HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay_16_2013_Budget_Session_MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUDGET SESSION MINUTES
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013
The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 5:30
PM, in the Iredell County Government Center (South Wing Conference Room), 200 South
Center Street, Statesville, NC.
Board Members Present
Chairman Steve Johnson
Vice Chairman Marvin Norman
David Boone
Renee Griffith
Ken Robertson
Staff present County Manager Ron Smith, Deputy County Manager Tracy Jackson,
Finance Director Susan Blumenstein, Assistant Finance Director Deb Alford, Planning,
Development and Transportation Director Joey Raczkowski, IT Director Nettie Johnson, IT
Network Administrator Colin Barnes, County Assessor Steve Ervin, Assistant Assessor Laura
Crater, Register of Deeds Matt McCall, and Clerk to the Board Jean Moore.
CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Johnson
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING GRANT: Commissioner Robertson said he was
absent on May 7, 2013 when the board voted on the scattered site housing grant.
Mr. Robertson provided the following written comments that he read at the meeting
pertaining to the grant.
"During the last Commissioners meeting, this board was asked to accept a Scattered Site Housing
grant, originating from the federal government, for $225,000. Previously our staff had asked permission
to apply for this grant and this board passed that motion 4-1 indicating to our staff that it was our intent to
receive the money if awarded the grant.
"I believe there is a lot of misinformation about state and federal grants. Note, I did not state
anything about county grants. There are no county grants. Typically grant money comes from other non -
county sources.
"If the state or federal government creates a grant program, those legislative bodies have already
decided to spend the money for that narrowly defined purpose. That money will be spent if we receive
the grant or elect not to receive the grant. At the county level, we cannot save state or federal Brant
dollars by not participating in the grant programs.
"Also, there is some lack of understanding about how grant monies can be spent. For instance,
we cannot take an education grant and spend the money on pistols for the Sheriff's department. We can't
take Housing grants and hire teachers. The grant money can only be used for the narrowly defined
purpose as defined by the legislative body that funded the program. At the county level, we do not have
the power to redefine the program, to redirect the funds to other more deserving programs, or to refund
the money back to the taxpayer. I wish our media would help to educate the public on this critical
misunderstanding.
"County government often functions to execute various state and federally mandated programs.
As I have said many times before, our Health Department and Social Services department operate almost
exclusively under state and federal mandates, rules, and operational guidelines. We simply pay to
administer these programs without the freedom to change anything. In this case of the Scattered Housing
grant, they reimburse the county for all of our cost to administer the program.
"Almost every department in our county government receives grant money from the state and
local government. Our schools, law enforcement, fire departments, emergency services, health, library,
social services, and even recreation all apply for, and receive, state and federal grants. If we did not apply
and accept any of these grants, there would not be a penny saved by the taxpayers. That grant money
would simply be allocated to other counties.
"The Scattered Site Housing Grant Program is one that 1 would not have voted for if I were a
Congressman, a US Senator, or the President. I personally don't believe this is a constitutionally
authorized proper use of tax dollars. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, the US Congress, and the
President all disagree with me. So the program is considered legal, and in the best interest of the country
despite any personal objections I have or any other commissioner may also have. Iredell County citizens
will pay for the Scattered Housing Program through their federal tax dollars, and if we are honest, kids in
our elementary schools will be paying for it 10 years from now. So I share the contempt that some have
expressed over this specific program.
"But we are not voting on the merits of the program. We are not voting on the constitutionality of
the program. The federal government has allocated a certain amount of money to each state for this
program. Each county was then allocated a certain portion of the state's allotment. We are voting to do
one of only two choices. We can vote to receive the grant so it can be used to fix up some homes of poor
and elderly residents, with local contractors getting $225,000 worth of business, and local merchants can
sell building supplies, and Iredell County can collect sales taxes on those purchases. Or we vote to turn
down the money, and the state will then give our portion of the grant money to Mecklenburg County,
Wake County, Forsyth County or any other county whose commissioners decide they would like to use
the money intended for Iredell County. Note there is no third option to save the taxpayers the cost of this
program. That option does not exist. There is no fourth option to give this money to the schools, fire
departments, or the United Way. There are only two options.
"It is for this reason that I ask the Board to reconsider accepting the Scattered Site Housing Grant
and we vote to accept the money to be spent here in Iredell County as opposed to returning it to a
bureaucrat in Raleigh who will simply reallocate this money that was intended for us, and give it to
another county."
OTIO by Commissioner Robertson to reconsider accepting the Scattered Site
Housing Grant.
l\iISlfYilX)IIIL�l1IlFl�IlFyiiI1111P]
"In the process of this grant, the county takes the responsibility for approving an administrator
and a consultant. The consultant's work also involves a service team to make sure the work is done
properly, and it meets HUD specs which are more stringent than the North Carolina Building Code that
we adhere to. It is necessary to have those folks on the job to make sure everything is done. If there is
any wrongdoing, then we have to repay the grant. If we hire a consultant/administrator/service team they
will be responsible for any repayment. Finding an administrator will involve the competitive bid process
and this is usually less than ten percent. The consultant will charge roughly around ten percent. If our
inspectors go out and inspect this we can recover the cost of their having done the inspections as well as
the associated costs for services provided by the county's finance staff members. Pursuant to Mr.
Robertson's motion, I would encourage any costs that we incur, as much as practical, to be charged back
to the grant."
t ommissioner vnmm sata me
"We all talk about the federal government spending more money than collecting. Since this is a
federal grant, and if you use the Washington Post numbers on the amount of dollars, or percentage of
money borrowed on every dollar, then $103,500 of this grant will be borrowed from a foreign country.
We all complain about the federal government's spending and spending. I know this would directly
benefit some citizens in Iredell County, but it seems you could argue that every government grant benefits
somebody. There is a beneficiary to every grant. My suggestion would be that we not take the scattered
site housing grant and that citizens provide enough money to create a scattered site housing grant. People
are already doing this, such as Purple Heart Homes and Habitat for Humanity. That way, we would not
put our children and grandchildren in debt for $103,500 to another country, and we've taken care of our
citizens and done the job the community is supposed to do and not the federal government."
Commissioner Robertson said that if the money wasn't spent in Iredell County it would
be given to another county.
Commissioner Boone said the motion on the floor was to reconsider the grant, but he
wouia voice nis opinion on the merits or the grant too. He reaa the touowmg written comments:
"From time to time this board is faced with the question of whether to accept state or federal
money for some purpose.
"Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether accepting the money is worth the strings attached.
And one thing you can be sure of is that anytime government gives you money, there are strings attached
in one way or another.
"The question of whether or not to accept a grant must be decided on a case by case basis. I have
usually voted to take the money. It is in our best interest to do so if it is used to fund something the
county normally does and if the strings attached are not too onerous.
2
"But we have not always voted to accept so-called free money. As recently as December 18
Centralina COG requested that we endorse their application for a Mobility Management Agency grant
from the NC DOT. On motion from Chairman Johnson, this board unanimously voted against even
endorsing the grant application. Although there are differences, the facts in that case were in many
respects analogous to those in the matter at hand.
"There are plenty of strings attached to this housing grant.
"A condition of the grant was that $22,500 of the amount had to be used to pay a consultant. The
county would have been required to take steps to ensure `meaningful access' for non English speaking
people, subject repair projects to the Davis -Bacon (union wage) Act, complete an environmental review,
ensure that architectural barriers be eliminated, appoint a committee to oversee the grant, file at least a
half-dozen compliance reports, submit detailed monthly status reports, and meet a host of other
requirements. A Guideline and Application manual for the grant is 67 pages long.
"County government is involved in many areas. Traditionally, housing programs have not been
one of them. The grant at issue would, at most, have benefited fewer than two -dozen families.
"Are we so addicted to spending other people's money that we will accept every dime that is
thrown our way, even if it entangles the county in areas in which it is not normally involved, even if
onerous bureaucratic strings are attached, and even if only a handful of people would benefit.
"I realize rational people can disagree on this and you could argue it both ways. I have no
problem in discussing this in a rational and civilized manner.
"But the reaction of some on the political left has been anything but reasoned.
"Most liberals pride themselves on being tolerant and intelligent. But in this case many have
resorted to name calling and emotionalism rather than making a rational argument. I have gotten more e-
mails on this than 1 have on anything since I've been on the board and over 90% of them have been
positive. People are agreeing with me on this. There were several individuals who I thought were a little
bit moderate who agreed with me.
"The reaction to the vote of last week has been a learning experience.
"Almost everyone I have seen has been positive. People tell me that they're glad to see someone
is finally standing up for us, that it's good to see someone actually acting on principle, and not just being
another politician. Many say it's about time someone took a stand against runaway spending.
"In short, there are a lot of people who are way ahead of the politicians.
"As I said before, questions about accepting state and federal money have to be decided on a case
case basis. In the future I will be more likely than before to vote against accepting similar grants."
VOTING: Ayes — 3; Nays — 2 (Boone/Griffith)
OTIO by Commissioner Robertson to (1) Accept the grant award (2) Authorize the
Chairman to execute the Grant Agreement and funding approval documents provided by the
State of North Carolina (3) Adopt a 2012 CDBG Scattered Site Housing Grant Project Ordinance
that establishes a special revenue fund and (4) Authorize Joey Raczkowski, Susan Blumenstein,
and Debra Alford to certify and sign each grant expenditure reimbursement requisition submitted
to the State.
VOTING: Ayes — 3; Nays — 2 (Boone/Griffith)
Iredell County, North Carolina
Special Revenue Fund
2012 CDBG Scattered Site Housing Grant #12-C-2434
Be it Ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Iredell County, North Carolina:
Section 1. Funds for this Special Revenue Fund will be provided from the following sources:
Community Development Block Grant -
Housing Rehabilitation $ 202,500
Grant Administration and Consultation 22,50C
225,000
Section 2. The following costs shall be paid from this fund:
Planning and Administration $ 22,500
Rehabilitation of Privately -owned
Dwellings 202,500
$ 225,000
Section 3. This Special Revenue Fund shall continue until the project is complete.
Section 4. The County Manager is authorized to transfer funds between line items.
Payments from this Special Revenue Fund shall be authorized by the County Manager or his
Section S. designee.
FY 13-14 Budget Review
County Manager Smith said that in creating the budget, the department heads were
encouraged to have a zero increase, or no more than two percent. He said this had not been
achieved in all cases, but it was a starting point. Smith said the staff had assumed revenues, or
sales taxes and some development fees, would be "volatile." He said the board should recognize
that all departmental facility needs had been combined and placed in the facility services budget.
Smith said this was done in an effort to control costs and have a more centralized administration.
Smith said all personal computer requests were included in the Information Technology
(IT) budget. He said a schedule was being followed in the purchase of computers, and the IT
department monitored the purchases and replacements. Smith said the IT budget had increased
about $120,000 due to this method.
Mr. Smith said the majority of the new positions being recommended had been discussed
at the winter planning session; such as the ones for ECOM & EMS. He said all animal control
dispatches would be moved to ECOM which should result in better accountability and efficiency.
Smith voiced concerns about the county's development departments (Code Enforcement,
Central Permitting & Environmental) in the new budget year because it appeared that
development was increasing. He said the staff would monitor the development trends,
especially since some of the budgets had experienced cuts in the past.
Commissioner Boone said a person would have a more accurate picture of what was
being spent for computers if the purchases were shown in each department rather than placing all
of the costs in the IT budget.
Smith said this was correct, but the information on a departmental level could be
provided.
Boone said a person would also have a more accurate accounting of how much was being
spent on utility costs for the courts if the amount was included there (courts) instead of in the
facility services budget.
Smith said the costs were itemized out, and the information could be provided.
Boone said showing the actual costs for each individual departmental budget might be the
best method.
Finance Director Blumenstein reviewed Schedule A, as follows, that lists the estimated
Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013.
GENERALFUND
ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE AS OF JUNE 30, 2013
Available for Appropriation, Unassigned at June 30, 2012
$ 35,266,742
Total Projected Revenue $163,194,397
Total Projected Expenditures $167,078,889
Reduction in Fund Balance
(3,884,492)
Estimated Fund Balance at June 30, 2013
$ 31,382,250
Recommended Budget, Fiscal Year 2014
$164,108,385
Fund Balance as % of Recommended Budget
19.12%
4
In regards to new employees for the upcoming year, the following positions were
recommended by the manager.
Tax Assessor — I
Facility Services — 1
ECOM — 2
EMS -3
EMS Specialty Services - 2
Environmental - I
ICATS/Operations — 1
If approved, there would be 939 funded positions in the FY 13-14 budget.
Blumenstein reviewed the capital outlay requests, along with charts showing the general
fund expenditures by service type, revenue sources for the general fund departments,
expenditures by function, general fund expenditures and changes by expenditure types.
Using valuation estimates provided by County Assessor Steve Ervin (as follows),
Blumenstein predicted a 3.14% increase in taxable value change from the current budget year to
2013-14.
2012-13 2013-14 Increase %
Total Taxable Value $20,463,500,000 $21,106,500,000 $643,000,000 3.14%
Blumenstein said the following fire tax rates had been requested for FY 13-14.
Reauested for FY 13-14 FY 12-13 Rate
County -wide
7.5¢
6.5¢
E. Alexander Fire
6¢
5¢
Mt. Mourne Fire
4¢
3.5¢
Shepherds
7¢
7¢
Troutman Fire
6.5¢
5¢
Budget Review of Individual Departments
410 — Commissioners: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
415 — Administration: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
421 — Human Resources: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
425 — Elections: No changes from the manager's recommendations. Commissioner Boone
noted the budget included printed materials. Boone said there was only one firm in
North Carolina that was allowed to print ballots. Mr. Boone said the General Assembly
needed to re -review this matter since the firm was probably charging too much.
430 — Finance: No changes from the manager's recommendations. (Blumenstein mentioned that
in the next three to five years, a banking specialist would be needed.)
436 - County Assessor: No changes from the manager's recommendations. County Manager
Smith said new positions for a business personal property auditor and a property specialist
had been requested, but only the latter position was recommended.
County Assessor Steve Ervin said the business personal section had not added a new
position since 1999. He said graphs indicated there had been an 85% growth in valuation and a
91% increase in the levy of revenue. Ervin said another employee could assist in locating
individuals who were not listing their properties, and a prior contract with TMA had found many
businesses that had never been listed. Ervin said the new position (property specialist) would be
asked to perform field audits once they were initially trained. He predicted that over a five-year
period, with the help of another staff person, the office would be able to bring in over a million
dollars in unlisted businesses.
Chairman Johnson asked the primary responsibilities for the proposed new employee.
Ervin said the department was "stressed" at the current time in keying in the listings. He
said the person would help to expedite the entries, and this would provide more time for desk
audits.
Commissioner Griffith mentioned that some citizens had complained about the county
using a foreclosure attorney located in another county. She said the citizens had mentioned it
would be easier to discuss their cases if an Iredell County firm were used.
Ervin said the firm specialized in foreclosures and performed work for many counties.
He said the firm was equipped to provide the work in an expeditious manner. Ervin noted that
the citizens had many opportunities to discuss their situations with the local tax collector and his
staff members before their accounts were given to the attorney.
County Manager Smith said another advantage to an out -of -county attorney was the
elimination of conflicts of interest.
Blumenstein added that many attorneys would not handle foreclosure cases.
437 — Tax Collector: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
438 — Mapping/GIS: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
445 — Information Systems: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
Smith said IT Director Nettie Johnson and Network Administrator Colin Barnes had been
asked to attend the meeting to discuss their departmental needs.
Mrs. Johnson said one IT budget request was for a "redundant" Internet connection. She
said the county only had one connection, and if it encountered problems, numerous
departments could be affected such as 911 and ICATS. Mrs. Johnson said the current
provider was AT&T, and Time Warner would be used for the new connection. She said
many county employees had to use the Internet for their jobs.
Mrs. Johnson said IT had assumed the responsibility for computer purchases for most
of the departments, plus it now supported many departmental applications such as
Laserfische. She said many servers had been eliminated in the process.
450 - Register of Deeds: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
Register of Deeds Matt McCall said the real estate market had improved and there was a
projected revenue increase of five percent. He noted his FY 13-14 budget was lower
than the one for FY 12-13. McCall mentioned that a request to use Technology and
Preservation Funds might be presented to the board in the near future for a new server.
He said there was a balance of $350,000 in the state mandated fund that accrued
from a small portion of each transaction.
Blumenstein said the $350,000 was on deposit with the county. She said that with Mr.
McCall's permission, the funds had been used in the past to help build the county's IT
infrastructure.
Commissioner Griffith asked why the office didn't purchase a server now.
McCall said his primary concern, at the current time, was the Mooresville office. He said
that office would not be at capacity for another 12 months.
Concluding, McCall said his FY 13-14 budget request was 41.76% lower than the one for his
predecessor in FY 10-11.
Commissioner Boone commended McCall on his efficient office.
460 — Vehicle Service Center: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
6
County Manager Smith said a position (30 hours) was added last year. He said the vehicle
services director had asked for the position to be increased to full time; however, it was
not recommended in the budget.
465 — Courts: (Not discussed at the May 16 meeting. The courts budget will be reviewed with
the public safety departments.)
470 - Legal: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
475 — Economic Development: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
The county manager noted that $31,040 was listed as an appropriation for the
Carolinas Regional Partnership; however, the General Assembly recently repealed the
economic development statute. He said the county would be aligned with another
district, but any membership costs were unknown at the present.
Chairman Johnson said the Statesville Airport was eligible for a $35,000 federal grant that
did not require a local match, but the money had to be supplied upfront with a state
reimbursement in the same budget year.
480 — General Governmental: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
Smith said there was a $601,915 increase, and it was primarily for salary increases, retiree
health, and insurance/bonds.
485 — Special Appropriations: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
Chairman Johnson asked if anyone from Soil and Water had submitted any maintenance
requests for the Third Creek Watershed structures.
Smith said no.
Commissioner Robertson noted that $23,500 was recommended for the Lake Norman
Marine Commission while the agency had requested $25,500.
Smith said the managers in the four counties involved with the marine commission had
discussed the matter and agreed on the $23,500.
In regards to $2,500 being added for the Civil Air Patrol, Chairman Johnson said he had
requested this due to the Sheriff's Office using the agency's hangar for training. He noted
too that when drills were held at the airport, the Civil Air Patrol's hangar was used.
Commissioner Griffith said the Civil Air Patrol also helped with search and rescue
missions.
Pertaining to the National Guard Armory, Assistant Finance Director Alford said there
had been a $1,375 request. She said the National Guard Armory submitted the request on
April 26 and this was several weeks after the deadline for outside agency submissions.
Alford said the request was lower than what had been previously provided.
562 —Inspections: Smith noted that certificate incentives ($15,000) were reinstated for this
budget. He said the Code Enforcement Director had requested changes in permit
fees for plan reviews as follows:
Plan Review Fee Revisions:
Current fee $0.03 per sq. ft. for all occupancies.
Proposed new fees to reflect complexity of review
Plan Review Fee: (Storage/Utility, Hazardous, Factory, Industrial, Occupancies) $0.04 per s.f.
Plan Review Fee: (Mercantile, Residential, Business, Occupancies) S0.05 per s.f.
Plan Review Fee: (Assembly, Educational, Institutional, Occupancies) $0.06 per s.f.
Expedited Plan Review Fee: At the option of the owner these will occur for an additional fee. The
fee will be calculated at three times the amounts listed above.
7
Additional permit categories — commercial:
Commercial re -roofing with no structural change $250
Phone Systems Low Voltage Wiring $100
Computer Systems Low Voltage Wiring $150
Security/Fire Systems $200
Additional permit categories - residential:
Security/Fire Systems $150
County Manager Smith mentioned concerns about the expedited plan review fee. He
recommended for this section to be deleted.
Chairman Johnson mentioned the possibility of someone working overtime to review the
plans, but to charge enough to pay the labor costs.
563 — Planning & Erosion Control: No changes from the manager's recommendations. Smith
noted that an addressing person had been added during FY 12-13, but a position would be
eliminated in FY 13-14. Smith proposed to move the eliminated clerical position to
environmental health to work in Statesville and Mooresville.
566 — Central Pennitting: No changes from the manager's recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 PM. (NEXT
MEETING: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at 5:30 PM for another budget review session.)
Approved:
Clerk to the Board
0