Alamance County’s manager has unveiled a spending plan that would add 2.25 cents (or nearly 4.6 percent) to the county’s property tax rate to bankroll a package of outlays that are actually 1.2 percent less than the county’s current budget for its general fund.
This seemingly unorthodox combination is nevertheless what county manager Heidi York recommended to the board of commissioners on Monday to ensure that the county remains in the black when the next financial cycle begins in July.
“This is my third year presenting the budget, and each year, it seems to be getting more and more difficult. This budget is going to require further spending reductions. It’s also going to require strong, disciplined spending and fiscal restraint.”
– County manager Heidi York
York told the commissioners that she has prescribed this mishmash of higher taxes and reduced spending due, in large part, to her concerns about the county’s over-reliance on savings to balance the books. As a result, York steers clear of the county’s financial reserves in her recommended budget, although she still manages to scare up enough revenue from other sources to propose $239.1 million in expenditures for the county’s general fund.
A decrease from the $242.1 million that the commissioners adopted last June, York’s proposed outlays are intended to avoid any drastic cuts to the county’s programs and services – at least according to the county manager’s own account to the commissioners. York’s spending plan even includes a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment for all county staff, a 2-percent merit-based raise for those who meet the expectations of supervisors, and a hike of about 2.5 percent in the county’s contribution to the day-to-day operations of the Alamance-Burlington school system.
York’s recommendation for the school system nevertheless falls short of the 10 percent increase that the local school board has sought from the county. Her budget also calls for staffing reductions at several county departments, shorter hours for the county’s libraries, and other austerity measures that she admits have been tough for her to propose.
“This is my third year presenting the budget, and each year, it seems to be getting more and more difficult,” the county manager said when she unfurled her spending plan to the commissioners on Monday. “This budget is going to require further spending reductions. It’s also going to require strong, disciplined spending and fiscal restraint.”
An eight-figure hole
York told the commissioners that the various factors which have impinged on this budget initially left her and her fellow administrators staring at a $13 million gap between revenues and outlays. She added that this shortfall shot up to $23 million when departmental spending requests were factored into the equation.
“Spending [in the proposed budget] decreased in all categories of expenditure except education. In order to minimize the tax increase that we needed . . . I cut about $23 million out of what was requested.”
– County manager Heidi York
York conceded that she was a bit limited in the tools at her disposal for overcoming this financial crunch. She told the commissioners that state law and county policy left her with two basic options. One was to cut costs. The other was to find ways to bolster the revenues coming into the general fund.
On the second score, York told the commissioners that she has recommended a 2.25 cent increase in the county’s current property tax rate of 49.4 cents for every $100 of value. On the first, she pointed to the various ways she has tried to decrease the general fund’s yearly expenditures as she trawled through the particulars of her proposed budget.
“Spending [in the proposed budget] decreased in all categories of expenditure except education,” she added. “In order to minimize the tax increase that we needed…I cut about $23 million out of what was requested.”
“This recommended budget reduces spending [and] it reduces positions. It stops using fund balance to fill the gap for recurring and ongoing costs; it protects core services; it invests in the county workforce; it recommends the required amount of education funding. . . and it plans responsibly for future needs.”
– County manager Heidi York
External agencies
In the case of the Alamance-Burlington school system, York acknowledged that she has recommended a slight increase in “current expenses,” which is school system’s shorthand for operations that aren’t related to the maintenance and repair of school buildings. This proposed outlay of $58.8 million amounts to an extra $1.5 million, or about 2.5 percent, on top of the current year’s allocation. It nevertheless falls short of the nearly $62.8 million that the Alamance-Burlington school board requested from the commissioners in March for “current expenses.”
York went on to acknowledge that she is calling for no change in the county’s contribution to the “current expenses” at Alamance Community College and “level funding” for other beneficiaries like the Burlington-Alamance Airport and the Alamance County Rescue Squad.
What’s out
As for the county’s own operations, the county manager insisted that she has been even more merciless with her excisions. Among other things, the county manager observed that her budget calls for a $512,000 decrease in the county’s payroll expenses.
“I don’t believe we have seen this before,” the county manager conceded during her pitch to the commissioners.
York proceeded to inform the commissioners that she has omitted departmental proposals for 21 staff-level posts and eliminated 9 now vacant positions from areas that include the county manager’s own office. She also pointed to her dismissal of $900,000 in contracted services, the wadding up of another $96,000 in costs for uniforms and apparel, and the redlining of $50,000 in departmental travel expenses.
York went on to acknowledge that she has removed some of the niche programs from the county’s menu of public services. These deletions include crisis funds for residents who need help with their utility bills, expanded education about food and nutrition, and a refugee health program that has lost its federal backing. The county manager also noted that she has proposed to close the county’s libraries at 7:00 p.m. instead of 8:00 p.m. to realize additional savings.
York added that her budget jettisons a long-standing detention arrangement between Alamance County’s sheriff and the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The sheriff himself recently grounded this deal due to a change in state law that has obligated him to set more jail space aside for the pre-trial incarceration of local inmates. The county manager said that the sheriff’s decision has allowed him to nix 35 positions from the county’s detention center. She added that her budget accounts for these staff-level cuts along with 6 more vacant positions that other county departments have trimmed during the course of the current financial cycle.
What’s in
In spite of the challenges that York shared with the commissioners, she acknowledged that she found enough revenue to propose a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment for county staff. She is also recommending a 2 percent merit-based raise for staff members who meet expectations, although those who go above and beyond won’t get the extra percentage point that York said they’ve received in the past.
In addition, York has proposed three new staff-level positions, including a new foreign language interpreter who she said will replace some of the county’s contracted translators. She added that her budget earmarks funds from the county’s tax on hotels and motels to hire a marketing expert in travel and tourism and a portion of the county’s funds from a national opioid settlement to enlist a specialist in substance abuse education.
In the final analysis, York assured the commissioners that her proposed budget strikes the right balance between spending cuts and revenue increases.
“This recommended budget reduces spending [and] it reduces positions,” she said. “It stops using fund balance to fill the gap for recurring and ongoing costs; it protects core services; it invests in the county workforce; it recommends the required amount of education funding…and it plans responsibly for future needs.”
