THE "PEOPLE'S BUDGET" THAT DID NOT PASS
Jun. 25, 2007

Listed below are the budget changes that I presented  to the County Commissioners on Thursday night to reduce the proposed tax increase to 2 cent, give more money to the schools, the arts, the YMCA's and  several other community based organizaitons and programs within our Community. 

These amendments were to the proposed budget that was presented by  Paul Gibson.  The budget that was proposed by Paul Gibson called for a 2.99 cent tax increase, eliminated all funds to the Homeless Shelter, the arts, the YMCA's, and several other community based programs within our Community.  His budget also called for only giving the school system 8.5 million dollars, eliminating the House Arrest Program as an alternative to incarceration and the removal of Rob Bencini as Director of Economic Development. It is not surprising that Paul's budget passed, because he had six votes going into the meeting.  However, the real losers are the tax payers.  Please forgive the format, the blog lay out would not allow me to post the budget by using columns.

 

Guilford County Budget

Amendments as proposed by

Commissioner Melvin "Skip" Alston

Commissioner Carolyn Coleman

Commissioner Bruce Davis

 

Additional Income: Increase tax collection rate to 98.5% = 2,241.024, eliminate Employee Merit Increases and reduce employee work day by 30mins. without decrease in pay = 1,500,000, decrease CIP fund for Sale of Eugene St. property = 1,000,000, increase Sales Tax projections = 500,000, additional Inmate Welfare Fund for House Arrest Program = 150,000, establish Voluntary Retirement program (68 ret.emp. @ 30,000) = 2,040,000, eliminate Retiree call Back policy = 500,000: Total additional funding for budget = 7,931,024

Additions to Budget funding: Increase funding to School Board = 2,500,000, Wyndham Golf Tournament = 122,000, Greensboro United Arts Council = 210,000, International Civil Rights Center = 250,000, Hayes Taylor YMCA = 175,000, Bryan Family YMCA = 50,000, Atelier Art Gallery = 50,000, Greensboro Bicentennial Commission = 50,000, Carolina Theatre of Greensboro = 34,000, High Point Museum = 50,000, High Point Area Arts Council = 73,500, Shakespeare Festival = 45,000, Malachi House = 25,000, Summit House = 40,000, Greensboro Urban Ministry = 30,000, The Center for Visual Arts = 5,000, Mary's House = 5,000, House Arrest program = 150,000, Carl Chavis YMCA = 50,000: Total additional funding expenses = 3,939,500.

The net increase in funding minus expenses = $3,991,524, which is equal to .09 cent reduction in the proposed tax rate that was offered by Paul Gibson's budget that raised your taxes 2.99 cent. 

Even if the six commissioners that passed the budget, still didn't want to fund the schools, the arts, the YMCA's and the other Community Base Organizations, they  could have taken the 7.9 million dollars in additional funds to reduce the tax rate to 1 cent, instead of 2.99 cent, thus saving the tax payers 7.9 million dollars. But, because of ego and self serving motives, they chose to raise the taxes on the tax payers, without justification.  They should be ashame of themselves.

Yes, I have voted for tax increases in the past.  However, I have never voted for a tax increase that could not be justified and one that was not need to pay the debt of the county.  

 

published by Skip at 8:32 AM | in:
Permalink | Send by e-mail | comments(10)
Add comment

Comments:
----------

Untitled Comment
Two questions. How would reducing employee's time by 30 minutes result in cost savings? County facilities would still have to be open for normal business hours (or is that what you're actually talking about) and you'd have less staff at either the beginning or ending of the day potentially, which is the only time some folks can get there from their job.

Also what's the County's tax collection rate now? I would guess the County Manager would err on the conservative side with that as a general rule (just in case there's a larger number of accounts that can't be collected fully for whatever reason).
published by Mike K. at 4:36 PM, Jun. 25, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Response for additional information on the Budget
Good Question, I am glad you asked. The idea behind reducing the employees hours by 30 mins.,is to save 1.5 million dollars in merit pay raises. If we allow the employees to reduce their work day by 30 mins. without reducing their salary,we in fact will be giving them a raise, because they will be working less hours for the same pay. Therefore, we won't have to grant them a merit pay this year, thus saving 1.5 million dollars. The budget is based on 97.5% of the tax base. However we collect approximately 99.5% of the property taxes. My idea is to budget for 98.5% of the tax base thus raising an additional 2.2 million dollars. I came to this estimate by looking at the history over the past 4 years. For example the county under estimated its budget over the past 4 years by 11.2 million dollars. The break down is as follow: 2003/2004 tax year over budget = 2,854,739, 2004/2005 tax year over budget = 2,877,941, 2005/2006 tax year over budget = 3,408,026 2006/2007 tax year over budget = 2,131,984, base on funds received as of June 18th. Thousands of dollars remain to be collected before this month is over. I can appreciate the budget director being conservative, however, before we raise taxes on the tax payers and when times are as tough as they are now, we need to be as creative as possible towards generating funds, before we take the easy way out and raise taxes. Skip Jun. 25, 2007 10:46 PM
published by Skip at 10:44 PM, Jun. 25, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Untitled Comment
But as the cost of living increases, these employees need more money to pay their bills. That 1/2 hour is great but the phone company won't accept it as payment. Sounds like this idea would cause more problems in the following years. Will you just cut their work week by another 1/2 hour each year?
published by Anonymous at 8:50 AM, Jun. 29, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Untitled Comment
"If we allow the employees to reduce their work day by 30 mins. without reducing their salary,we in fact will be giving them a raise, because they will be working less hours for the same pay" Are all employees on salary? It seems to me that if you are paid an hourly wage and you work less hours, you would make less money. 2.5 hours less a week at 30 min. a day You would not be working less hours for the same pay.
published by Anonymous at 5:43 AM, Jun. 30, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Skip's Proposed Budget
Humm...Let's see...Skip, your so-called budget includes some very interesting assumptions regarding increased County revenue receipts: 1) Just how do you propose increasing the County's tax collection rates without increasing associated expenses as well? Please elaborate on your plan to accomplish this feat? I would love to see your research and statistics that lead to this figure. 2) Please explain how a reduction in the number of hours worked and associated productivity of County staff will accomplish such a significant savings? 3) Voluntary Retirement for an estimated 68 employees @ $30,000: What does this $30,000 figure entail? Is this severance pay? If so, what about the associated retirement/pension liability that each retiree will place on the County? Please elaborate on your calculations. 4) Increase sales tax projections by $500,000: Where did this number come from? Is this not phantom revenue as no one can accurately predict these exact figures? Please provide your facts/rationale behind this projection. Quite frankly Skip, coming from you, none of this makes any sense at all. After all, I can't even remember the last time that you worked as a bi-partisan member of the County commission in order to create/establish a balanced budget. Let's be realistic for a moment and admit that you have, year after year, been a part of the democratic team that shoved unnecessary tax increases down the throats of County property owners. Your bitter attempt at a smear campaign including, of course, race is tiresome, unbelievable and transparent at best. I don't ever recall hearing you voice such loud concerns when you and your democratic cronies were the ones who crafted the budgets in years past. It's time to run this county as a business and reign in spending. Our County, City and State governments need to wake up and realize that the citizens of this great state are not willing or able to continually flip the bill for our representative's incompetence and fiscal mismanagement. How long could you run your household as you do this county?
published by Anonymous at 9:58 PM, Jul. 2, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Justifications for alternate County Budget
Please read my comments dated June 25, 2007 for justifications to questions concerning the budget that I presented. The figures are correct and the savings are there, rather you want to accept it or not, that is up to you. I have no reason to make up figures that can't and have not been justified by my staff at the County office. It is the tax payers who should be upset over the budget that was passed. I presented an alternative budget to save the tax payers money and it was rejected. There is nothing else that I can do. It is up to the tax payers to speak out now. If you don't want to speak out, then just send in your check, they will gladly take it.
published by Skip at 1:08 AM, Jul. 3, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Re: Justifications for alternate County Budget
Your response referenced above fails to address questions 3 & 4 - early retirement assumptions and increased sales tax projections. Please elaborate as these two items make up approximately 1/3 of your total additional revenues.
published by Anonymous at 9:24 PM, Jul. 3, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Early Retirement and Sales Tax Projections
According to the Human Resource Director, there are 143 county employees who are eligible for early retirement today. Last year when the county offered early retirement incentive to the employees, there were 91 who were eligible, 43 employees retired early. That equates to 47.5% of those who were eligible to retire. The average salary for the retiring employees last year was $29,500. 43 employees times $29,500 equals approximately $1,268,500 that was saved by these employees retiring. As for this year 143 employees times 47.5% equals approximately 68 employees who are eligible to retire early. The average salary for these retirees is approximately $30,000. 68 retirees times $30,000 equals to $2,040,000. As for the increase in the projection of the sales tax revenue of $500,000, it was given to me by our budget director, who admitted that his projections for less, was his way of being conservative.
published by Skip at 11:07 PM, Jul. 3, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Fantasy Income
I love the logic of the "Skip" budget. All we have to do is ASSUME more income. In the real world we save money by not spending it, not by increasing income estimates. I especially like the idea of offering an "early retirement incentive." Exactly what is the incentive? If 68 employees take the incentive (at $30,000 each) we cut salaries by $2,040,000 ONLY IF we don't hire replacements. If we don't intend to hire replacements, then why are these employees on the payroll now? Your idea of gaining income by not paying Employee Merit increases is pure fantasy. I can just see all county employees jumping with joy when they are told they have been awarded less working time instead of more pay. What a joke. These people probably already work overtime without more pay. The cuts made to the budget this year are just the beginning. Taxpayers are demanding that all levels of government stop giving away money, especially to pet projects. If you want to be a part of the budget process, at least come up sith some real money saving ideas, not just fantasies.
published by Anonymous at 3:05 PM, Jul. 4, 2007 | Link | |

----------

Re: Early Retirement and Sales Tax Projections
Skip these assumptions are so flawed that I find it hard to believe that you actually own and operate a business. You completely fail to mention 1) the retiree's legacy costs - pension and benefits and 2) the cost to replace these employees - are these positions to remain unfilled? When you account for the pension and benefit liabilities of these retirees coupled with a new-hire's salary and benefit expenses, I see no savings whatsoever. Are you sure you live in the real world?
published by Anonymous at 11:20 AM, Jul. 5, 2007 | Link | |


<< previous page | home page | next page >>