Budget workshops end with a bang | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's Note: This article was originally published in the Beaufort Observer.

    The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners ended their scheduled budget workshops with a bang rather than a whimper Tuesday night. We'll post the edited video so you can watch for yourself but here's a nutshell version.

    For the most part the Commissioners plodded through the budget book line by line until they came to the Sheriff's Office. At that point it was obvious that some of the board members had some concerns about that part of the county budget. Commissioner Ed Booth raised issues about $33,000 in the budget for a physical fitness program the Sheriff's Office operates, $19,000 of which consists of fitness rewards for officers who pass a fitness test. The remainder pays for their gym fees to prepare for the test.

    Commissioner Booth suggest the item be cut. After some discussion Jerry Langley suggested that they cut the incentive reward for passing the test but keep the gym fee payments. That passed a straw vote that must still be ratified in the final vote. Booth suggested it was hard for him to justify at expenditure when taxpayers were facing a tax hike and other departments had cut back on their expenditures and the schools were facing critical funding shortages.

    Commissioner Hood Richardson questioned why a number of unmarked cars in the Sheriff's motor pool were necessary and why even those, except for the undercover vehicles, did not have official "permanent" tags. (P tags are designed to identify the car as a public vehicle rather than a private vehicle.) Chief Deputy Harry Meredith, who has been sitting in on the meetings in substitute for the Sheriff, made it very clear that the Sheriff was not going to put "P tags" on the cars because, as Meredith put it, "he's the sheriff..." You'll want to watch the video of these exchanges to get the full flavor of the discussion. We could never do it justice in a second-hand description.

    There were also some pointed questions about the Economic Development Commission's budget, specifically about whether the Director's position is a full-time position and whether he draws compensation from more than one source. That information will be requested from the Director and was therefore held over until the final discussion on the budget.

    Chairman Jerry Langley waited until the agenda was competed and then expressed his "disappointment" in the School Board's actions to not identify what the consequences would be for some potential cuts in the schools' budgets in current expense and capital outlay. He indicated that he had asked for the School Board to work with the Commissioners in ascertaining what impact various reductions would have and that he was only seeking for the boards to "work together on this problem..." but he expressed disappointment that the School Board's action makes it necessary for the Commissioners to deal with the schools' budget without the benefit of what the school board's priorities are.

    Thus, that issue too was left to be decided in the final session which is scheduled for June 20. The board will meet at 5:00 p.m. to address other items on its agenda and then hold a public hearing on the budget to hear from the public at 7:00 p.m. Typically the board would then vote to amend or approve the budget. That vote sets the tax rate for next year. The board must, by law adopt a budget by June 30.

    Commissioner Hood Richardson made an appeal to the other commissioners that when they do adopt the budget that they appropriate funds to the schools by purpose and function. State law allows commissioners to do that, specifies what the purpose and function line items are and then restricts how much a school board can move from or to one purpose or among purpose line items. The school board is said to be sitting on approximately $3 million that otherwise they could appropriate however they wished, without any participation by the commissioners. If appropriations are made by purpose with a restriction on increases and decreases it would compel the School Board to spend the money the way it was appropriated and the two boards to mutually agree on significant changes during the year. Traditionally this method of budgeting has been used to insure a collaborative approach to not only the annual appropriations but to monitor significant changes in revenue and expenditures during the year. Richardson explained in a brief interview following the meeting that this makes sense particularly in a year in which it is not clear what the state is going to end up giving or taking away from the school system in state funds. That issue of appropriating by purpose and function also was carried over for further discussion and a later decision.

    We'll edit the video and have that posted Thursday so check back for more.