Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 20 2003 Briefing MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING MINUTES MAY 20, 2003 The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met in Briefing Session on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 5:00 p.m., in the Iredell County Government Center (South Wing Conference Room), 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC. Present were: Chairman Steve D. Johnson Vice Chairman Godfrey Williams Doug Madison Marvin Norman Sara Haire Tice Staff present: County Manager Joel Mashburn, Finance Director Susan Blumenstein, Communications Director David Martin, Planner Emily Jackson, Tax Administrator Bill Doolittle, Emergency Services Director Tracy Jackson, and Clerk to the Board Jean Moore. CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Johnson. Request from the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) for Approval of the FY 2003-04 Funding Recommendations: Carl Duncan, Chairman of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council for Iredell County, said State juvenile justice funding of $289,914 was anticipated for the upcoming year. He said the JCPC recently met and reviewed funding proposals. Duncan said the Counseling Center of Iredell had received funds in the past, but the council did not recommend FY 03-04 funding. He said the council felt the counseling services offered by the agency needed to be more "intensified." Mr. Duncan said $30,504 still needed to be allocated for next year, and a second request for proposals had been published. He said agencies had up until May 30, 2003, to apply for the money. Commissioner Williams asked if Medicaid acceptance had anything to do with the council's decision regarding the Counseling Center. Duncan said this was discussed. He said the acceptance of Medicaid helped to leverage the money. Mr. Duncan said he understood the Counseling Center planned to submit another proposal for the remaining $30,504, along with Crossroads Behavioral Healthcare, Don -Linn Counseling, and the Barium Springs Home for Children. Mr. Duncan said the council's goal was to obtain as many juvenile services as possible with the available funds. (A complete listing of the agencies approved to receive the FY 03-04 funding is included in the regular minutes.) Riparian Buffer Permanent Rules for the Catawba River Basin: Chairman Johnson said a letter had been received from the Alexander County Board of Commissioners about the Catawba River Riparian Buffer Rulings. He said the letter specifically asked Governor Easley's office to study the rulings, especially the impact they might have on the property owners. Johnson said the Alexander officials were requesting that the Iredell County commissioners send a similar letter. It was the consensus of the board to place this matter on the June 3 agenda. Set Aside Green Space for Subdivisions Having More than Ten Developable Lots: Commissioner Madison said he had concerns about the open space set-aside requirement for subdivisions containing more than ten lots. Madison said he felt the requirement could have a negative impact on smaller subdivisions. He said that unless there was an adequate property owners' association, a liability could be created. Mr. Madison suggested for the requirement to be reviewed again by the planning board. It was the consensus of the commissioners to request that the planning board re- review the matter. (The clerk will notify the planning supervisor.) COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT: County Manager Mashburn then presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2003-04 Iredell County Budget Message. (The document, in its entirety, is as follows. Budget Message FY 2003-2004 The recommended budget for FY 2003-2004 totals $110,737,630. If compared to the original budget approved by the commissioners for 2002-2003, this is an 11.3% increase. If compared to the revised budget for 2002-2003, this is a 13.7% decrease. To really understand what is happening, one has to look at each line item, compare the minutes for the entire year to see where there have been budget changes approved by the board, and look at what is being recommended for FY 2003-2004. The real question should not be how much the expenditures have increased from one year to the next, but how much has the demand increased and how much more does it cost to provide the same level of service. 1 wish it were easy to provide simple answers to these simple questions, but the best that can be done in an introductory overview is to hit some of the highlights and then to provide additional details as we review the budget over the next few weeks. A good place to begin is to do a comparison of the schedules between last year and this. First of all, let's look at SCHEDULE A, the fund balance. At the beginning of 2002- 2003, it was estimated the fund balance for June 30, 2003, would be 10.83%. Now that the year is nearing an end, we estimate a slight decrease (10.79%); however, the actual dollar increase is over $1.2 million, or put another way, we have a 10.8% increase in our undesignated reserves. During a year of weak economy, is it not a positive sign that we have actually been able to grow the fund balance. Next, take a look at SCHEDULE B which shows the increase in the number o/' personnel recommended. On the surface, it would appear that the county is increasing the number of people working in county government by 7.8%. In actuality, the increase is less than 3.5%, and that includes adding an additional twelve (12) jailers to begin the operation of a jail annex, an expansion that is needed because our present jail facility is so overcrowded. If the new jailers were removed, the actual increase then would be less than 2%, and even most of this increase is covered by state and federal.funds, just as are the new positions showing up for the first time in the transportation services department. For FY 2002-2003, these were contract positions, but in order to improve services and reduce cost, the commissioners agreed to bring transportation services in- house. The salary increase per employee is the same as last year — 1.5%. Some money is also set aside for merits; however, as a percentage of the total, it is reduced somewhat. SCHEDULE C shows how much we plan to spend in the general fund for capital outlay. This year we propose a significant increase in capital outlay — about $2 million more in the general fund. One has to remember, however, that last year we reduced capital outlay by about $2 million from the previous year, so basically, we are funding pent up demand. If all requests had been recommended, it could have been another $2 million. SCHEDULE D shows how much more county funds we are spending, and where it is being spent. Just looking at the raw numbers, we are putting almost $9 million more county dollars into the budget than we did in FY 2002-2003. In addition, restricted taxes and fees are up by about $2 million; both of these revenue sources have increased 12% and 15%2% respectively. Federal and state revenues have only increased 2.98%, and as a percent of the total, went from 12.9% to 11.9%. Taking a closer look, we can see that over $4 million of the county increase is going for increased funding for the 2 schools, $1 million is for the sheriff's office, and $1 million for the jail. Social services uses up $533,000 more in county money, and $1,250,000 is transferred into the capital reserve. This accounts for almost $8 million in the increase, with the balance being spread out among all the other expenditures. SCHEDULE E shows a much clearer picture of how much the budget has really increased. In 2001-2002, the budget was $102,614,542. As you can see, FY 2002-2003 was a reduction over the previous year. Looking at both years, the increase is a little less than 4% a year. Although inflation has not been running at 4% a year, the county growth and the weakening economy have increased the demand for services. SCHEDULE 1 shows the schedule of tax values and rates. The county assessor estimates that total values will increase $2.1 billion over FY 2002-2003, or about 19.3% increase. Some of'this is due to the revaluation, and some of it is due to growth in the base. We have had about 48% increase in value since the last revaluation. However, since the last revaluation we have increased schools by approximately 30%, Medicaid is up 79%, public safety is up 45%, and general government is up 42%. In addition to property taxes, the major source of our revenue is sales taxes. We all are aware that the General Assembly authorized the additional % cent in sales tax to make up for the reductions in state reimbursement. It is still too early to tell just how much that the additional %z cent will bring in, but our director of'fnance and administration conservatively estimates it will generate about $4.5 million. However, since we lost $3,152,186 in reimbursements, we will only net out about $1,347,814 in new funds. Obviously, this is better than the alternative, however, the actions of the General Assembly to rush through a budget that it knows cannot be supported by current revenue projections, does not instill in me a very high level of confidence that we will go unaffected by the anticipated shortfall. There are still many ways the state can shift responsibility without providing adequate funding. The state has done it before, and I believe it may do it again. I conclude this initial presentation with a look at the budget for the school systems. The proposed budget represents a return to the stated commissioners' goal of funding schools with a 5% increase plus growth. In addition, the capital outlay amount for Mitchell Community College is recommended to be established on a fixed basis just as the county is doing for the school systems. As has been presented several times in recent years, the increase in student enrollment at Mitchell Community College is increasing at very high levels, and in order for the college to make plans to address this increase, it has to be able to have an accurate way to project its capital revenue. It is recommended that the commissioners adopt a policy of finding the college capital program at an amount equal to % cent of the ad valorem tax rate. For FY 2003-2004, this amount is $629,795. This is still well below the request of the school, but it provides a tool for planning that is needed if the school is to get ready.for the projected growth. This is the sixteenth budget 1 have prepared and presented to the board of commissioners for your consideration. Each and every one has been a challenge, but more recent budgets have been an even greater challenge. High rates of growth, new and increased demand for faster and more efficient services, attacks on our revenue stream by the state and federal government, and a weakening economy have all been major contributors to the position I feel the county is in at this time. This budget, if passed as recommended, will require that the tax rate be set at 44.5 cents, and that we collect 95.81 % of our taxes the very first year. Even at this rate, not enough is being put into capital reserve to adequately plan for future major capital needs, nor- are we able to build our reserves to be prepared for the unexpected or to take advantage of opportunities as they are presented. 1 urge the commissioners to consider leaving the rate at 47 cents and place into reserve the balance between what is needed to fund the proposed budget and the revenue generated by that tax rate. This will obviously not be a popular move to make, but I feel it is justifiable. Regardless, I do recommend that as a minimum you approve the budget as it is recommended, and set the tax rate no less than 44.5 cents for $100 in value. 3 In closing, I cannot express adequately enough how indebted I am to our Director of Finance and Administration, Susan Blumenstein, for her valuable assistance in preparing this proposed budget. Submitted by Joel Mashburn, County Manager and Budget Officer ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Johnson adjourned the briefing session at 6 p.m. Approved 4 Clerk to the Board