He added that he also looked at “from scratch” communities and
found that they achieve many management objectives through deed restrictions and covenants.
Mr. Macintyre stated that the Disney Development Company went to the Florida
Legislature and had them pass legislation creating community development districts in the case
of Celebration, Florida. He explained that these districts gave Disney control over water
management, wastewater, bridges, culverts, etc… Mr. Macintyre commented that this example
represents an interesting concept as it is one of the few examples of legislature creating these
kinds of districts. Mr. Keltz added that he finds it interesting that many of Celebration’s
governing bodies are either elected or appointed by the developer.
Review Draft of Criteria for Essential Services:
Mr. Macintyre distributed a draft document listing criteria for essential services:
Criteria for an “essential service” on Nantucket
An essential service provides a direct, broad‐based benefit to the Nantucket community
and
is required by federal, state or local mandates.
can only be provided by local government.
can most efficiently be provided by local government, recognizing the unique
geographic limitations of Nantucket.
Minutes – Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee
June 3rd, 2009 Page 3 of 5
does not duplicate services provided by other governmental agencies or the
private sector.
provides a service without which it is impossible to govern.
An essential service may meet more than one of the above criteria.
Mr. Macintyre reminded membership that this list was included in an e‐mail
distributed the previous day and pointed out that he included “broad based benefit” as
part of the primary definition of essential services. He emphasized that he wishes for
these criteria to be a work in progress. Mr. Keltz stated that he is concerned that there
needs to be a cost to benefit comparison within the criteria. Mr. Atherton noted that
some services may not be a broad based benefit but may be justified by other criteria.
He cited Adult Community Day Care as an example.
Ms. Garneau asked if the questions about broad based benefits are not implicit
in the process of determining essential services. Mr. Keltz answered that if a measure is
implicit it should be stated. Mr. Macintyre stated that it is his goal to make these
measures explicit; pointing out that at previous meetings he perceived a great deal of
sentiment for broad based services. Mr. Atherton asked if this implies that services that
are not broad based are non‐essential Mr. Macintyre reminded Mr. Atherton that the
statement “reads broad based benefit and…” Ms. Voges agreed, stating that while
some services could be eliminated from the start, the “and” is important. Mr. Keltz
asked if the statement could read, “and includes one of the following.” Mr. Tiffany
disagreed, stating that the definition does not concern municipal services but instead
concerns essential municipal services.
Mr. Paterson asked if a statement concerning value of services should not be included.
He asserted his belief that at some point a service must be rated and assigned a value. Mr. Keltz
agreed, reiterating his belief that there must be some way to evaluate a cost to benefit ratio for
municipal services. Mr. Tiffany commented that he is less concerned with cost to benefits
measures at this point since essential services must be performed regardless of cost. He noted
that these measures would be useful for services identified as non‐essential.
Mr. Macintyre asked membership to remember that the goal of the Ad Hoc Fiscal
Committee is to develop a document that can be easily applied to functions as they develop
over time. Dr. Schulte asked if the document would be a part of the budgeting process at the
departmental level; to which Mr. Macintyre responded in the affirmative. Mr. Rice added that
the document could be used by any number of stakeholders. He noted that on the
administrative level these are questions that require value judgments; judgments that Town
Administration hopes can be discussed on the community level in order to establish ground
rules.
Minutes – Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee
June 3rd, 2009 Page 4 of 5
Ms. Voges pointed out that simply funding a service does not imply a mandate. She
added that a service becomes mandated when it is written into law. Dr. Schulte asked if the
document should use the word legislation instead of mandate. Mr. Rice answered that other
acts can mandate action. He defined a mandate as any act that has the force and effect of law.
Draft Report for Phase I and Plan for Phase II
Mr. Macintyre stated that he will draft a brief introduction and background statements
for the Phase I Report. He reminded membership that the next two meetings will be spent
discussing efficiencies in current operations before discussion of spending reductions in August
and revenues in September. Mr. Macintyre asked membership to develop a list of potential
efficiencies and then circulate them via e‐mail prior to June 29th. He added that proposed
efficiencies will be the topic of discussion for the meeting on July 1st.
Dr. Schulte asked Mr. Macintyre to provide an example of a potential efficiency. Mr.
Macintyre explained that a potential efficiency would be an area where two departments
perform similar functions. He cited the operations and responsibilities of Visitor’s Services and
the Chamber of Commerce as a possible example. Mr. Macintyre noted that there will be
overlap between efficiencies and cost reductions and added his hope that all of the combined
experience of membership will facilitate the task of producing ideas for potential efficiencies.
Mr. Paterson asked if the Committee will be asking any department heads to explain
services. Mr. Macintyre answered that the objective is to avoid the duplication of the Finance
Committee’s actions, and expressed his wish that the Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee look at Town
services from a higher level with a different perspective. He added that when a clear evaluation
of efficiencies is complete a report will be forwarded to Town Administration. Mr. Rice offered
that if time permits Town Administration may put together a brief explanation of efficiencies.
Mr. Macintyre asked that membership make a point of identifying departments from which
more information is required. Mr. Atherton noted that the Finance Committee developed a list
which may be valuable to the Committee. Mr. Kelly stated that he will make sure the list is
shared, noting that in his role as Finance Committee Chair he encourages broad circulation of
information.
Public Comment:
Mr. Kelly referenced earlier comments concerning avoiding the boundaries of the
Finance Committee, commenting that this should not be a concern since these boundaries are ill
defined at best. He then asked the Committee to practically evaluate criteria for essential
services as a screening tool, noting that every item he tested passed through the criteria. Mr.
Tiffany disagreed, stating that he tested the criteria and eliminated some services.
Ms. Larivee commented that it will be helpful to have definitions for terms such as
“mandate” or “broad based service.” Mr. Atherton agreed, highlighting the constant struggle to
define terms and ideas.
Minutes – Ad Hoc Fiscal Committee
June 3rd, 2009 Page 5 of 5
Mr. Rice spoke of inherent political influences within the process of identifying criteria
for essential services but stated that in tough fiscal times Town leadership needs criteria for
making tough decisions. He added that sometimes tough decisions are not cutting funding but
instead increasing funding. Mr. Rice asserted his belief that the criteria for essential services
should be specific enough so that ten years from now people will understand them but also
leave enough room for growth within the Town and its services.
Date of Next Meeting:
The date of the next meeting was scheduled for July 1st, 2009, at 9:00 AM in the
conference room at #2 Fairgrounds Road.
Adjournment:
Mr. Macintyre asked for a motion to adjourn that was “so moved” by Mr. Tiffany. The
meeting was adjourned at 10:18 AM.
COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES
1. Develop criteria for essential services.
2. Recommend expense reductions or efficiencies in current operations.
3. Recommend actions to increase municipal revenue.
Prepared by Craig Abernathy