(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of Dept FY 06-07 budget, with consideration of recommendations from Finance Committee.
The Chief made some initial comments. He said some major goals in this budget plan was to preserve the fiscal resources needed to do the job, at the same time finding ways to improve operational efficiencies. They attempted to maintain budget amounts for direct services and not initiate any new or increased fees for services. They have no lay offs in the plan.
M Lui said the budget presented met the targets set by the City. Initially the baseline reduction target was $497K, then there was the reduction of 3% to ongoing expenses (equaling $724K).
He briefly reviewed various aspects of the document presented. Points mentioned:
Increased revenues from Title IVe reimbursements of $329K. Reduction from vacant positions in community programs division. A supplemental budget request is being developed to ask for enchancement of the employment training efforts of the dept.
Comm Hale questioned the rationale behind removing a current position from the budget and simultaneously asking for a supplemental to make up for that.
Lui said that 2 supervising probation officers’ positions will be left vacant. There was a short discussion about the lack of supervisory staff to oversee line staff.
Lui said that the PUC estimated $337K more for utilities cost for the new juvenile hall than what the Dept had budgeted.
There was a question about the mental health costs for LCRS. Lui said that for the past 5 yrs he’s worked here, the amount has been the same (even when the population was in the low teens).
He said that the TANF ranch funds was based on a percentage of total beds in the state, so if LCRS increases, then the funds will increase based on that percentage.
Comm Beijen supported the position taken by the Finance Comm and the Chief that this was the budget we need to advocate for.
Comm Queen commented that the Commission/Dept should submit the budget that we need (including those management positions that are claimed necessary).
There was a discussion regarding whether to just approve the budget as proposed, or to advocate for positions that are absent from it.
The Chief said he could live with the inclusion of one Sr. Supervising Probation Officer and one Employment Specialist.
Comm Queen suggested the Commission writing a letter to accompany the budget, speaking to the need for those two positions.
Comm Hale emphasized this also. Comm Stiglich moved to approve the budget as presented. Comm Beijen 2nd.
Comm Hale raised the question of Huckleberry again, and whether its status offender services should be supported via Dept funds only.
Comm Fetico offered a friendly amendment to include a letter asking for the 5 positions that are being eliminated.
Comm Queen asked if the Commission could approve the President of the Commission draft the letter (in agreement with the Chief) requesting the 5 positions identified by the Chief.
The original motion to approve the budget as proposed was voted on, and it carried 7-0.
Comm Rojas moved to send a letter to the Mayor’s office to support the inclusion of the 5 positions identified by the Chief. Comm Fetico 2nd.
Upon voice vote the motion carried 7-0. The language of the letter will be reviewed at the next full Commission meeting.
There were no members of the public present and no public comments on either motion.