What is the Committee's Mission?

[Brent]

I would like to see some discussion around the 2005 Citizens Budget Committee mission.

The 2004 Citizens Budget Committee developed a mission statement to guide our work. Do we have the same thing for this year?

We had some excellent discussion at the first meeting, but it's not entirely clear to me what the mission statement for the committee is. We have an idea of some of our deliverables, but no mission statement that I know of.

Does our mission include analysis/recommendations on both capital and operating budgets? Both general and utility funds? Both revenues and expenses? Priorities on budget items or just candidates for elimination? etc.

I believe it would be fruitful to spend some time developing and codifying the committee's mission statement.

[HW]

Excellent question Brent. Some may perceive this committee as "cutting the fat". While I am in favor of cutting unnecessary expenses, I am also in favor of increasing revenue and reducing operating costs.

I would love to get into a discussion on increasing the town's revenue. It appears the citizens of Cary are in for a "bitch slap" the next two years when it comes to utility fees, service reductions, and taxes. I believe that is not necessary and that there are other options. For instance, a lot of revenue lost can be regained through adjustments in homebuilder developer fees.

HW

[StanN]

Brent,

Good idea regarding missions statement. Some additional thoughts:

Has the problem been framed correctly, i.e. is it one of priorities and identifing budget cuts or is it a more systemic problem - a lack of linkage between "management" (whomever that is) priorities and real-world priorities of Cary's citizens? is it a lack of awareness of the electorate as to the priorities being proposed by staff and endorsed by the CTC? - is it the public's lack of awareness of the economic and QOL implications of those proposals and subsequent CTC decisions? - is it low quality management and inefficiency? - is it the excessive role and pervasiveness of private interests and lobbies being given priority over fundamental public intersts? Is it al of the above?

If the problem is systemic and this small group is trying to tackle it on a case-by-case basis in a few brief meetings it not may accomplish anything lasting.

"Success" is afunction of expectations and definitions - what is this groups' definition of success? What are the steps to "success"? And what is the next step?


stan

[HW]

FY06 Citizen Budget Review Committee

The purpose of this year’s committee is to review Staff’s budget proposal and recommend a zero-debt new budget. This new and unique citizen involvement process is designed to educate citizens on the current budget process, provide hands-on involvement in creating a model budget, allow citizens to assist in prioritizing projects, and for citizens to recommend a cost-saving budget that reflects the committee’s outlook of the future of their community.

This is achievable in numerous ways and feedback from the group will result in priority-making recommendations. The initial goal is to identify 40 to 50 million dollars comprising of new funding requests and existing funding allocations.

The two segments of the budget are Operations Budget (OB) and Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). The CIB proposes utilizing 27m in new debt in FY06, which does not consider the 66m in new debt that will incur in June 05. This zero-debt budget recommendation from the committee to staff can be accomplished in many ways and staff has identified four ways to fill the funding gap.

1) Transfer from General Fund (GF) to Utility Fund (UF)
2) Delaying projects
3) Issuance of new debt
4) Stopping existing projects and re-appropriate funds

Each participant will receive all data that Council is provided by staff. Councilor Joyce will create spreadsheets derived from new requested items extracted from the budget that he thinks are candidates for one of the four options to fill the gap. Each citizen can extract data from the budget and add to or create their own spreadsheet. Staff will identify each item on the spreadsheet based on why or why not they can/cannot be delayed.

Councilor Joyce will also create a spreadsheet of items that have been funded in the past and refer again to staff for reasons why or why not any funds can/cannot be reverted to the GF to fund new higher priority items that are proposed to be finance utilizing new debt.

While the primary focus of FY 06 CBRC is to look for cost savings, other options can be explored by a citizen. The reason Councilor Joyce is focused on cost savings and not the revenue aspect of the budget is based on local government’s primary revenue streams. With service being the only product provided to the citizens, the primary revenue streams are taxation, fees, and interest earned from investments. Periodic revenue from sale of older equipment (auction) can provide a minimal source of revenue. Sale of town-owned real estate is always a consideration, but is not part of this year’s budget proposal from staff.

The meetings will be scheduled to allow citizens to absorb data presented and coincide with scheduled Council work sessions. Other Councilors have demonstrated the desire to participate, which allows the committee to form smaller groups and work with an individual Councilor to answer questions and prioritize the funding requests from staff. This also allows your elected officials an opportunity to hear first-hand of your community goals.

Feedback from FY05 CBRC helped focus this year’s approach. One concern that what addressed from FY05 committee and created the format this year was to minimize/avoid any special interest items from steering the group in too many directions. To remain focused on priority spending recommendations allows us to mainstream all the recommendations and ideas.

With the process only being two-months long, the group must focus on the committee’s goals and objectives. To be involved because of a hidden agenda or to attempt to have a certain special interest item funded will only derail the process. Such unfocused approaches will minimize our ability to absorb the data presented and find cost-savings. Any citizen that desires to head on a different path seeking their own agenda has every right to do so outside the group and submit their requests to the full Council.

Thank you for you participation.

Sincerely,
Michael A. Joyce
At-large Representative
Cary Town Council

[HW]

My comments to the group about our mission. I mean no disrespect but am stating a point of view. Please excuse me for missing tonight's meeting. I had a prior commitment. I look forward in participating in the next meeting. Thanks...

This committee's mission seems to be focused around remaining debt neutral. That is, not increasing our debt.

Debt is not necessarily a bad thing if used wisely. Actually it is a good thing to use for capital expenditures (I know I have said this a million times) but you have to be careful what is defined as capital expenditures. What appears to be overlooked in the process is the current council's policy that reduces revenue via less developer fees. It should be noted that revenue generated by those fees would have been used to pay for the capital expenditures and debt. It is understood that the current council reduced developer fees to encourage development and increase the tax base. According to this philosophy an increased tax base should pay for needed infrastructure. One should ask why the new tax base isn't paying for infrastructure or when this is going to pay for infrastructure. If the increase in tax base is not going to pay for the increase in infrastructure needs (debt) then what is? If an increase in tax base is going to pay for infrastructure then why all the focus on debt. Granted an exercise in trimming the fat is always a good thing but it appears the current focus is to cut citizen services and delay capital projects.

My point is the current state of the budget appears to be much more complex then eliminating/delaying capital and operational costs.

Thanks for allowing my point of view,
HW

[Brent]

I do have some concerns with the "goals" document that was developed:

1. It is not a "mission statement". A mission statement should be a concise description of what it is we intend to do. For example, last year's group's statement was:

This volunteer citizen group will examine the Town budget (2004/2005) in an objective manner and offer advisory input to Cary Town Staff and Town Council about fiscal issues, including revenue and spending priorities, individually and through group consensus.

Although the "goals" document provides much detail, I still think we are missing a mission statement

2. The goals seem narrowly focused on only cutting expenses to achieve a no-new-debt budget, and only cutting from the capital budget. Although cutting expenses should be a significant part of an overall budget discussion, I believe that the overall budget discussion needs to occur -- things in the budget are intertwined. I think you have to look at the big picture of revenues, expenses, capital, operating, levels of service, etc. Simply identifying capital expenditures that could be deferred (1) ignores the bigger picture and (2) leaves us with the same -- or most likely a larger -- problem next year.

3. I would like to better understand how focusing solely on capital expenditure elimination helps focus the group and "mainstream all the recommendations and ideas". The "goals" document talks about setting budget priorities and avoiding special interests. Well, one person's budget priority is another person's special interest. The distinction is subjective.

Don't get me wrong, I believe this process is valuable and I am pleased that Mr. Joyce has launched this citizens group and I commend him for all the time, effort and dollars he's put into the effort.

I just think that, by not focusing on the overall budget, we are not realizing the full potential of the group and in fact risk making some misguided decisions.

[Brent]

So, trying to take salient points from the "goals" document and discussions at meetings, is the group's mission statement something like this:

This volunteer citizen group will work with Town Council member Michael Joyce to examine the Town budget in an objective manner and offer advisory input to Cary Town Staff and Town Council about capital expenditures that could be eliminated from the FY 2006 budget.

?

[StanN]

Last night's meeting was not satisfying to me and I suspect to others. Brent is correct in defining a lack of a mission statement as the core of the problem.

My expectation of the meeting was that we were going to discuss budget issues. Instead we had a line-by-line vote on staff's budgets recommendations - in most cases on items I felt I did not have enough information to make an informed vote. I only voted on the items where I was comfortable with the knowledge or experience I brought to the table..relatively few. (Get TCAP out of the budget, don't shortchange maintenance or health and safety.)

The voluminous numbers supplied only confuse someone with my limited intelligence. I have to have goals and strategies, results and priorities to deal with. Those were well hiddden.

My expectation was that we were going to break into small groups to go into further depth...we did not.

Others were apparently voting on the basis of getting the budget down to the smallest possible size...if that was the purpose of the meeting and the group, I am probably the last person in the world anyone would want as part of the group.

MAJ's expectation of the meeting was apparently that we were there to assist him in sorting out his thoughts on an extremely complex and detailed budget. Nothing wrong with that - but happiness is a function of expectations and that wasn't my expectation. Besides if I have anything to say to him, I'll tell him directly by email or in person.

So, if the next meeting is going to be more of the same, there is probably little I can contribute.

Who said - any group that would have me as a member ain't worth joining. :D

Stan

[StanN]

After attending the CTC/staff workshop on the capital budget - and thinking back about our meeting on Tuesday, I more than ever believe that a citizens committee is needed to offer an alternative view of priorities and how the town spends our money. MAJ is to be applauded for getting more citizens involved and thinking about the budget. But for a variety of reasons I do not believe the committee as presently organized will be effective.

I propose the agenda of the next meeting should be:

!. What is the mission of the committee; e.g. staff to MAJ,
or offering credible alternatives regarding priorities to the CTC,
and/or aan alternative source of information to Cary citizens regarding TOC goals, strategies, resultant priorities and spending. My bias is to stress the third option.

2. How would a citizens committee be organized in order to be credible and effective with the community, the CTC and the staff. Are there critical areas on which the committee should focused? What would the committment of time and effort have to be? How would the members of the committee be selected? What should be the qualifications?

3. How would the committee function? How often would it meet? How would it communicate to its audience? What is its work product?

4. What are the next steps?

Comments?

stan

[Brent]

Good thoughts, Stan,

This is very much akin to how last year's committee got started (and we could leverage the experience of several returning members from last year plus get new ideas from new members).

[StanN]

This is what they do in Holden, Massachussets and many other town across the state and elsewhere. Before saying that you don't like Mssachusetts, why not read it. and then comment....stan

Finance Committee

Finance Committee Page
Finance Committee information (from Town Report):

The Finance Committee is the town’s financial watchdog. It consists of a representative group of taxpayers authorized to conduct thorough reviews of municipal financial questions on behalf of the community.

By state law the Finance Committee is responsible for considering any or all municipal questions. By town by-law the committee is responsible for considering matters related to the appropriation, the borrowing, and the expenditure of money by the town, its indebtedness, the methods of administration of its various departments, property valuation and assessment, and other municipal affairs, and may make recommendations to the town or to any town board, official or committee relative to such matters.

The Finance Committee considers the budgets submitted by the Town Manager, the Trustees of Damon Memorial and Gale Free Library, and the Wachusett Regional School Committee.

It is also responsible for considering articles in town warrants, and for reporting on those articles and making recommendations concerning them to the voters.

Traditionally, it is in the area of budget review and recommendation that the committee spends most of its time. In that regard 2003 was both typical and remarkably unique.

Typically, the committee’s budget reviews begin in February and continue until the annual Town Meeting in May, when budget appropriations are voted. In 2003, however, while the budget reviews began on-time, the budget process didn’t end until December when Holden became the last town in the Commonwealth to appropriate its assessed FY 2004 School spending amount.

There were Town Meeting budget votes in May, June, September and December. There were also two unsuccessful Proposition 2 ½ override votes, and an extraordinary meeting schedule. The committee met throughout the year on its own; with the Finance Committees of the other towns in the Wachusett Regional School District; with the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager; with the Wachusett Regional School District Committee, sub-committees of that committee; and with the Superintendent of Schools, in an attempt to reach agreement on a Wachusett Regional School District budget, and the amounts to be assessed to the towns.

When the process was finally complete, Holden’s assessed amount far exceeded what the town had reasonably budgeted for school spending for the fiscal year, leaving it to find a way to pay the over-budget amount. Several alternatives were proposed and reviewed. After considerable deliberation town officials agreed on a financing package of budget cuts, and additional revenue sources. The major component of that package called for the conversion of the town’s single-hauler trash collection service from a tax-based service to a fee-based one.

With forecasters indicating that the major causes of the school funding problem that led to the higher than expected assessments would probably continue to impact budgets over the next few years, the trash service conversion became the preferred foundation for funding the shortfall since in addition to contributing significantly to the solution in ’04, and allowing the town to avoid a number of undesirable budget cuts that would have negatively impacted town services, the conversion would also build-in a structural increase in tax levy capacity that would be available if needed in FY ’05 and beyond.

While the committee was disappointed the town had to take off the tax rate a service it had recommended be put on the tax rate only a few years before, it was pleased that the conversion would, at least, allow the town’s residents to continue to enjoy the cost savings of the town-contracted single-hauler system.

As you would imagine, having to come up with $1.2 million dollars above budget for school spending, meant funding for several other important items had to be postponed. That list included funds for design work on a much needed DPW building, and for a sidewalk building fund. The committee hopes to be able to fund those projects, and others, in the near future.

While 2003 was clearly dominated by operating budget concerns, there were other things the committee worked on. One of the most important was a financing plan for the $70.5 million renovation/addition project at WRHS. The committee joined with other Town and District officials to review a set of sixteen financing options. The option unanimously recommended reached what all parties to the discussion believed to be the best compromise between the competing objectives of keeping the total cost of the project as low as possible, and fairly distributing the cost over time. Taxpayers will begin seeing the tax impact of that project in 2004.

The committee also worked with the Town Moderator to adjust its reorganization schedule in 2003 to bring it in line with the Town’s fiscal year. That change anticipated an expanded meeting schedule for the committee for 2003 and beyond.

There were a number of other things the committee had hoped to accomplish in 2003 that the extended budget process did not allow for. The committee looks forward to dealing with those issues in 2004. They include: developing a three year economic forecast for the town; examining the town’s debt position; analyzing the recent growth in the town’s total tax burden, and reviewing the Community Preservation Act, which is set to be voted on in the Spring 2004 Town Election.

On a personal note, the committee lost a respected member of long-standing last year with the passing of Ray Podesta. Ray had served on the committee for many years. We miss his experience, his intelligence, his wisdom and his friendship.



Respectfully submitted,

Joseph J. Giotta, Chairman

[Brent]

If the committee's mission isn't changed to something that offers true, unbiased, comprehensive citizen budget input, I'm questioning my continued involvement in it. I'm also hearing from many people who are quite upset with the current committee's mission of simply chopping capital expenditures without taking a "big picture" view. I'm wondering what the committee is going to produce and what is going to be thought about that.

I think if the committee doesn't re-examine its mission, goals and process, it's doomed to failure. and I don't prefer to engage in things that don't have a decent chance for success.

[kellyc]

I think having gone to the worksession helped me tremendously, if only to know what each project was all about. I think we should have had last week's meeting this week and had everyone go to the worksession.

[StanN]

Agree with Kelly's comment. A deeper understanding of the budget and its elements is needed for citizens to participate in the process.. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this - all take time and committment.

stan

[kellyc]

Anyone willing to start over with our rcommendations from last week? Some things I think I would change my mind on based off of the info provided last week.