Why Did County Mayor Leon Humphrey Veto the Carter County Budget? For the second year in a row, Carter County Mayor Leon Humphrey has vetoed the budget passed by the Carter County Commission. Humphrey said he took swift action Wednesday to give County Commission Chairman Tom “Yogi” Bowers sufficient time to call an emergency meeting before the end of July “We’re already past the state’s requirement for passing a budget,” said Humphrey. Humphrey said he hopes the veto will give the Commission a chance to “revisit” its decision. He specifically hopes the Commission will adopt the budget and tax rate passed by the Budget Committee. The Commission voted down the Budget Committee’s proposal with 15 “nays” at Monday’s meeting. Humphrey said he had not spoken to any of the County Commissioners before he vetoed the budget. The proposal passed by the Commission raised the property tax rate by twelve cents to $2.45 per $100 of assessed value, as opposed to the $2.47 rate passed by the Budget Committee. The Commission’s budget cut the portion of property tax rate devoted to the general fund by ten cents–amounting to an $800,000 reduction–while increasing debt service by only ten cents, instead of the requested twelve cents. Both proposals included a necessary two-cent increase to the school fund, to met state-mandated Maintenance of Effort standards with regard to per-pupil spending. The Budget Committee’s proposal included a proposal to fund plans for a middle school in Stoney Creek by sending the county’s fund balance to the county’s schools. Approximately $500,000 of the $800,000 fund balance would have gone to Carter County Schools to pay for the plans with the rest going to the city schools as required by state law. The proposal passed by the full Commission instead used the fund balance to make up for the $800,000 cut from the general fund, then directed the county to borrow the money to pay for the middle school plans. The money would have been borrowed via a bond issue, which would then have to be paid back from debt service. Speaking with the Compass Wednesday afternoon, Humphrey outlined his three reasons for vetoing the budget: 1. The Commission’s Vote Violated State Law Humphrey said first and foremost, the Commission’s proposal violated state law by altering the amount of tax money devoted to debt service after the Budget Committee had passed a tax rate and held a public hearing. Humphrey’s assessment is backed up by a January 2014 opinion from Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper, which was requested by State Senator Rusty Crowe at the request of Humphrey and several County Commissioners. That opinion, Number 14-09, found that when the County Commission reduced the debt service appropriation last year, they violated state law. Because the County has adopted the County Management Financial System of 1981, the Budget Committee retains sole discretion over the tax rate devoted to debt service. A county commission in a county operating under CFMS may not vote to reduce the debt service portion of the budget proposed by its budget committee after the budget committee holds a public hearing under Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-21-111 and presents its proposed budget to the commission. Humphrey said this year’s unlawful vote was even more egregious than last year’s. “It would be different if they didn’t know the law. But now we have an Attorney General’s Opinion.” Budget Committee Chairman Harry Sisk and Budget Committee member Nancy Brown both levied the same criticism at the Commission’s vote Monday morning. Finance Director Ingrid Deloach said she had been told the same thing by the University of Tennessee’s County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS). 2. The Commission’s Budget Was Not Balanced and Did Not Fund Debt Service Adequately Said Humphrey: “The budget resolution as presented to the public hearing balanced the budget and took care of debt service. The changes [the ten-cent, $800,000 cut] created a general fund deficit.” Humphrey said the change would not only force the entire fund balance to be depleted just to balance the budget, but would force a projected 12-cent property tax increase in the 2015-15 fiscal year. “The officeholders are not going to make the necessary cuts” to absorb the losses, Humphrey said. He said by reducing the amount of money devoted to existing debt service the Commission “didn’t plug all the holes.” Humphrey said that while he was personally opposed to tax increased, he nonetheless agreed that the increase to debt service was necessary. 3. The Mayor Opposes Borrowing More Money–Specifically for the Stoney Creek Middle School While he said he was open to the idea of a middle school in Stoney Creek, Humphrey opposed the Commission’s plan to borrow money just to pay for architectural plans. “In our critical financial shape, we do not need to take on any additional debt.” He said he had spoken to three School Board members and numerous members of the public who were concerned that the project was being pushed through too quickly. “[Director of Schools Dr. Kevin Ward] has not submitted total projected costs, nor information about how [the proposed middle school] will deal with the rising costs of the other aging buildings, especially Unaka Elementary.” Humphrey said the estimates Ward has given out so far do not include costs like utilities, custodial and maintenance staff, cafeteria staff and equipment, and other non-teacher personnel. Humphrey worried that rushing the project could turn it into a major debacle. “Carter County’s experience with the jail has put us in a situation where we are being used as a textbook example of ‘how not to do something.’ This school should not be example number 2.” He said it was the School Board’s job to put together a comprehensive plan for the school for the Commission’s consideration. No such consensus exists, said Humphrey. “I’m not against the schools,” said Humphrey. “But we have got to have a plan.”
Posted on: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:35:27 +0000