The goals and purpose of Amendment 1 could be discussed and decided on after the budget process and could be easily implemented with out an additional tax increase using funds already included in the 2025 Budget Proposal.
Administrator Leonhard and County Staff have prepared and provided a very good 2025 Budget Proposal. The proposal follows the budget guidelines set by the Board. It provides funds to continue existing County programs, avoids the use of new debt, funds most of the requested capital projects, and provides for a 3% overall increase in salaries.
It does include a projected tax increase which will cause a 2.8% “Change in Tax Bill”, which is roughly half of the 2024 tax increase that I fought against last year. While I would prefer not to see any tax increase, the proposed increase seems reasonable given the current levels of inflation.
The HRFC (Human Resources Finance and Property Committee) “accepted” the Budget at its meeting last Wednesday, October 9th, 2024. The term “accepted” simply means that responsibility for the 2025 Budget has now passed from the County Administrator to the HRFC committee.
The HRFC Committee meets early this morning (Monday 10/14/25) – just a few short days later- to consider any potential changes to the proposed budget and then send it out for publication. This step will then pass the 2025 Budget to the full County Board for a public hearing (on Friday November 1st, 2024), review and consideration.
Amendment 1
The packet for today’s meeting includes a proposed amendment to the 2025 Budget. This amendment, apparently first proposed last Friday, would raise taxes an additional $157,025 “to fund economic development related activities and accomplish goals that will be further delineated …” “… at a future date”. [Emphasis Added] This amendment would apparently be used to hire additional staff.
The HRFC committee is being asked to vote to raise taxes an additional $157,025 for a program which isn’t well defined and hasn’t been fully discussed or voted on by a Standing Committee. They are being asked to make this vote with very little time for thought and consideration and for very little time for feedback from the public.
If Amendment 1 passes HRFC, it will be included in the Budget and will go to the Public Hearing and full Board as an integral part of the proposed budget, without requiring any further specific discussion or a separate vote on Amendment #1 by the full Board.
Since the proposal is not really defined in the Amendment#1 document, I can’t say that I am for or against the proposal. However, I am definitely against the method by which this Amendment was brought forward and am against adding to the tax levy for the proposed Amendment with so little notice and discussion.
In 2022, I proposed an Amendment at a similar point in the budget process, which was voted down by the HRFC committee. The arguments made against my and other proposed Amendments apply just as well to the current Amendment 1.
The proposed addition of a new position hasn’t gone through the normal County process for adding a new position.
Chair Gibbs: “I’m not going to support this amendment for several reasons one we haven’t gone through the new hire process and the evaluation …” (HRFC Meeting 11/9/2022 – Amendment 7)
Supervisor Leahy: “… based on the fact that it’s not following you know the standard job creation process …” would be ready to move to not recommend the amendment. (HRFC Meeting 11/9/2022 – Amendment 7)
The proposed amendment should have went through a Standing Committee for discussion and to provide for citizen input.
In addition, Amendment #1 could be easily funded with out further tax increases, which would allow time for discussion, definition, and approval outside of the budget process.
If staff are added to assist with identifying County owned properties for development for housing, it would seem that the “Facilities and Capital Management” Department would be an excellent fit for these additional staff. The Department is headed up by the County’s Deputy Administrator, Chris Holman, and is under the jurisdiction of the HRFC committee, which is responsible for the properties under consideration. Chris Holman has done an excellent job with the Department and placing the potential future employees in the Facilities and Capital Management (FCM) Department would minimize any additional burden on Administrator Leonhard.
Based on the 2025 Budget Proposal and the 2023 Audit, it appears that there is about an extra $350,000 in the proposed 2025 FCM payroll Budget. While these funds are presumably earmarked for CIP rollover and contingency, they could be used for the additional personnel proposed in Amendment #1.
If the proposed program is successful, the revenue from the sale of property should be able to offset the cost of the additional personnel, generating funds for future CIP projects.
Proposed Amendment #1
This post is the opinion of David Baker
References:
Post from Last Year Regarding the 2024 Tax Increase: