Budget Hearings Day 4

NOTE: These are my personal notes, and should not be construed as an official record or statement of policy of any kind of the council or any other county entity.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Probation –
Much of the probation department is funded through fees, with only two budget line items from the general fund: salaries for four probation officers, which are mandated by the state, and juvenile detention center. The council cut the detention center request from $385,000 to $250,000, which is still an increase from last year, though a large increase in costs is anticipated. Kari Ragsdale, probation director, agreed to the cut with the understanding that she may have to return next year for an additional appropriation from the Rainy Day Fund.
One of the adult probation user fee funds pays most of the department. Another pair of funds involve a grant for community corrections programs, keeping offenders out of jail and saving the county substantial expenditure. One part of that program discussed at length funds correctional officers at the jail to supervise inmates granted work release. As the program has expanded, an additional correctional officer may need to be hired based on inmate/officer ratio requirements. That money would come only from user fees, not tax dollars, and would actually help the county by adding an officer to the jail staff.

Convention and Visitors Bureau –
This organization is funded entirely by the innkeepers tax, and does not come from county general funds. With the closure of the former Quality Inn/Holiday Inn in Lebanon and the economic downturn, the revenues are down substantially. The upcoming year budget reflects a cut of $80,000, roughly $30%, though that is still above projected income. Cuts to staff (part-time director and full-time assistant) and the closure of the CVB office in Lebanon are strong possibilities for savings.

Solid Waste –
The Solid Waste District is funded entirely through fees and grants, primarily charges to waste handling companies. The board has significant reserves, and has begun a community grant program to support projects in the county related to recycling and waste reduction.

Superior Court I –
Judge Kincaid agreed to a few small cuts and shifting all jury-related expenses to jury fee funds, but asked an increase in pauper attorney fees to reflect the increasing number of indigent defendants. All told the Court’s budget increased 1% over last year’s.

Weights and Measures –
Budget remained essentially the same, with a few minor cuts. The county is currently in its second year with its own weights and measures “division,” which is a part-time employee in the commissioners’ budget and supervised by the surveyor. The workload continues to increase, and in the next few years we may need to go to a full-time employee. For now it remains part-time and essentially as-needed, with a salary cap at $30,000.

Cumulative Bridge –
Highway Supervisor Tom Kouns updated on the status of the county bridges and upcoming projects. Biggest concern is the state’s continuing effort to transfer State Road 334 to local control, which would include the county taking responsibility for all its bridges. The county will continue to resist that transfer, and if forced to accept will attempt to negotiate a payment for bridge maintenance to be included. Other major discussion was over the possibility of transferring $2.1M from the fund (total balance of roughly $6.3M) to the Rainy Day fund, which would free it up for other uses, including roads and even bridges. That will require approval from the commissioners, but seems to be acceptable to Mr. Kouns. The submitted budget is equal to last year’s, $1.285M, which is above the fund’s current income, but the complex state and federal reimbursement formulas will essentially cover the difference.

Commissioners –
Increasing efficiencies from technology for printing costs and savings from the recently-adopted postage service allowed cuts from the proposed budget of $25,000 from those two lines, ending up with the two a combined $35,000 lower than last year.
Witham Health Services requested an increase of $18,000, not quite 5%, for EMS/ambulance services, in part to allow a salary increase to attract personnel. The council opted to maintain the 2011 budget at 2010 levels, leaving Witham Hospital to cover any increases if it sees fit.
ARC Rehab Services requested and received an increase of $9,000 to $130,000. Traditionally, the county has contributed 10% to ARC’s budget. Last year ARC did not request an increase, and with additional costs imposed by changes from the state the county’s percentage dropped below 8%. This increase would not cover all the additional costs, particularly increased demand for WIC services, but would put the county’s contribution back above 9% of the total budget. None of the county money goes to pay salaries; all county contributions go to programming and services.
Senior Services requested $140,000, as they have the past several years, about half of which supports public transportation in the county. All Boone County Transit vehicles are purchased through grant money. Most of the remaining county money goes to support services for seniors to allow them to stay in their homes, as well as to senior guardianship.


When all is said and done, a total of just under $2.2M has been trimmed or transferred from the general fund budget requests, leaving an approved budget about 8% lower than last year’s. Unfortunately, that leaves us only about halfway to our goal of cutting $4.4M in order to maintain a 15% operating balance. After finalizing the various resolutions needed to formalize these changes and discussing any changes to the salary ordinance, the next step will be to decide what from this budget will be transferred to the Rainy Day fund. The council discussed options for using this reserve, and the general consensus seemed to be that shooting for a target somewhere in the 12-13% range might be more prudent, and trying to take the necessary money from one fund would make the accounting easier. The decisions made this week will be reviewed by the auditor’s office staff, the council, and Umbaugh for discussion at the council’s regular September meeting. Final adoption of the budget for submission to the state could happen then, but most likely will occur in October.