Prior to their bi-monthly meeting on Monday, August 29, members of the Eureka City Council convened for Revenue Neutral Rate (RNR) and Budget hearings.
Revenue Neutral Rate increase was first brought to the floor. Before allowing for the community to speak, member of the public present were asked to be respectful and were notified that 5 minutes would be allotted for each individual wishing to speak. City Administrator Lucas Herb-Mullin also explained that the value of one mil is not fixed from year to year. He also noted that this is the third year the RNR regulation has been in place: requiring that governing bodies publish figures by a given deadline if they intend to exceed the given RNR. The RNR rate for the City of Eureka was 69.514 for 2024. Following discussion of finances and in consideration of inflation, notably the anticipated insurance increase of approximately 30%, 75.188 mils was the decided figure for 2024. Herb-Mullin noted that last year, the city had been at 72.520.
Resident Don Fanning questioned how much of an increase would be reflected on his taxes.
Herb-Mullin shared that this would result in the addition of approximately $69 per year for homes valued around $100,000 and roughly half this figure for those valued in the range of $50,000.
As mailed estimates were discussed, Herb-Mullin offered an explanation as to why residents saw such high figures. Herb-Mullin first referenced that this is a busy time of year for accountants. He then explained what had really inflated estimated figures for property owners was the county, who had not completed their 2024 budget with their accountant prior to the RNR deadline. As a fiscal year unfolds, a governing body is not to exceed the given RNR unless notice was submitted prior to the set deadline. Herb-Mullin explained that the county had selected 95, a figure they knew was high, knowing that they would come in lower.
This figure provided room as the budget was later drafted for completion and the mil levy was ultimately set at 81.055 for Greenwood County. Herb-Mullin further explained that legally the county clerk has to send out estimates, which had to be done prior to completion of their budget. With unknowns for the year, such as insurance, being estimated so high, this resulted in residents receiving the high estimate.
Sheriff Heath Samuels offered further explanation, sharing that Greenwood County had received a letter approximately 6-7 months ago notifying representatives that the Appraiser’s Office was out of compliance in terms of valuations. Samuels told members of the public that state laws require the appraiser to be within 10% of market value of properties. He noted the county fell behind in years past and when COVID hit, houses began selling at inflated values - i.e. $40,000 houses selling for $100,000. Houses selling in this manner raises values for local housing stock. Samuels explained that individuals were therefore seeing a valuation increase and the increase in mils. Herb-Mullin added that in response to compliance issues, some communities have done blanket percentage increases.
A community member requested clarification in regards to coverage of previous budgetary discussion which noted an error had made by the county clerk’s office in regards to the current year mil levy. Herb-Mullin explained that the intended levy amount for this fiscal year had been approximately 75 mils, however the 72 figure had been submitted.
Following closure of the RNR public hearing, members of the council approved the affiliated resolution, Resolution 23-10, in a roll-call vote.
After convening for the hearing for the 2024 proposed Budget, local resident Roscoe Jackson was first to speak on the subject. Jackson began by noting that the city had two revenue funds, those being water and sewer. After noting that BG Consultants has proposed a major project for water and he was assuming they were proposing another for sewer, Jackson noted a problem he identified. He went on to explain that for at least the last 10 years, funds from the water fund were being transferred each year. Jackson pointed out that the Budget for 2024 proposed transferring $290,000 from the water department fund to the general fund, a total which he noted is nearly 1/3 of their total annual revenue. He added that this was an increase from the $260,000 transferred in the 20192023 fiscal years. Jackson noted that when work needs to be done on the water plant, there is no money and thus the city has to hire an engineer and borrow money. He noted that this problem is not unique to the City of Eureka. Similarly, Jackson pointed out that the sewer department also has a major transfer of funds to the general fund, a total which he noted is equivalent to more than 1/3 of their revenue. He noted that the current estimate for the 2024 transfer was $155,000. “I understand the logic behind it,” stated Jackson. “It is to keep the mil levy lower than it otherwise would be,” he continued. He noted that this however requires the need for hiring an engineer to complete a project with high overhead. “We simply can’t afford these projects,” said Jackson. He next referenced the River Street construction project, noting that he believed everyone in the room apart from possibly Bruce Boettcher with BG Consultants was aware that this had not gone well. Jackson then noted that the community had capable contractors in electrical and in the sewer business, adding that a lot of the needed work was just replacement.
Another concern voiced by Jackson was the inclusion of line items for various departments under the budget titled contracts and services/contractual services. Jackson asked what this was. He then was made aware that he had reached the time allowance. Clerk Renee Burk then shared that many instances of contractual services refers to utilities.
When Mayor Stephen Coulter noted that if the city were to stop transferring funds, this would greatly raise the mil levy. Jackson then noted that they would have to adopt a fixed budget and limit spending.
Peggy Hawthorne was next to address the council. In regards to pay raises and contracts, Hawthorne noted that if this is needed, that is fine, but she encouraged consideration of who the city is contracting with. She noted that it was her understanding that the city contracted for other work with the same company which completed work to Plum Street for other projects such as River Street. She encouraged finding a company that knows what they are doing. When she questioned if there was anyone on the staff that even knew how to operate the new machine ordered for street repair, it was noted that more than one individual knows how to use the machine. Coulter added that the purchase of the machine included training. Councilman Jeff Marks noted that this machine would afford the city to be proactive in street maintenance. Continuing to train and pass down information was discussed. When the subject of pay increases was referenced, Coulter discussed issues maintaining a full staff, sharing that in the years since he has been mayor, there have historically been openings. He noted that salaries were raised to try to and attract people to positions. Coulter shared that the city is finally getting to where positions are being filled. After Hawthorne noted this was understandable, she encouraged the city to stop adding positions. She told officials that she felt they were adding positions that could be performed by individuals already employed by the city.
Fanning next took the floor, stating that everything comes down to education and kids today want it all, but don’t want to work for it.
Following the closure of the public hearing, council members approved the 2024 budget in a roll-call vote.
Later in meeting proceedings, Coulter read a letter submitted by community member Virginia Payne, asking that the council recognize the need for “cuts and not additions.” She concluded by writing, “We do not improve Eureka by taxing citizens into what could become near poverty for some. We attract by making this community a soft place to land.”
Coverage of the regular meeting can be found elsewhere in this week’s edition.
