2020 Budget Changed & OKd, but Questions Split Court
At its final meeting for 2019, the Quorum Court approved Faulkner County’s 2020 budget, but only after newer JPs’ questions about the process and some funding items caused considerable debate while splitting the Court along largely familiar lines.
Some changes were made to the 2020 budget as a result.
JPs passed Ordinance 19-47 at the December 17 meeting, after verifying the reasons for two large transfers included in what County Clerk Margaret Darter said was mostly a year-end “clean-up” measure including twelve items. An additional change to the Circuit Clerk’s budget was approved as Ordinance 19-49.
JP Andy Shock (R, Dist. 10) was absent.
County Officers Reports
County Treasurer Scott Sanson reported “the big 5” fund totals:
County General (fund 1000): $2,598,918
County Road (fund 2000): $4,845,885
County Road Sales Tax (fund 3402): $4,625.292
Animal Welfare & Control (fund 3404): $1,638,180
Criminal Justice Sales Tax (fund 3407): $879,493
Sanson added that sales tax collection for November is $823,144, currently at 95% projection for the year.
Darter referred JPs to her “report in the book.”
November statistics for the Sheriff’s Department:
Average head count, Unit 1: 130 (capacity is 118)
Average head count (male), Unit 2: 143 (capacity is 218)
Average head count (female), Unit 2: 74 (capacity is 88)
Average head count (juvenile): 11 (capacity is 16)
Average ADC inmates housed: 63
Total dispatch calls: 2,329
Average calls for service per deputy: 64
Violent crimes/domestic: 91
Thefts/criminal mischief: 170
Animal calls: 75
Criminal investigations opened: 62
Criminal investigations closed: 17
Transport:
26 trips, 112 total hours, 5,383 miles, cost $4,781
Committee Reports
The Chairs of the Infrastructure & Roads, Personnel Committee, and Budget & Finance Committee briefly summarized their recent meetings.
Chair JP Randy Higgins (R, Dist. 2) reported that the Courts & Public Safety Committee did not meet in December. He added he had toured a possible location between Greenbrier and Guy for an animal shelter and “had a meeting with the OEM Director and the Sheriff regarding 911,” adding that “both those topics will be on the agenda for our January meeting.”
Ordinance 19-44
The Court heard the second reading of the proposed non-emergency Ordinance 19-44, which specifies the County website’s portal for online bidding on construction projects, as required by state law.
First read at the November Quorum Court meeting, voting on the measure will happen at January’s meeting after the measure is read for the third time that night.
Ordinance 19-47
This end-of-year spending Ordinance 19-47 contains mostly clean-up items; however, a couple of transfers caught JPs’ attention:
JP Tyler Lachowsky (R, Dist. 6) asked about the $638,000 transfer in Section 10. County Judge Jim Baker explained that it’s part of the County’s promised portion ($1.5 million) of the $28 million Mayflower Highway 89 overpass project, and the state Highway Department had requested the payment.
JP Kris Kendrick (R, Dist. 9) asked about a $55,000 transfer in Section 12 and Baker responded, “If my memory serves me, that $55,000 is for 50, our part of the battery cost to back up 911. I’ve never seen a $110,000 battery so … that’s our cost.”
Ordinance 19-47 passed unanimously.
Ordinance 19-48: 2020 Budget
When Budget & Finance Committee Chair JP John Pickett (D, Dist. 11) moved to discuss Ordinance 19-48, Kendrick immediately asked why timing requirements from the transparency ordinance were not followed.
He pointed out that “we weren’t sent a budget, the complete budget, or the finalized budget until yesterday at 2 o’clock….”
Just curious why we can’t follow the transparency ordinance, especially when the Budget & Finance Chair, who restricted JPs in the meeting from discussing, or even asking questions … I think it’s important that we follow that transparency ordinance and actually be given ample time to review this document.
Baker deferred to County Administrator Tom Anderson, who responded, “Well, actually, everything you have here has been sent out at one point during the last month … it’s been acted upon, changed a little bit, but the changes are very small — it wouldn’t take 24 hours to review them.”
When Higgins then asked Pickett if it was appropriate to bring possible budget changes to the Budget & Finance Committee in January, as opposed to “discussing any changes tonight,” Pickett concurred: “We do not have the budget in front of us so I suggest we approve this budget, which by statute we have to do, and then take it up, any of those changes, in January.”
(Edited from full video on Faulkner County Arkansas Facebook page.)
JP Still Has Budget Questions
Lachowsky asked when his budget questions would be addressed, which created quite a discussion with some of the other JPs:
I have some questions … since, we weren’t, like Justice Kendrick said, we weren’t … we were invited to participate and then we were uninvited to participate in the budgeting process, and I didn’t have any way to voice questions or concerns I have in the budgeting process.
I brought them all with me tonight. And I do have the budget in front of me that we can huddle around and look at together if need be.
Baker countered, “It’s my understanding that’s what the committee is for … the Finance Committee. To prepare a budget and recommend it to this Board for approval. Is there any other discussion?”
Again Lachowsky spoke:
I have a series of questions I would like to ask different department heads … about things within the budget. Since we’re voting on the budget, I have a series of questions I’d like to ask….
Like I said, if you will allow — I understand it would be better placed in a committee meeting but I was not afforded that opportunity to represent my constituents in that manner.
Baker deferred to “the Chair of the Finance Committee …,” and Pickett asked, “So the proposal is to ask the department heads questions about the budget, or just about the internal operations of a department?”
Lachowsky responded, “About some of the line items and stuff that are in the budget, just like we do with our appropriations, just like we did with Section 10 of our last appropriation ordinance.”
Pickett then responded, “If we had the budget in front of us so that we could follow you, the Committee members could follow your questions, I think it would be appropriate, but it’s not.”
“Only Fair” to Ask Questions
JP Steve Goode (R, Dist. 3) remarked,
…It is only fair to us as Court members to be able to ask questions…. if the Justices were not afforded the opportunity in committee to ask questions, then certainly before we place this vote, somebody needs to be afforded the opportunity to ask questions….
I can’t in good faith vote on something … and I mean I’ve looked through it, but they may raise questions that would cause me to change my vote.
After JPs Zach Cates (R, Dist. 13) and Rose Roland (R, Dist. 5) spoke as members of the Budget & Finance Committee in favor of Lachowsky’s request, the Judge gave Lachowsky the floor.
$600,000 for Jail Expansion
Lachowsky first questioned “about $600,000” appropriated to account 1810.0418 County Jail. He asked if a contract to build the jail expansion was in place and whether it was reasonable to appropriate money before a contract is signed and before the jail fees issue has been settled with municipalities.
He pointed out that, in earlier discussions, JPs had said they wanted to see if jail fees would help offset the operational costs of the 48-bed jail pod expansion.
Anderson said the County estimates the jail pod expansion to cost $3.5 million “to be safe,” and, if paid out over five years, the $600,000 represents “a fairly accurate estimate of what it’ll take to pay it off.”
Baker and Anderson confirmed that no contract is in place and said bids/requests for proposal for the jail expansion project are “due to go out in January.”
Does the Budget Appropriate the Funds?
JPs and the Judge were confused as to whether the $600,000 County Jail line item was actually appropriating the funds; that lengthy discussion again split the Court along familiar lines.
Baker said, “No appropriation has been made for a pods unit” and Higgins said the funds in question are “budgeted” but not appropriated. Boyer pointed that “we’re not expending the money” because a contract is not in place.
But County Clerk Margaret Darter confirmed, “It is appropriating the money to the line items. That’s what the budget is doing, is appropriating money to those line items … if it’s not spent, it stays there.”
She later added, “If you all do not appropriate it, no checks can be written on it. It’ll stay in the same fund that it’s in, it just will not have an appropriation for 5003 and 5004; it will have to come back to you all to get the appropriation.”
Lachowsky moved to strike items 5003 and 5004 from fund 1810.0418 County Jail, saying
I felt like this fund, this budget here needed some light shed on it…. I was surprised when I saw it, it looked like we were sneaking in the approval of the $3.3 million loan…. I think it would be better in the light, with the vendor in place.
JP Tyler Pearson (D, Dist. 7) added he “supports the motion. It looks better if the County won’t be giving money to a contract that doesn’t exist.”
Some JPs did not agree with Lachowsky’s rationale for removing the items. Budget & Finance Chair Pickett again pushed back, asserting the deletion “is not going to have any effect whatsoever” on the balanced budget: “What’s been proposed is just moving it out of one item… back into the capital budget.”
Tyler repeated that “It doesn’t appropriate the moneys — that’s the effect that it has. It just doesn’t appropriate it.”
After Boyer called the vote, more discussion followed as JPs verified the motion and its meaning, then the motion to remove the County Jail appropriation passed.
Four JPs voted “no”: Boyer, Goode, Higgins and Pickett.
Eight voted “yes”: JPs Justin Knight (R, Dist. 1); Jim Houston (R, Dist. 4); Roland; Lachowsky; Pearson; J.T. Toal (R, Dist. 8); Kendrick; and Cates.
Health Insurance Concerns
Lachowsky went on to ask questions about administration fees for the health insurance program for County employees and JPs learned the County never bids this item out because the County chooses to use a self-funded plan. The County pays a third-party administrator to screen claims, negotiate discounts, and administer that plan.
Pointing out, “No one has free health insurance,” Goode said County employees “must be told, if we have a bad year, we can’t give them a free ride anyore.”
Roland emphasized, “We need to look at this earlier in the year … this is what caused our budget troubles this year.”
Public Defender Questions
Lachowsky also asked about fund balances in the Public Defender’s budget and Roland verified that the Defender’s office was implementing the video service mentioned by Circuit Judge Troy Braswell, noting “That could actually save our common carrier expenses for the Sheriff’s Office by quite a significant amount.”
Sheriff Tim Ryals verified that his department would pay for the video service if the Public Defender “doesn’t have the funding” to implement it.
$300,000 More in Motor Fuel Tax
Noting this account has a projected revenue of $300,000, Lachowsky asked if the County had plans for that money; Baker responded, “Nothing in mind.”
County Attorney Phil Murphy explained this fund is mandated “by Legislative Audit, they (Association of Arkansas Counties) told me what percentage to project… it’s one of those clerical things, a reporting issue…. It’s going to be an additional $300,000 a year. We’re going to keep tracking that to see. Once again, we’re also going to vote on another four-lane highway extension in a few months….”
Higgins Adjusts Animal Control Budget
After Baker asked for additional questions about the 2020 budget, Higgins informed the Court of some news on the animal control issue and then moved to lower the 3404 Animal Control budget from $50,000 to $35,000.
He said the County would soon have more options for spay and neuter vouchers because Arkansas Animal Rescue Foundation would be offering that service in the County beginning January 1; the amount the County spends on the spay and neuter program could then be reduced.
He added that the “animal interest community” was developing a “shelter plan for a facility that is no longer being used between Greenbrier and Guy,” so “they may propose to need some of the Animal Control money for actually what we designed that money for.”
After brief discussion, JPs verbally voted 11 to 1 (Kendrick voted “no”) to lower the Animal Control budget for 2020.
No Legislative Audit Issues
Baker and Murphy said the County has a “clean” state audit, in response to a question from Kendrick about possible issues.
Budget Vote
The 2020 budget passed 9 to 3. Three JPs voted “no”: Kendrick, Lachowsky, and Pickett. Voting “yes” were Boyer, Cates, Goode, Higgins, Houston, Knight, Pearson, Roland, and Toal.
Ordinance 19-49
Baker announced an addition to the agenda and turned to Pickett.
He introduced Circuit Clerk Crystal Taylor, who told the group she needs an additional $7500 added to her budget to pay jurors.
She explained that juror pay is a “line item that’s always out of my control,” because of its dependence on the court system and its trial schedules. She added that she’d “talked to the judges about it and I got their understanding” about how their scheduling impacts her budget for the next year.
She said she’d also adjusted her estimates to ensure adequate funding in future budgets.
Pickett explained, “The funds are available; carryover will be either zero or some positive amount,” and he moved that the Ordinance be considered by the full Court (without first being vetted by the Budget & Finance Committee).
Sanson added that the Circuit Clerk’s office has more revenue than expenditures, and that the state reimburses juror expense “at about 85%,” with the revenue going into County General.
Pearson asked to strike the language “by the Budget & Finance Committee” from the ordinance — “because it wasn’t” — and the Court passed that change unanimously.
The Court then also voted unanimously to pass Ordinance 19-49, allocating an additional $7500 to the Circuit Clerk for juror pay.
OEM Awards
Baker announced that Faulkner County has again been named County of the Year by the Arkansas Flood Management Association “due to outstanding efforts by folks in our OEM office… in response to the 2019 flood.” The OEM received the award for the first time in 2012. OEM Director Shelia Bellot was also awarded Outstanding Flood Plain Manager for the State of Arkansas for managing Faulkner County’s flood plain program; she first won this award in 2016.
He recognized OEM staffers in the room: “Thank you all for what you do,” he said.
As he’d told the Infrastructure & Roads Committee earlier, Baker told the JPs about the recent levee inspection he completed with the Corps of Engineers: “We are the only levee that been repaired in Arkansas since the flood six months ago,” he said.
He added that the Corps “bragged on us for our flood plain management” and added, “Sooner or later the State of Arkansas will have to bite the bullet on folks who build in areas that are subject to flood because it’s just an ongoing … we’re going to have floods .. so by them singling it out, I was proud of the work we’ve done.”
(Edited from full video on Faulkner County Arkansas Facebook page.)
