Chairpersons Advisory Committee

09/01/10 Minutes (59 KB)

Members present: Marty Krueger, Don Stevens, Joan Fordham, Tommy Lee Bychinski, Virgil Hartje, Steven Bach, Gerald Lehman, Lester Wiese, Art Carlson, Tim Meister, Judy Ashford

Members absent: Judith Stoeckmann, Scott Alexander

Others present: Kathy Schauf, Dan Brattset, Lowell Haugen, Andrea Lombard, Fred Halfen, Tom Kriegl, Cindy Bodendien, Cathy Warwick, Jason Lane, Todd Liebman, Jeff Fearing, Linda Borleske, Donna Stehling, Mark Steward, Paul Hefty, Bill Wenzel, George Johnson, Al Dippel, Peter Murray, Bill Stehling

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Krueger at 6:30 p.m. and certification of the Open Meeting Law was verified.

The agenda was approved on a motion by Carlson, seconded by Bychinski. Motion carried.

Public Comment:
None

Communications:
The memo from the Finance Committee detailing roles in budget process was distributed.

Discussion of procedure for considering re-organizational initiatives.
The Executive and Legislative Committee will be taking up this agenda item at their next regular meeting for consideration and action. A proposed process for consideration of departmental consolidation and changes to standing committees of the Board was discussed. Potential consolidation of Planning and Zoning and Land Conservation departments is imminent, with other possibilities on the horizon.

Discussion of 2011 budget

Purpose and intent of the meeting – Krueger,
  What it is:
     • Why now (review budget process) – focus is on interactive versus reactive. The role of Finance was elaborated upon and discussed. Where we are at in the process, roles of committees (This is where we have been, this is where we are and this is where we are going).
     • Review of roles (hand-outs)
     • INPUT
          o An opportunity for interaction about the budget that focuses on the “big picture” and outcomes
          o An opportunity through open dialog for committee chairs to provide input to Finance
          o An enhancement to the interactive budget process. Chairs commented at length regarding budget tools (program and priorities sheet). Offered evaluation for improvement.
  What it is not:
     • No numbers, no charts
     • A policy setting forum

What constitutes an acceptable budget?
  What it is:
     • Holistic approach – not geared to departmental issues.
     • Differing targets (0 levy dollars and 0% levy increase) – is that a realistic expectation?
     • Future implications – not a short term issue
  What it is not:
     • Committees and departments are not being asked to redo their budgets.

What types of discussion should occur at the committee level?
  What it is:
     • A request that committees agendize budgetary discussions in September committee meetings to discuss programs / priorities / mandates / discretionary programs / service limitations etc.
     • How does budget affect programs and priorities – future implications
     • Focus on outcomes
  What it is not:
     • Committees and departments are not being asked to redo their budgets

Motion by Stevens, second by Carlson, to adjourn. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathryn Schauf
Administrative Coordinator