HRFC Committee Chair Robinson states that the HRFC committee considered1 the HHS resolution and raises the issue of CIP rollover policy as a justification to not support the proposed $1,500,000 reduction in the proposed 2024 tax increase.
In my opinion, the CIP rollover policy is vague and ambiguous, leading to valid questions regarding whether or not the the Social Improvement Fund (SIF) is actually included in the CIP rollover policy. I have no reason to doubt the recent statements that it was the practice of the County prior to 2019 to include the SIF fund in the CIP rollover calculation, but it is not clear to me that this practice was completely in line with the policy.
Furthermore, it is not entirely clear that the CIP rollover policy was actually adopted by the County Board. The CIP Rollover Policy materials provided to me do not indicate a County Board Resolution adopting the Policy, but I have not made a follow up inquiry. If a resolution was passed and is provided to me, I will provide an update to this post.
As discussed in a previous post, the entire discussion regarding CIP rollover policy is not directly relevant to the proposed budget amendment resolution as the resolution is not expected to use funds from the SIF Fund Balance, but is rather just intended to reduce the rate of growth of the Social Improvement Fund.
- In my earlier article, I used the term “consider” as it is used in Robert’s Rules [RONR (12th ed.) 4:25-57]. Because the Corporation Counsel is the County Board’s Parliamentarian and Expert on Robert’s Rules, I interpreted the Corporation Counsel’s use of the word “consider” in the same way. There is no question that the HRFC Committee discussed the HHS resolution, but the HRFC committee did not provide a 2nd to the motion to consider the resolution. ↩︎