A Special Called Board of County Commissioners meeting and a Henderson City Council Meeting were both scheduled last week on Monday June 23, 2014. One started at 5 pm and the other started at 6 pm. Instead of crafting two separate summaries I thought mixing and matching the two could highlight similarities and dissimilarities of the two governing bodies.
Budget Approval
The first of the five topics on the Board’s agenda was to approve the 2014 – 2015 budget. The city’s budget had been approved the week before. The Board of Commissioners increased property tax by one cent per $100 of evaluation or $10 on a $100,000 home. The City Council increased the cost of drinking water for city residence and indirectly the cost of water in the county water project. Both the city’s and the county’s budgets included salary increases for their respective employees. The similarity of the budgets ends there. The County Manager seemed to have pulled a number from the air to use for calculating salary increases. The City Manager on the other hand had spent seven months developing a Classification and Pay Study with Personnel Policy from which salary increases were determined. The city’s budget was approved unanimously; the county’s budget was approved over the strong objection of three commissioners. The county and the city each had a different approach for reviewing their respective budgets. Voters may dislike the respective budgets; their displeasure rests in part in themselves. Both budgets were reviewed in full view for the voters in as transparent and open process as possible, unlike what is happening in Raleigh.
Authorization of Year-End Closeout
What is a Year-End Closeout? Is it a sale such as a summer close out? Turns out the annual Year-End Closeout is the term used for closing the accounting records with the end of fiscal year. Both the county and the city go through this process. The County Manager mumbled (does not speak to be heard in the Peanut Gallery) that it was time to take the necessary actions to closeout for the fiscal year. “So we respectfully request your permission to do that this year.” In under a minute including the County Manager’s portion the Board made a motion, a second, and voted to approve the closeout. Not a question asked. Two blocks away the City’s Finance Director made a formal presentation using the documents in the agenda packet to review the details of each account to be closed out. The city council discussed each account in depth before voting to approve the closeouts. Observing both votes I now wonder how much of the commissioners’ 17 hours of budget review was theatrics and how much was a genuine review.
Commissioners other agenda items
The County Manager had prepared a single page agenda that included four public topics and one closed session topic. The last two public session topics were the Approval of Appraisal Company for 2016 Property Revaluations and the Approval of Lease Agreements. Three firms submitted a bid to perform the property revaluation. Prior to the Board meeting the property committee had meet to review the bids and submit one to the Board for approval. The commissioners’ after much discussion approved the one bidder, albeit not the lowest bidder. The vote to accept the bid was a bitter pill for many commissioners to swallow. It was too bitter for Commissioner Brummitt the only vote opposing the bidder. The lease agreement agenda item was another of the County Managers verbal presentation to the commissioners that includes dollars. Commissioner Brummitt asked if the leases covered any cost associated with the county’s ownership of the properties. Had there been documentation in the agenda packet on each of the leases, then all the commissioners would have had that information days before the meeting. As it happens often with a lax management style one of the leases covered three years, last year, this year, next year. Not one commissioner seemed alarmed that “the staff and management” had missed getting a three year lease approved the first year of the lease. The County Attorney interjected another agenda item pertaining to the sale of property. The City Council allows agenda adjustments expect they are announced and approved at the beginning of the meeting not just injected whenever. The final agenda item was a closed session without an announcement. This allowed the entire Peanut Gallery to scamper over to the city council’s meeting.
City Councils other agenda item and work session items
Before beginning the Regular Work Session the council discussed at length a resolution to authorize the City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief to pursue legislative remedies with the NC General Assembly regarding the use of to mopeds on the roadways. The Peanut Gallery was surprised to hear Councilmember Daye speak on this matter. He seldom speaks publicly and when he does pay attention. He expressed his concern about the improper use of mopeds. Councilmember Kearney was the only voice opposing the resolution; his concern was unrelated to the issue. The issue is to find a remedy for the consequences of a moped driver who causes damage to other peoples’ property.
The Regular Work Session included a presentation of the Master Plan for the Recreation and Parks Department. The presentation was by Steve Osborne along with Will Brooks of the Council of Government. The COG has developed a fifteen (15) year plan for the local recreation and parks department. According to the COG, the city’s population over the next five years will continue to decline while the county’s have a slight increase. Overall the net population growth is 08% of which a significant portion will be the over 65 set. By the end of the COG’s projection period a third of population will be over 65. Let that sink in. Now ask yourself how your taxpayers’ dollars should spent on recreation and parks, other than walking paths?
My apology for the lateness of my notes.