|
 The Finance Committee has been working on preparing for the
county's next fiscal year budget that would begin on Dec. 1, 2015.
The committee left one topic in the budget for the board to discuss
that prompted some discussion, several questions, and some
disagreement on the subject.
An early draft of the 2015-16 Budget was presented last Thursday
with a request for the board to discuss non-union salary raises. On
Thursday two motions had come forth, one to issue departments
increase amounts that would allow two percent raises, and
another to amend to three percent. On Tuesday Rick Aylesworth
brought forward the motion for two percent raises that was seconded
by Andy Anderson; and Kevin Bateman's motion to amend to three
percent was seconded by Scott Schaffenacker.
As discussion opened, Pat O'Neill questioned the pay increases,
noting that he checked each department's budget for the fiscal year
and believes that each one is top heavy in salary and insurance and
retirement benefits, adding that each year these departments are
being asked to make cuts in some areas, while at the same time pay
raises are offered. He also noted that the departments have had to
make cuts for years. He surmised that the end result would mean cuts
in services to the public.
 O'Neill asserted that since many of the board members are in
business, they need to "think it out." He urged the board members to
consider revenue coming in, as well as cuts being made, noting, for
instance, that the roads are terrible.
Board member Gene Rohlfs asked Logan County Clerk Sally Turner for
the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Turner said that is .8 percent,
which Turner said is the lowest the county has had since tax caps
were put in place.
Rohlfs is concerned about the proposed budget draft. He said, "Also,
we're plugging a hole in the budget with money we may or may not
receive." "Every year we vote these two and three and four percent
raises,” he said, "I believe this is the year to tighten our belt,"
Since the board does not know if they will get certain monies, he is
concerned about approving raises.
Bateman argued that union employees get raises each year whether
they deserve it or not. He noted that they are not giving a single
(non-union) employee a raise, but it is up to the officeholder to
dole out the raises - the board is just putting the money in the
line item. Bateman continued by pointing out that the office holder
can decide whether to use that money for raises or not, but it is
not fair that union employees that may not deserve a raise gets one
anyway, while a non-union employee does not get one because we are
in some kind of financial hole. He asserted that we have to fill the
hole some other way and declared that it is not fair to put it on
the backs of employees who show up to work.
O'Neill said that he has heard that a lot of taxpayers are upset
about raises when services are being cut.
Board Chairman David Hepler asked Finance Chairman Chuck Ruben if
the board is just giving guidance on this issue at this point. In
brief Ruben said at this time it is create a working draft budget,
but that the budget can be amended until the last vote, which comes
in November.
Hepler then asked for a vote on the amendment for three percent pay
raises. Ruben wished to be on record voting as abstain and requested
a roll call rather than a voice vote. Voting yes on the three
percent amendment were - Bateman, Scott Schaffenacker, Jan
Schumacher, Hepler and Anderson; voting no were - David Blankenship,
Bob Farmer, O'Neill, Rohlfs and Aylesworth. The split vote of 5 - 5
- 1 failed.
[to top of second column] |
Bateman then commented on the dollar amount difference between two percent and
three percent, and said he believes it is $18,000. He asked, "Couldn't we come
up with the [needed] amount of $18,000?
Blankenship noted, however, that it could be substantially higher than $18,000
with benefits that include the county paying insurance, social security, workers
compensation and IMRF. He said taxpayers have the right to know the dollar
amount.
This time a majority vote of 6 - 4 - 1 was reached and the main motion of two
percent pay raises for non-union employees passed with Aylesworth, Bateman,
Schaffenacker, Schumacher, Hepler and Anderson all voting yes.
Ruben then took a moment as he was not present on Thursday, to explain how the
draft was developed in regard to certain revenues that could come in next year.
If one of two proposed wind farm projects would come in, it could provide an
estimated up to $540,000 in revenues.
Ruben began by saying that the second draft of the budget was $551,000 in the
hole. We inserted $260,000, a portion of wind farm revenues, and took the
remaining $290,000 in cuts to balance the budget.
He explained how the committee calculated for whether that $260,000 would come
in or not. It would be a matter of moving money around from places that have a
pool being built. Primary resources would be $160,000 from a group insurance
that has some extra money, plus $50,000 contingency money in the sheriff's
budget, and a $50,000 courthouse building pool.
Aylesworth inquired about the money budgeted to pay Sysco Bonds. Ruben said if
some of the money does not come in, they would just make their annual $50,000
payment, which is in the budget, rather than attempt to pay off the $360,000 yet
owed. He said that it would just be a good use of money to pay off the high
interest loan early if it would be possible.
If the wind project came in there would still be more revenues after paying off
the Sysco bonds. Of those, $100,00 would go to IMRF, and $100,000 to Highway
Fund.
Ruben also said that he sent out a memo to county officials about the cuts to
individual budgets telling them they could make changes in whatever line item
they cared to, as long as the bottom line remained the same - these could be
included in the next draft. Ruben explained that if the officials feel they need
some of the money that may be cut, they should come to the next finance meeting
and talk to the committee.
[Angela Reiners] |
