Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 – 2015
Mr. Asycue presented the proposed budget to the Board announcing a $0.033 cent (4.22%) increase in property taxes. Mr. Asycue pointed out that the current $0.782 rate has been in place for the past five years and is not sufficient to meet the minimum of county needs. Last year Mr. Asycue recommended that the Commissioners enact a $0.02 (two cent) tax increase. Instead of heeding Mr. Asycue’s recommendation the Board approved last year’s budget with much praise from then Chairman Hester for not following the County Manager’s recommendation. A year has passed through the hour glass of life and what was only a recommendation has become a reality. In the budget message Mr. Asycue notes that “If all requests were to be funded, the ad valorem tax rate would be over $1.20, or an increase in the tax rate of about 53.5%.” There is a significant difference between the recommended $.033 tax increase and the funding of the full wish list with a $1.20 increase. Last year Commissioner Taylor pointed out during one of the public work sessions that 96.4% of the budget is mandated. Using his calculation, of this year’s proposed expenditures of $53,205,701, only $1,915,405 is ‘discretionary expenditure’. The Board will again 18 hours or more of public work sessions discussing the proposed budget and specifically that $1,915,405 of ‘discretionary expenditures’. Last year the Board approved an additional $40,123 in proposed expenditures after a similar 16 hours of public work session. The Board has also reserved time at their June 3rd meeting for the public to speak on the proposed budget. If the past is a reflection of the future, then besides private grossing among individuals the public will be unseen and unheard throughout the budget review process. There were at least two bright spots in Mr. Asycue’s budget presentation. The first was the 1.33% increase in the County’s tax base and the second is the tax collection rate of 94.24%. Mr. Asycue noted this is the highest tax collection rate in many years. The proposed budget is posted on the County’s web-site for public perusing (http://www.vancecounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Proposed-Budget-FY-2014-15.pdf). Dates and times of the public work sessions will be posted on the County’s web-site. (Audio time stamp beginning at 2:07:00 hour/minute mark)
Committee Reports
One of the more interesting committee reports was the Intergovernmental Committee. The Intergovernmental Committee consists of three commissioners who represent the County when meeting and working with the City Council. Prior to the re-formation of the committee the county and the city each had one emissary who could meet behind closed doors cut a deal then report back to their respective governing body. That’s how an out of the county for profit company became operator of the county’s water project. The city views the emissary the better approach while the county thinks a committee is the better approach. The public benefits with the committee approach because of open meeting requirements. Back to the committee report, the city has offer the county management control of the parks and recreation facilities. (Why the City desires to forgo the prestige and control of parks and recreation management has not been revealed.) This control is represented by who pays the majority portion of the cost. Currently the city is paying 55% and county pays 45%. This seems logical since the majority of the population lives within the city’s boundaries. The city is offering the county 60% controlling interest to the city’s 40%. When the committee met with the city’s pitchman, Council Member Inscoe, Commissioner Garrison spoke skeptically of this golden opportunity. He asked for specifics that were not in included in Mr. Inscoe’s sales pitch. What specifics, just the details where the devil resides. Commissioner Taylor was anxious to sign-off on the deal suggesting a quick review of the details was sufficient due diligence. Mr. Asycue said his plate was full with budget work and he is short on resources to conduct the appropriate due diligence. During the Board meeting Chairwoman Brown announced the formation of an ad hoc committee to examine the city’s proposal. Commissioner Hester, who is a member of the Intergovernmental Committee, suggested the ad hoc committee complete their work in time to include the funding change in the new budget. Commissioner Taylor vigorously objected to the ad hoc committee all but saying he knew the deal was the best thing for the county. The ad hoc committee members include Mr. Brummitt, Garrison, and Wilder each with a different perspective of the county’s needs. (Audio time stamp beginning at 1:12:00 hour/minute mark)
County Manager’s Report
Besides the budget the County Manager had submitted a resolution for the Board’s approval “Supporting the Remediation of Water Contamination Related to Coal Combustion Waste and Removal of Coal Combustion Waste.” Before the Board could discuss the resolution Mr. Asycue requested to table the resolution until the June Board meeting, because the Council of Government (COG) objects to wording of the resolution. Chairwoman Brown concurred and Commissioner Brummitt moved to table the resolution. Before the vote to table the resolution Commissioner Garrison spoke of the letter to the editor in Sunday’s Dispatch criticizing the commissioners for their lack of interest on the potential contamination of the Roanoke and Kerr Lake cause by Duke Energy’s coal ash spill near Danville. The Roanoke River Basin Association hosted a meeting at the library on April 24th “to discuss the dangers of coal ash contamination, outline our concerns, strategize a coordinated cleanup campaign, and determine and delegate actions to be taken.” On April 25th, the Dispatch reported that only Warren and Franklin counties chairmen attended the meeting along with Rep Baskerville, and Ms. Nancy Wilson Vance County’s tourism director. Commissioner Hester almost interrupting Commissioner Garrison was quick to point out he and Mr. Garrison were attending a scheduled COG meeting on April 24th. None of the other five commissioners offered an excuse or reason for their collective disinterest in the public’s concern. The City of Council did approve a resolution on April 14th expressing their collective concern and did so with asking the COG approval. Commissioner Brummitt seeking political cover withdrew his original motion tabling the resolution and submitted a new motion approving release of the resolution as soon as Mr. Asycue can obtain the COG’s approval of the Vance County Board of Commissioners resolution “Supporting the Remediation of Water Contamination Related to Coal Combustion Waste and Removal of Coal Combustion Waste”. Does the COG need Duke Energy’s approval? (Audio time stamp beginning at 2:19:11 hour/minute mark)