![Screen Shot 2014-12-29 at 12.33.57 PM]()
SALINE CO.—The Saline County board ran into the same issue at their November 25 meeting that the city of Harrisburg did on their December 18 meeting: A tax increase that exceeded the amount that precludes a truth in taxation hearing prior to passage.
The county board, however, handled the matter a little more forthrightly than the city did, however…despite the gyrations it took to get there.
Old board, new board tasks
The Nov. 25 meeting was the last meeting before the newly-elected board members were seated. Before swearing in the new board, however, the old board had to set the budget and tax levy for the 2015 Fiscal Year.
The board first moved to pass the budget for the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year, which was passed unanimously. Secondary to that, the board was asked to pass the established tax levy for Saline County. As the motion was made and put up to vote, then-board member Danny Gibbs stopped the motion to inquire how much of an increase the new levy represented, in terms of percentage, before casting his vote.
![Screen Shot 2014-12-29 at 12.38.53 PM]()
Then county board member Danny Gibbs is shown here informing the rest of the board that he will not vote in favor of any tax levy over 4.99 percent. Come to find out that’s exactly what the board did only to rectify the situation during a special meeting held later.
“I’ll only move to pass the levy if the increase is less than 4.99, which is allowed without a truth in taxation hearing,” Gibbs stated.
The meeting stalled at this inquiry, and resumed when the room came back to life with an unsure answer, being that no one in the room was certain exactly what the percent of increase was
Saline County Tax Assessor Sheryl Pearce left the room as this discussion proceeded. The board members had not been supplied with any form of documentation on the tax levy as it was being presented at that meeting, but the board was told that those documents had been a part of the previous month’s packets for the purpose of review.
Pearce entered the room again as Gibbs voted with a “yes” to the levy, after being told it was less than the 4.99 percent increase that was allowable without a truth in taxation hearing. With the voting resumed, the levy was also passed unanimously.
As the meeting moved along, Pearce and Saline County Treasurer Danny Ragan gathered around the computer that Pearce had retrieved and brought back in to the meeting.
The two then delivered the bad news; the levy that the board had just passed actually came to a total of an 18 percent increase from the previous year’s levy.
With this revelation, the board was forced to rescind both the tax levy and the budget for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. With those actions taken, the county was faced with a choice; leave the budget and tax levy alone and hold a truth in taxation hearing, or reduce the tax levy and hold a special meeting to again pass the budget and levy for the new fiscal year.
The board opted to hold a special meeting, during which they would present the newly-reduced levy.
Back to the 4.99
On December 9, the special meeting was called to order, and Budget Committee Chairman Joe Jackson presented the newly reduced tax levy, which now fell under the required 4.99 percent.
The budget and levy were passed again at that time, and the county’s finances were set in stone for the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year.
While the actions of the board were not taken gracefully, and were clearly done with a degree of difficulty at each step, this is not the end of the fiscal issues and questions for the Saline County Officials.
During the November 25 meeting, the Budget Committee had prepared the budget and tax levy to accommodate the fiscal needs of the county’s offices and financial obligations. Those needs and obligations are what produced a tax increase of 18 percent. While the board chose to reduce the levy in order to keep the county residents’ tax bills at the lowest possible rate, this also resulted in reduced revenue for the county, which in turn hampers the county’s ability to float expenses. One example of this was briefly mentioned during the December 9 meeting, which was the fact that Saline County had been forced to pay IMRF pension expenses out of the Social Security fund. While this is an allowable movement of money, it is debatable whether or not this is in the county’s best interests.
What’s up with public defender contracts?
Another glitch in the financial shuffle was the late presentation of the Public Defender contracts for the State’s Attorney’s office.
Sources had indicated that Saline County State’s Attorney Mike Henshaw did not deliver the contracts to the Budget and Finance committee during the time when the budget was being written, but rather delivered it after the board discovered that the tax levies were over the allowable amount without a public hearing.
Henshaw, however, advised Disclosure that this was presumptive on the part of the source, and noted that it wasn’t his responsibility to provide said contracts, but was under the sole purview of Circuit Judge Walden Morris.
Ultimately, the county’s budget was set with lower tax revenue than would have been possible if the board had opted to hold a public hearing. That was certainly an issue, but not the greatest one in the minds of some of the county board member’s minds.
![Screen Shot 2014-12-29 at 12.38.44 PM]()
During the December 18 meeting, County Treasurer Danny Ragan issued the usual financial report showing the county was going to end the month $130,000 in the hole.
During the December 18 meeting, County Treasurer Danny Ragan issued the usual financial report, which is delivered every month during the regularly scheduled board meetings. While the report reflected only half of the first month of the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the report already reflected a deficit in revenue from the projected revenue by that point.
“The most important number on here, I think, is the one in the middle column, of how we are gonna end the month right now,” Ragan began his presentation. “And, that one shows that we are gonna be $130,000 in the hole.”
Shortfall through the jail
By the end of the 2013-2014 fiscal year, several accounts reflected the greatest shortcomings in revenue, and the concern that these same accounts would again fail to bring in the necessary revenue was already weighing on the minds of Saline County’s governing body. One of the greatest revenue deficits in the previous fiscal year was found in the shortcoming of housing revenue from the Saline County Detention Center. This did not go unnoticed by the Budget & Finance Committee Chairman Joe Jackson, who called out Saline County Sheriff Keith Brown on his failure to use the new detention center to bring in revenue for the county.
Jackson spoke about the original reason the new Saline County Detention Center was built, being that it was to be used to house both inmates from neighboring counties as well as federal inmates. The money paid to the Saline County Detention Center would then be used to pay for the new building, as well as bring in funding for the sheriff’s yearly budget, and finally to help the county’s budget.
Since the Saline County Detention Center was built, numerous sheriffs have come and gone in Saline County, Jackson noted.
“With the exception of Keith Brown,” Jackson said, “every sheriff has succeeded in bringing in inmates, keeping the beds of the jail full, and in turn keeping the county’s budget healthy and happy.”
Jackson stated that December is the only month when the board can really look and see how they did in the previous fiscal year, and December showed that the sheriff was behind by $100,000 in projected revenue at the end of the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
“I’ve harped on this, and I’ll continue to harp on it,” Jackson said. “That jail was meant to make revenue for the county.”
Solely Brown’s doing?
Jackson attributed the loss in projected revenue solely to the hands of the sheriff, saying “We would be more than a million dollars better off if he’d have done the housing (of) inmates in his tenure as the previous sheriffs did in theirs.” Jackson indicated that the jail was designed to be 20 percent larger than it would have been otherwise, specifically for the housing of inmates to produce revenue.
Prior to the general election, Jackson called Brown out on this matter during a board meeting when Brown was in attendance. Brown had explained that, at the time the jail was built, competition for inmates had not been as stiff as it is currently. Jackson wished aloud that Brown had been in attendance to hear him speaking about this again, not so they could argue, but so Jackson “could tell him the facts.” However, this wish was unlikely, as Brown rarely attends meetings.
“Something’s gotta give,” Jackson said, noting his displeasure in this matter was rooted deeply in the county’s financial woes. “Our budget over there (the Sheriff’s Department) is over $2,000,000. That’s over a third of our county’s general budget.”
Jackson did credit that the Safety Tax brought in approximately $1,500,000, all of which goes directly to the sheriff’s department.
“But on top of that,” Jackson stated, “we have to give him more! I’m sick of it.”
Jackson made it clear that he didn’t have a good answer, but that there would have to be something done. It may be a decrease in budget, or possibly ceasing to house prisoners, and sending Saline County’s inmates in other county’s jails.
Chairman Carey Harbison agreed, saying that something would have to be done, but that ultimately it would require work from both the Sheriff’s Department and the board.
Jackson asked Harbison if county elected officials could be required to attend meetings, to which Harbison replied that he had sent out a letter asking for exactly that, but he wasn’t sure they could be forced to attend.
Jackson stated that this was exactly what he wanted, and if elected county officials wouldn’t attend, the public had the right to know about that “failure.”
This discussion grew, and ultimately the majority of the board agreed that this was a festering sore on the county’s back, and that it just didn’t make sense to continue in this manner.
The assessor issue rears its ugly head again
In what might be one good note for the county’s residents, Saline County Tax Assessor Sheryl Pearce reported to the board that she expects the county to send out property tax bills by mid-summer, which would put the county back on track, and would save the citizens from having to pay their taxes at Christmas time.
Pearce said she felt optimistic that they could achieve this goal, and had already notified her staff that they would be putting in overtime at that time in order to make this goal a reality.
However, there is a possibility that the county might have to fight the same force that has held taxes up for the past several years, that being the township assessors who are responsible for turning in the assessments so that tax bills can be generated by Pearce’s office.
While fighting to get those assessments done in time is, and has been, a challenge, Pearce felt it was an achievable goal, there was one sour note to the tune: This year the township assessors have a requirement that only happens once every few years, and that is to assess every property in their township.
This statement caused a collective look of displeasure from the board, who ultimately asked Pearce to continue attending meetings and keep the board briefed on the progress that the township assessors have made, which will allow the board to keep the citizens apprised of the situation.