Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study commission says $75,000-per-year budget cap likely but requests formal confirmation
Summary
Members discussed a preliminary $75,000 allocation for each of the two years covered by the study commission budget, raised questions about whether unspent funds may be carried forward, and flagged union contract and HR questions about staffing rates and classification.
Members of the Silver Bow County Study Commission on Monday discussed draft budget parameters that commissioners said included what they remembered as $75,000 in funding for year one and $75,000 for year two, but they stopped short of finalizing figures until county budget and HR staff can confirm.
The commission’s chair said, “I believe we have to iron that out. And we will have to request. I think the 75 is our cap for each year.” Commissioners asked staff to request a formal confirmation from Ms. Hasler, the county budget contact identified during the meeting.
Why it matters: the commission must set a timetable and decide how to use staff, outreach, legal notices and other resources; clarity on the annual cap determines how much the commission can spend on consultants, meeting broadcasting, and outreach. Commissioners also flagged that the commission’s administrative aide and other support costs should be included in the line items.
Discussion and specifics
Commissioners asked whether unspent funds could be carried forward. One participant explained that, in some county budgeting contexts, unused allocations can be carried forward into the next fiscal year and applied to the next allocation, but she cautioned that the commission should verify the rule with the county budget office and county attorney because budget rules vary by fund and statute.
Members raised staffing and classification questions. Several commissioners said the commission will need guidance from HR about whether the primary administrative person would be an employee covered under an existing union contract and what that means for pay, hours and retroactive adjustments; the transcript records questions such as whether the administrative position would be a contract role or subject to a union classification and benefits. Commissioners asked staff to check how the union contract’s classifications and parity adjustments could affect the commission’s staffing costs.
Commission assignments and next steps
Commissioners volunteered to draft a first budget template. A smaller subcommittee was proposed to gather historical budget allocations from the previous study commission and to prepare a draft for the full commission to consider. Commissioner volunteers said they would obtain last-cycle line items to use as a starting point and asked staff to obtain written confirmation of the annual cap and HR guidance on staff rates.
Ending
The commission did not adopt a final budget at the meeting. Commissioners directed staff to request a formal written confirmation of the $75,000-per-year allocation, to get a breakdown of prior commission spending for reference, and to confirm HR guidance about the administrative support position before they draft a final budget for adoption.
