HomeMy WebLinkAboutAd Hoc Budget Committee Minutes September 4, 2008_201402060848056911
Town of Nantucket
Ad Hoc Budget Committee Meeting
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee Meeting September 4th, 2008
Present: Ms. Libby Gibson, Ms. Jenny Garneau, Ms. Susan Genthner, Mr. James Kelly,
Mr. Michael Kopko, Ms. Irene Larivee, Mr. Matthew Mulcahy, Robert Pellicone Ed. D.,
and Ms. Patricia Roggeveen.
Absent: None
Also present: Ms. Robin Harvey, Mr. Malachy Rice, Mr. John Tiffany, Mr. Whiting
Willauer, and Mr. Craig Abernathy
1. Call to Order:
Mr. Kopko called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.
2. Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve minutes from the meeting of August 18th,
2008. The motion was seconded by Ms. Roggeveen.
3. Final Review of FY 2010 Budget / 2009 ATM Timeline:
Ms. Gibson directed the Committee to a revised timeline for developing the FY
2010 Municipal Budget. She pointed out that it is the responsibility of the Town
Manager to develop the budget timeline and the budget. The timeline does not need
approval from any other groups but it will be presented to the Board of Selectmen on
September 10th, 2008, for their endorsement.
Highlighting some of the major upcoming deadlines, Ms. Gibson spoke about
capital request for FY 2010, noting that they are currently being reviewed and will be
submitted for review to the Board of Selectmen on September 17th, 2008. The
Selectmen would then endorse or approve the requests at their next meeting on
September 24th, 2008, before presenting the capital requests to the Finance Committee.
Ms. Gibson said that she had tentatively scheduled a meeting of the Finance Committee
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee
September 4th, 2008 Page 2 of 7
on September 30th, 2008. Continuing, Ms. Gibson stated that at the next scheduled Ad
Hoc Budget meeting, September 25th, 2008, she will be absent. She invited the
Committee to proceed in her absence. Ms. Gibson then pointed out some tentative
dates for public information meetings regarding the budget: October 7th at 4:00 PM,
October 16th at 6:00 PM, and October 23rd at 6:00 PM. Mr. Kopko stated that he felt it
would not be necessary for the Committee to meet on September 25th, as there would
not be a significant change in available information at that time. He asked members if
this met with their approval, and everyone agreed that it would be better to forego
scheduling a meeting for September 25th. Ms. Larivee added that the Committee should
probably meet in October after the Town’s Tax Recap is certified.
(Note: This part of the discussion took place later in the meeting, but it is
included here for the sake of continuity.) Ms. Genthner said that the School Committee
approved its budget timeline for FY 2010, and that this timeline does include the dates
used in the Town’s budget timeline. She stated that this timeline includes the major
milestone of submitting the School budget to the Finance Committee on January 6th,
2008. The calendar includes provisions for the School Council to meet more in
September and October in an effort to push the budget planning process forward. She
added that this is an ambitious timeline for the School but that all members are
committed to giving it their best efforts.
Mr. Kelly asked if the capital requests are approved by the Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Gibson answered that “endorsed” would be a better term to represent the Board’s
action. Mr. Kelly then asked if the capital request approval process progressed from
Town Management to the Board of Selectmen and then on to the Finance Committee.
Ms. Gibson answered that the actual request would go on to the Capital Program
Committee, but noted that the Finance Committee had asked to see capital requests
earlier this year. For this reason, Ms. Gibson stated that she added a Finance
Committee meeting into the timeline in order to provide for this request. Mr. Kopko
said that the felt this was a redundant measure, as the final capital request might bear
little if any resemblance to the initial request. Mr. Mulcahy stated that he would
provide regular capital request updates to the Finance Committee via e‐mail. (Mr.
Mulcahy represents the Finance Committee as a member of the Capital Request
Committee.) Mr. Kelly and Ms. Gibson agreed that it would be too early in the process
for the Finance Committee to review capital requests on September 30th, 2008. The
meeting was cancelled.
Dr. Pellicone asked Ms. Gibson what she envisioned for the public information
meetings. Ms. Gibson answered that she thought the Ad Hoc Budget Committee would
be present at the meetings, Ms. Larivee would make a presentation using a condensed
version of the budget projection, and the Committee could possibly begin to introduce
the idea of a priority budget. Ms. Larivee said she felt the meetings would give the
public the opportunity to speak about their opinions and participate in discussions
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee
September 4th, 2008 Page 3 of 7
regarding reducing budgets for existing programs. Ms. Gibson stated that she felt it was
important for the Committee to agree on a format.
Mr. Kopko said that he felt the School’s budget would receive far more scrutiny
in these types of public meetings. Ms. Gibson asked if the School had pending meetings
regarding the budgeting process. Ms. Genthner answered that the School has a
number of meetings scheduled, but the public meeting timeline presented at the
meeting showed dates that would still be somewhat early in the School’s budgeting
process. Ms. Gibson agreed that it would also be somewhat early in the Town’s
budgeting process, but that these were preliminary meetings in order to begin public
discussion. Mr. Kelly proposed that the dates could be used as placeholders until the
public meeting schedule could be finalized.
Ms. Garneau stated that if the School is to present the kind of budget that the
Town and School will need to present, it will be necessary to do a lot of education of the
public in regard to new challenges facing municipal finances. Mr. Kopko agreed, stating
that he felt it would be important to start early in order to gain momentum in the
process. Ms. Roggeveen added that she felt that most of the focus of these meetings is
revenue, and that the early education in these meeting is simply about the fact that the
Town has less revenue. She said that as the meetings progress the Committee can ask
the public for input on how to accommodate declining revenues. Ms. Garneau said that
she felt it would be important to get input from departments and their constituents so
that there would be “buy‐in” to the budgeting process. Ms. Roggeveen stated that with
revenue she felt the public would need two meetings.
Mr. Kelly asked whether or not it would be better to present a list of programs
for which the Committee is thinking of reducing funding. Ms. Garneau said that she felt
it was important to ask the community what their priorities are. Ms. Roggeveen added
that she felt the meetings would also present an opportunity to find out about the
public’s willingness to support an override. Mr. Kopko stated that the meetings would
also allow the Committee to “take the temperature” of each department and find out
their feelings about reduced funding.
Mr. Mulcahy asked if the public meetings could be incorporated as a part of the
televised Board of Selectmen meetings. Ms. Genthner said that she felt it was
important for the public hearings to be a separate meeting. Ms. Larivee proposed that
the Committee hold two public meetings on revenue in October and then two public
hearings on expenses in November. Mr. Kopko asked about the necessity of two
meetings each for revenue and expenses. Ms. Garneau said that she felt the necessity
for two meetings depended upon community response. She noted that by meeting at
different times during the day the School was able to get a better response from the
community. She stated that she felt it was important for the Committee to make its
best effort to obtain input from the community and share information about the future
of Nantucket’s Municipal finances.
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee
September 4th, 2008 Page 4 of 7
Ms. Gibson proposed a public meeting be scheduled for October 16th, 2008, to
discuss FY 2010 revenue projections. Dr. Pellicone said the meeting could be held at the
school, but he would need to get back to the Committee on an exact location. He also
highlighted the importance of advertising the meeting, asking the Selectmen to mention
it at their televised meetings and stating that the School Committee would invite the
pubic during their meetings. Ms. Gibson proposed that the second meeting, a “coffee,”
be held at 8:30 AM on Tuesday, October 21st, 2008. She added that the revenue
projection has been developed and that it could be modified for the public hearing. Ms.
Gibson also stated that her office would work on developing an advertisement designed
to maximize interest in the meeting. The advertisement would be published in the
Inquirer and Mirror and posted on the Town’s website. Mr. Kopko spoke of the need to
issue an early press release in order to give the media time to interview Ms. Larivee and
Mr. Dickinson. Ms. Genthner asked if the meetings could be televised, and Ms. Gibson
said that she would work on televising the meetings.
Ms. Garneau asked about the process of capital request approval. Ms. Gibson
answered that Town Administration reviews and submits departmental requests to the
Board of Selectmen. After reviewing the requests, the Board approves its updated list
of capital requests. These requests are then submitted to the Capital Program
Committee. The Capital Program Committee will then work on the requests for around
one month and then return a final recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. Ms.
Garneau said that it seemed superfluous to have the Board endorse the capital plan
before it is even vetted. Ms. Gibson stated that programs might be cut at the time her
office reviews requests. The Board might then make more cuts, or add back some of the
programs previously cut. Ms. Gibson noted that in the end the Board could submit a
capital plan request that did not resemble the request originally submitted by Town
Administration. Mr. Kopko added that in reporting on the capital plan process shows
documentation of what was submitted, recommended and then put forward to the
Capital Program Committee.
In regard to a public meeting to discuss FY 2010 expenses, Ms. Gibson proposed
a “coffee” for 8:30 AM Tuesday, November 18th, 2008. Mr. Kelly suggested that the Ad
Hoc Budget Committee meet following the “coffee.” Mr. Mulcahy noted that by that
time the Capital Program Committee would have completed its final recommendations.
Ms. Gibson asked if the Committee would like to schedule another public meeting to
review expenses, and several members made statements in favor of waiting until a later
time before scheduling another meeting.
Mr. Mulcahy spoke about members of the public approaching him with
comments reflecting a favorable opinion of an override. He asked where override
discussions would take place. Ms. Gibson answered that any override would come from
discussions of the Board of Selectmen and ultimately a Finance Committee or School
Committee motion. Continuing, Mr. Mulcahy asked if an override was on the table. Mr.
Kopko stated that for the purposes of discussion in the Ad Hoc meetings the meetings
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee
September 4th, 2008 Page 5 of 7
have centered on the premise a balanced budget without an override. Ms. Gibson said
that her preliminary opinion was that there would be no override, but that it is still too
early to say that there will or will not be an override. Mr. Kopko noted that this is why
the public meetings are so important, as they provide an opportunity to share
information with the community. He also stated that if there were to be any override it
would need to “come organically out of the community.”
Ms. Larivee said that if the Town decided that it would like to try to receive
approval for an override, it would be necessary to provide two budgets for voter
approval at the Annual Town Meeting. She spoke of the necessity of doing this in order
to avoid having a Special Town Meeting to approve a budget without an override in the
event the override was not approved. Mr. Kelly said the situation was somewhat ironic
in that after denying two overrides in 2008 voters might actually be more open to an
override in 2009. Mr. Kopko noted that an override would be necessary in order for the
Town to be able to maintain its current levels of funding for services and programs. Ms.
Gibson highlighted the fact that there are two types of overrides, operating and debt
exclusion. She stated that the Town put a lot of information out into the community
about the minimal impact of the debt exclusion override in 2008. Mr. Mulcahy put
forward his belief that the reason the override failed was due to the combination of the
playing fields with the public safety complex which killed the debt exclusion override.
Mr. Kopko agreed noting that last year some items were taken out of the budget and
placed in an override when in previous years they would have been part of the budget.
4. Review of FY 2010 Budget Guidelines and Review of Status of FY 2010
Review of Status of FY 2010 Departmental Budget Instructions:
Ms. Gibson pointed out that the guidelines are to be used at the policy level in
budget planning. She stated that the budget instructions are more of a Town
Administration function. Ms. Gibson provided members with a draft of departmental
budget instructions. She stated that the instructions have departments fill out a service
identification form, which is intended to get departments to begin thinking about all of
the services and programs provided by their departments. The department heads
would then be able to have a better grasp of what resources are associated with these
services and programs. She stated that this would help move the Town closer to the
development of a programmatic budget, but that this would not happen immediately as
this change will take time and education. Additionally, each department will be
provided with a spreadsheet showing expenditures. Ms. Gibson said that department
heads will be asked to review the spreadsheets and provide Town Administration with
proposed changes. Also, Ms. Gibson stated that each department will be provided with
a target for spending reductions. She stated that midway through this process her office
will be holding a workshop for department heads in order to facilitate their efforts and
answer any questions.
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee
September 4th, 2008 Page 6 of 7
Ms. Gibson stated that the School would also receive the instruction memo, but
the School is more autonomous than the departments in budget development. She said
that the enterprise funds would also be asked to submit the same forms under a
different timeline. Ms. Gibson pointed out two other items in the budget development
instructions. She said that the Town is looking at ways to centralize purchasing. This
change is intended to save money and increase control over asset inventory and
supplies. Ms. Gibson added that the Town was also beginning to use vendors from a
State approved bid list, and that the Town is looking at ways to include local vendors in
the bidding process. The second item Ms. Gibson highlighted was a hiring freeze. She
said that in the future it will be necessary for vacancies to be reconsidered and
examined before they are filled. She explained that one exception to this policy would
be positions in public safety.
Mr. Kelly noted that when departments are asked to cut operating expenses it is
human nature to cut the things that they do not like. He suggested that the department
heads be asked to document the implications of cuts and consider the consequences of
reducing expenses in certain areas. Ms. Gibson said that she would take steps to make
sure more implicit language goes into the budget development instructions to address
the concerns raised by Mr. Kelly.
In regard to the budget guidelines, Ms. Gibson stated that it is Town
Administration’s responsibility, as per the Town Charter, to provide a budget to the
Board of Selectmen. In past meetings there had been extensive discussion in regard to
budget nomenclature. Ms. Gibson stated that her final budget would be balanced, but
it will not have a name. The Board can then accept or modify the budget, and in the end
they can decide what to call the budget. Mr. Kopko noted that about this time last year
the “magic number” appeared. He stated that in his belief this number had both good
and bad consequences, but a lot of good came from the process. Ms. Gibson stated that
the number led to extreme misunderstandings. Ms. Roggeveen said the greatest
success of the “magic number” was in conveying the message that there was a limit, but
its greatest failure was that it made it far too easy for stakeholders to charge forward
without considering the need for discussion. Ms. Roggeveen stated that she felt a
better approach would be to talk about a priority budget and get the message out early
about revenue limitations. Mr. Kopko agreed, stating that when discussions about
revenue begin there will be a percentage or a number that will represent the amount of
change that will be necessary. Ms. Roggeveen said that she believed the number
limited solutions, as it dictated a line in the sand that made it difficult for everyone to
talk through budgeting challenges and find solutions.
Mr. Kelly stated that he felt there is a balance to be found in these situations.
When individuals draw their own conclusions more outcomes become possible, and
when individuals are provided with hard data they are more prone to react. He stated
that the Committee would have a better understanding of these items after the public
meetings. Mr. Kopko said that everyone should work hard to get public input from all
Minutes – Ad Hoc Budget Committee
September 4th, 2008 Page 7 of 7
stakeholders. Ms. Roggeveen stated an interest in making this issue more permanent
by listing it as a continuous agenda item. She felt that the permanence would allow the
Committee to better examine the issue. Mr. Kelly noted the Audit Committee’s recent
success of involving more of the Town’s resources in order to focus on a problem. He
proposed taking the same types of actions with the budget development process.
5. New Business:
None.
6. Old Business:
None:
7. Date of Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, at 2:00 PM.
8. Adjournment:
Mr. Kopko asked for a motion to adjourn that was “so moved” by Mr. Kelly. The
meeting was adjourned at 9:53 AM.
Prepared by Craig Abernathy