NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2007
Newberry County Council met on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Courthouse Annex for a regular meeting.
Present were: Henry B. Summer, Chairman
William D. Waldrop, Vice-Chairman
John E. Caldwell, Councilman
John David Dawkins, Councilman
Mike Hawkins, Councilman
Edgar Baker, Councilman
Henry H. Livingston, III, Councilman
Wayne Adams, County Administrator
Gary T. Pope, County Attorney
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
Debbie S. Cromer, Finance Director
Media: Heather Hawkins, WKDK
Cindy Pitts, Newberry Observer
Notice of the meeting was duly advertised as required by law.
Mr. Summer called the meeting to order and determined a quorum to be present.
Mr. Summer had the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. Presentation of report and recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Mike Davenport, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee, read the following report into the record:
“Dear County Council Members:
Over the past several weeks, a budget subcommittee of the full Citizens’ Advisory Committee has examined the proposed FY 07-08 County Operating Budget now under consideration by County Council. More particularly, we have examined the proposed budget as a document demonstrating fiscal policies of the County. The resulting report, which follows, was approved unanimously by a quorum of the full committee on May 29, in a meeting advertised to the public. We feel that this report offers some commonsense guidelines that are reasonably representative of the views of Newberry County’s citizens and property owners, and which will be helpful to our elected County Council in conducting the People’s financial business. Because County Council must operate within the constraints of competing local interests, limited resources, and increasing state mandates and restrictions, it is the committee’s intent that its suggestions be realistically attuned to these circumstances.
It is notable that this document defers specific, line-item recommendations until the committee and subcommittee have had more time to study the budget in much greater detail. To date, we have focused our attention on the processes and philosophy behind the County’s budgeting habits. We have taken this approach for two reasons: 1) this report was due with relatively short notice, causing the subcommittee to prioritize examination of the bigger picture; and 2) we knew that, in order to be effective, our recommendations had to acknowledge the legal and political environment in which budgeting decisions are made. It is our request to County Council that they allow for presentation of a subsequent report on specific expenditures. While the budget adoption process is quickly winding down in the traditional sense, we know that budgets can be amended throughout the fiscal year. This means that our input on line-item expenditures is never really too late.
In no particular order of importance or emphasis, though numbered for reference purposes, we present ten suggested guidelines. These, we feel, are prerequisites to reforming the County’s financial policies. In other words, if these guidelines are not respected, further citizen involvement will not be profitable.
1. Taxing and spending should be managed in a way that does not sharply increase the property tax liability over short periods of time – and with little notice. Just weeks before Christmas last year, Newberry County property owners received tax bills that represented steep increases over amounts charged for the prior year, so much so that many had to tap equity in their homes and businesses in order to retain ownership of these properties. Though new state laws limiting millage and property reassessment increases from year to year may be harsh in Council’s view, handcuffing their ability to meet local service demands, these laws at least ensure that the sharp tax increases of last December do not happen again. Moreover, it is difficult for the public to support flexibility in the Council’s taxing authority in light of last December’s tax bills.
2. Spending reserves to fund ongoing operations costs presents a misleading picture of the budget, since ultimately the tax millage must rise accordingly. In 2003, the County had nearly $10 million in reserves, or savings. By 2006, that number had decreased to just over $4 million. In that year, property taxes on many citizens’ primary homes and other properties doubled and tripled. Part of the increase was due to reassessment, but part was also due to the exhaustion of reserves as a source for current revenue. The millage rate simply had to catch up to the spending. In the future, any use of reserves should be conspicuously identified in the budget and discussed prominently in budget deliberations, so that the public is aware savings are being used in lieu of current tax receipts. (See Suggestion Number Nine for additional comments on this topic.) For cash flow purposes, Council should project unrestricted cash on the subsequent June 30, as part of the annual budgeting process. Unrestricted reserves on June 30 should be sufficient to fund the operations of county government between the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1 and the collection of real property taxes later in the fiscal year, given other sources of revenue. This amount, which has been established at a minimum of 3.5 months’ operating expenses, should be maintained. This fund should be openly managed to ensure adequate reserves and not be used as a savings account to be tapped in order to fund non-budgeted items.
3. Every expenditure Council makes should be authorized either as part of a publicly-adopted line-item budget or in some other separate, public vote of Council that cites the specific source of funding. Because of the general feeling of distrust of Council among the public, it is imperative that the business of Council always be conducted in open, and that the consequences of spending decisions be debated vigorously. The lack of line item authority, as with a number of One Cent Sales Tax initiatives, leads to unaccountable spending that impacts the prioritization of resources negatively and outside the public’s view. Also impacted is the public’s confidence in approving additional resources, as with any future reauthorization of the capital project sales tax and the passage of the upcoming referendum on a proposed local option sales tax.
4. Council should include in its budget ordinance a separate section justifying all expenditure increases over the prior fiscal year, and comparing the budgeted growth in spending with both the consumer price index for the prior year and the projected growth in the tax base for the subsequent year. In conjunction with this, Council should limit the growth in services accordingly. If spending increases are proposed beyond these limits for certain services, the proposed increases should be accompanied by proposed offsetting spending decreases in other areas. These tradeoffs and priority changes should be discussed publicly in the budgeting process.
5. A Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Budgeting and Millage Levies should be appointed as a permanent standing committee. Such a committee would, apart from the departmental interests of county government and the parochial interests of district-based politics, provide a sounding board representing taxpayers on the impact of taxing and spending decisions. This would help distinguish spending for necessary services from spending that “greases the skids” or evens out perceived injustices in the distribution of resources among organizations whose competition for funding might become skewed toward keeping score (i.e. “getting theirs”) rather than fulfilling true needs.
6. Council should include in its budget ordinance a separate section enumerating any new federally or state-mandated spending for that fiscal year. There has been much discussion among County Council in recent months about spending growth that is beyond Council’s control, and which is driven instead by federal or state requirements. To many taxpayers, the lines separating local, state, and federal program responsibilities are blurry at best. Consequently, the finger pointing over this issue does little to illuminate the situation. Identifying new mandates from higher levels of government, and perhaps having representatives of these levels of government come and explain these spending requirements publicly, would probably better enlighten all concerned. Specifically, Council should ask the State Legislative Delegation to explain any adopted mandates requiring local spending, as well as any they might individually or collectively propose to the General Assembly.
7. Each fiscal year’s budget document should include a capital improvement plan that expresses Council’s priorities regarding buildings and facilities. This will aid in the prioritization of debt levy resources and eliminate Council having to fly by the seat of its pants. This prioritization should include realistic budgets that eliminate, or at least minimize, the acute revenue shortfalls and frustrated expectations that have recently marked attempts at implementing capital projects. While it is true that the prioritization of building projects will have to be adjusted to changing circumstances, these plans should be relatively fixed and not fall victim to the indecision that has been one of Council’s least flattering traits in recent years. This is an area where Council’s image has been greatly damaged by its lack of planning and direction.
8. Council should set policies and monitor the results of those policies; Council has professional staff in place to implement its policies. Council should, therefore, allow the County Administrator, with the assistance of staff, to run the day-to-day operations of the County. Certainly, as the elected representatives of the people, members of County Council are ultimately responsible for policy decisions. However, to attempt to affect policies outside of Council meetings is to invite actions that could be viewed as narrowly beneficial, and risks creating conflicting agendas hidden from the public. This will only increase the public’s lingering mistrust of County Council members.
9. Council should honor the public’s participation in the budgeting process by allowing taxpayers to speak to such matters as the impact of spending polity on their personal budgets, the fairness of the distribution of the tax burden, the value of the services desired or proposed, and other matters that pertain to the budget document. To improve the value of this input, it will be necessary for Council to inform the public of the County’s finances and the demands on the resources at their disposal. As a further aid to this purpose, Council should remain transparent in its financial dealings by always fully and publicly explaining spending and taxing matters. An example of where Council failed in this regard is seen in the FY 05-06 budget. In this document, “Capital Project Fund” was cited as a “miscellaneous” revenue source in the amount of $2,384,543. The budget document contained no capital project budgeting whatsoever that year, and in fact the source of this funding was the County’s reserves. This concealed from the public that the budget would eventually require 20+ additional mills to meet current spending needs, since savings would soon run out at this rate of spending. In sum, the quality of public participation depends on a forthcoming Council and administrative staff, as well as on a public that will take the time to educate itself in these matters.
10. It is incumbent upon those who publicly speak on budgeting matters, whether they are citizen-taxpayers or members of Council, to identify the effect of their proposals on resource prioritization. Those who present spending increases or reductions as “no-brainers,” or as ideas that exist in a vacuum, skirt the impact of their proposals on such areas as the delivery of other services and the tax liability of property owners. Council should insist on a balanced, more fully developed approach to the discussion of spending and taxing policies.”
2. Public Hearing on Fiscal Year
2007-2008 Budgets.
Mr. Summer declared the public hearing open.
Beth Bozard with the Newberry County Health Department requested that Council reconsider funding of the nurse’s salary and a portion of the interpreter’s salary for a total cost of $72,208.
The following persons requested that Council consider partial funding of a 4-H Agent for the Clemson Extension in the amount of $35,000: Darren Atkins, Susan Derrick, Katie Berry, Amber Evenger, Marilyn Easler and Kim Eubanks.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
3. Adoption
of Consent Agenda.
Mr. Baker moved to adopt the consent agenda; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
4. Additions,
Deletions and Adoption of Agenda.
Mr. Summer requested that Item 15, Executive Session, be moved to item 4.5 since the County’s legal counsel, Frank Smith, was present for this matter.
There being no further additions or deletions, Mr. Waldrop moved to adopt the agenda as amended; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
4.5 Executive
Session.
Mr. Hawkins moved to go into Executive Session to receive legal advice from Frank Smith relating to the Sheriff’s building on Highway 219; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
[Neither Mr. Baker nor Mr. Pope attended or participated in the Executive Session. See attached Statement of Disqualification signed by Mr. Baker.]
[EXECUTIVE
SESSION 7:50 P.M. – 8:45 P.M.]
Mr. Livingston moved to return to open session; second by Mr. Hawkins. Vote was unanimous.
5. Ordinance #05-15-07: An Ordinance amending the Road Ordinance, as
codified, so as to amend provisions relating to the dedication period, to
clarify certain policy statements, to clarify Council’s right to discontinue or
abandon roads under all available statutory procedures and to require that new
roads accepted into the county system be paved, with certain limited
exceptions, and other related matters.
Mr. Waldrop moved for third reading; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
6. Ordinance #05-16-07: An Ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the
Newberry County Code of Ordinances relating to the issuance of the Ordinance
Summons books and the training and commissioning of Code Enforcement Officers.
Mr. Waldrop moved for third reading; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
7. Ordinance #05-17-07: An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning
Map established pursuant to Zoning Ordinance #12-24-01 so as to rezone a tract
containing approximately 2 acres, designated as TMS Parcel No. 359-11, from
Rural (R-2) to General Commercial (GC).
Mr. Summer called for the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Mr. Summer declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Dawkins moved for third reading; second by Mr. Hawkins. Vote was unanimous.
8. Ordinance #05-18-07: An Ordinance amending Chapter 96 of the
Newberry County Code of Ordinances relating to Animal Care and Control, so as
to amend the fees charged for unwanted animals brought to the Animal Care and
Control Shelter from outside Newberry County, and other related matters.
Mr. Baker moved for first reading; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
9. Committee Reports.
No committee reports.
10. Appointments.
Mr. Waldrop nominated the following persons from District 6 for appointment:
Airport – Howard Thomes
Board of Rural Fire Control (Chappells) – Tony Johnson
Board of Rural Fire Control (Silverstreet) – John Pollard
Community Hall – Emma Crump
Disabilities and Special Needs – Kathy Buchanan
Library Board – Shirley Suber
Newberry County Memorial Hospital – Robert Thompson and Frank M. Senn, Jr.
Planning Commission – Johnny Mack Scurry
Recreation Commission – Rita Bowles and Sherri Scott
Westview – Genice Thompson
Mr. Baker moved to approve the nominations; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Dawkins nominated Sandra Youngblood for reappointment to the Accommodations Tax Committee to represent the Public Sector.
Mr. Hawkins moved to accept the nomination; second by Mr. Dawkins. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Hawkins stated there was a letter to the editor in The Observer today noting Council had a lot of appointments to make and inquiring as to what it cost to have these Boards. None of these people are paid, and they all volunteer their time.
Mr. Summer appointed the following Council members to an Economic Development Committee:
Mike Hawkins, Chairman
Henry H. Livingston, III
Henry B. Summer
11. Recreation
Matter Concerning Reunion Park in Little Mountain.
Mayor Buddy Johnson was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Dawkins received a phone call from Gerdi Lake concerning funding in the Recreation account, and Little Mountain had not yet gotten theirs. Council agreed to postpone this matter.
12. Requests
from Councilmen.
No requests.
13. Public
Comments.
Bill Ehney reported a group has been formed to discuss Lynch’s Woods. Discussions range from current uses of the park to some of the problems currently being experienced with the park and possible ways to ensure preservation of the park. The goals set by the group are to increase the size and the diversity of the group and to arrive at some point in time as to very specific suggestions and recommendations to present to Council. The group is currently in a growth and information gathering stage. We welcome anyone with a sincere interest in the park to join the group. The next meeting is July 16 at 10:00 a.m. at the Courthouse Annex.
14. Comments
from County Administrator.
Mr. Adams, along with several County department heads, will look at some empty retail space as a possibility of meeting some of the County’s capital needs in the future.
15. Comments
from Council Members.
Mr. Hawkins inquired as to the attendance of the members of the Citizens Advisory Committee. If there are members who were appointed who are not attending, would it be in order for us to ask for attendance to be kept so people are not participating can be replaced.
Mr. Livingston said Council received a letter tonight from Farm Bureau in support of the 4-H Agent. Mr. Livingston supports the request, but the County may not have the money to support the funding. He wanted to ask Farm Bureau if they would be willing to help with the cost of the 4-H Agent.
Mr. Livingston also had someone question when the appeals process is done, if there is found to be fault on the County’s part, are those reimbursements paid with interest. Mr. Adams indicated they would be.
Mr. Caldwell stated in the last work session Maybinton Ball Park was discussed. He is still concerned that a ballpark will be done with no restroom facilities.
Mr. Waldrop asked if the meeting of June 27 could be moved to June 20. Mr. Livingston said his plans had changed and he would be in town on June 20. The consensus of Council was to meet on June 20 instead of June 27.
Mr. Summer thanked Mr. Adams, the staff, and the citizens for the work and comments at the last budget session.
16. Adjournment.
Mr. Waldrop moved to adjourn. Vote was unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
_______________________________________
Henry B. Summer, Chairman
_______________________________________
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
APPROVED: July 11, 2007