In anticipation of a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Thursday, February 11, 2010, the Henderson City Council held a discussion on programs funded jointly by the city and Vance County during its regular meeting yesterday evening.
Before the session began, a summary of city/county joint funding agreements was distributed to members along with a history of the Vance County Tax Office’s collection rates for the past several years.
With Henderson City Finance Director Sandra Wilkerson leading the discussion, the funding of the Vance County Tax Office was the first item discussed.
The contract to jointly fund the tax office was signed in 1986, and called for 25% of the funding to come from the city and 75% to come from the county. The funding is for operational expenses only, and does not take the tax collection rate into account.
The conversation turned quickly towards the tax collection rate, with member Mike Rainey asking fellow council members what collection rate would be deemed acceptable for the office.
It was estimated that the overall state collection rate is 95%, a collection rate that Vance County has not met in the history that was provided to the council.
When Rainey inquired about foreclosures, Wilkerson noted that the county had only begun foreclosures four years ago. Before that, the county had deemed them as not cost-effective.
Rainey argued that they must be beneficial if the state forecloses for tax delinquency. He then asked if the city could go after delinquent taxes itself. City Manager Ray Griffin replied that it would be necessary to amend the agreement with the county for the city to do so.
Henderson attorney Mike Satterwhite, who was sitting in for John Zollicoffer, the regular city attorney, said that foreclosures are time-consuming, and frequently the investment in the process is not realized in returns when the property does not sell.
When member Garry Daeke asked if the city could establish its own tax office, Griffin indicated that not only could the city not do it for less than it pays the county for the service, but that it would cost the city significantly more.
The 911 contract was the next to be discussed. Wilkerson told members that originally the city paid 65% of the cost, but the arrangement was now a 50%-50% split.
Prior to the 911 contract, there were different telephone numbers for emergency services such as fire and police, and each had their own dispatcher.
Griffin told member that it would be impossible for the city to establish its own 911 service, and that the state has pushed for consolidation in this area. He also said that 911 was the city and county’s link to state emergency services.
Griffin said that city staff would study 911 arrangements in other cities and counties.
As for the contract with the county board of elections, the city pays 22% for elections other than city elections, and 100% of the cost for city elections. The contract has been in effect since 1972.
Wilkerson said the staff would look for more information.
Regarding the recreation joint venture, the city currently pays 55% for recreation and 55% for the separate aquatics component, with debt service on the recreation facility split evenly between the city and the county.
Member Lonnie Davis recalled that the city initiated the recreation program. He said that at one point only city residents could partake of the service, and that there was a problem of “a flood of county residents with Henderson addresses”.
He went on to say that there were a lot of “pitfalls” and “arm-twisting” in establishing the Recreation Department.
Rainey said that in the 1980s there was funding from local businesses for the department that does not exist anymore.
Daeke indicated that if 20% of the city’s budget had to be cut, the council would have to look towards the Recreation Department first.
The recreation budget is currently around $1.5 million.
Wilkerson noted that public safety departments can’t be told to raise their own revenue, but that recreation can.
Daeke replied that the Henderson Police Department “pays a lot of their way” with drug asset forfeiture seizures.
As for the funding of the H. Leslie Perry Memorial Library, Wilkerson emphasized to the council that no formal agreement exists between the city and Vance County.
In 1951, a city-wide referendum established funding for the library at no more than three cents on each hundred dollars of valuation.
Daeke noted that that mid-20th century referendum passed by 48 votes.
According to Wilkerson, that funding arrangement evolved over time into a 50/50 split with the county.
Approximately two years ago, the city requested in a letter to the county that the county assume 75% of the funding. That was not done; however, the county assumed more of the funding, eventually reaching a 35% city and 65% county funding arrangement.
Henderson Mayor Pete O’Geary said that the city’s attorney needed to look into the matter.
Turning the discussion to Alcohol Board of Control (ABC) funds, Griffin told members that a bottle tax of five cents is levied on bottles of liquor sold in Vance County. He said that 15% of that tax is retained by the community, and that Henderson gets 15% of that, with the county getting the remaining 85%.
The city manager said that when the agreement was reached over 100 years ago that no liquor stores were located in the city.
Member Sara Coffey noted that the county’s sole ABC store is located in the city and that the city police provide service calls to that location for automobile accidents and incidents of trespassing. She said that the Vance County Sheriff’s Office no longer provides security, but instead has contracted security with North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement and pays for ten hours of security a week for an annual cost of around $26,000.
Griffin said that legislative correction to the agreement may be needed.
The Inter-Governmental Committee will meet on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. at Henderson’s City Hall located at 134 Rose Avenue in Henderson, North Carolina.