The Debate Begins

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

My good friend Skip Murphy, who blogs on Granitegrok has challenged me to an online blogging debate concerning the recent activity on the Belknap County Budget.

Skip states the following in his post titled “No, not even a partial success - for the taxpayers, anyways”

That all said, you know what's coming - Yup, there's a BUT coming up! Methinks Greg and I are going to be having "a discussion" as there needs to be a pointing out a thing or two to Greg.  So, let the blogging debate begin...

Before I respond to his call for a debate you should see the following information I have put together about the budget in question. (you can read my notes about the budget below and open this link to review the spreadsheet)

You should know all of the items on the spreadsheet in red have an affect in the increase of the budget and the amount to be raised by property taxes throughout the county.

 Budget Notes

1        General Fund County Revenues

a)      Citizen’s Council received a $100,000 grant in 2007. When this is taken into consideration it is actually a $19,862 increase in revenues. This is equal to a 297.691% increase.

b)      Human Services revenue item

i          This item shows the increased revenue projections made at the Public Hearing. 

ii        This item received a $190,000 grant in 2007.

iii      When the grant is taken into consideration it is actually a $230,105 increase in revenues after the revised revenue projections added $151,000 to the estimate.

iv      This is actually a 121.178% increase.

c)      Gunstock Income

i          The minimum payment from Gunstock, per a past agreement is $150,000 to help pay the debt service for the last bond issued.

ii        My understanding is that Gunstock is to be “self-sufficient” in its budget and pay more toward the debt service when it is available.

iii      It wasn’t until pressure was put applied that the Commissioners agreed to increase this revenue.

2        General Fund County Expenditures

a)      Commissioners expenditure item

i          This item had a $40,000 expense in 2007 for a Wage Study.

ii        When this study is taken out of the equation there was an expenditure of $271,978 in 2007.

iii      Comparing this revised expenditure to the 2008 number shows a ($4,428) decrease.

iv      This revised decrease is actually a 1.628% decrease.

b)      County Attorney expenditure item

i          This item has a $15,000 expense in 2008 for Civil Experts.

ii        This extra expense is supposed to be a one-time-only expense.

iii      Taking this extra expense into account shows a normal increase of $818.

iv      This normal increase is actually 0.150% increase.

c)      Gunstock Expenses

i          My understanding is that Gunstock is to be “self-sufficient” in its budget and pay more toward the debt service when it is available.

ii        This item only shows Gunstock to be “self-sufficient” this year because of pressure to increase the revenue projections.

3        Human Services Budget Expenditure Details and Comments

a)      The Comments show which items are to change in payment responsibility between the State and County. This is the part related to HB2.

b)      The revenue projections for this item are far understated, which is related to the increase in expenses.

c)      This item is only a “best-guess” estimate by everyone at the county level.

d)      Increases in Wages and Benefits are on the extreme side and should be reviewed for cuts.

4        Department of Corrections Budget Expenditure Details and Comments

a)      The increase in Wages at 3.750% is close to being in-line with an acceptable increase but there may be some additional reductions available. This should be looked at.

b)      The increase in Benefits at 4.048% is a bit high and should be reviewed for reductions.

c)      The Corrections Food increase of 17.653% is quite excessive and I would like to know where this increase is coming from. If the increase is from food then the County Corrections should follow the lead of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff. He cut the inmates in the County Jail to bologna sandwiches and fruit for meals.

5        Outside Agencies Budget Expenditure Details and Comments

a)      The UNH Cooperative Extension increase of 2.378% is normally not a bad increase but should have been looked at closer for reductions.

b)      Lakes Region Mutual Fire Aid is paid for by Belknap County for all the towns and the city in the county. This is an expense reduced from each town and city.

c)      The Genesis Counseling Group increase of $6,700 should definitely be reduced.

6        Nursing Home Budget Details & Comments; Nursing Home Revenues

a)      Medicaid Incentive revenue item

i          The Convention will not directly identify the decrease in revenues. It is my belief that this item is the reduction of Federal payments due to the perceived monies reduced by the State under HB2

b)      Nursing Home Care revenue item

i          This is related to HB2 and I believe the projections are still extremely low. Unfortunately the true revenues will not be known until December 2008.

c)      Hairdressing Income revenue item

i          Where does this item come from and why the decrease?

d)      Transfer from General Fund revenue item

i          This equals the expense item in the General Fund Expenditure Budget.

ii        This item should be self-sufficient with “pass-downs from the feds and state but money is being left on the table in Washington D.C., which is something that HB2 was supposed to correct.

iii      If the revenue projections are more realistic then this number should be smaller.

7        Nursing Home Budget Details and Comments; Nursing Home Expenditures

a)      Dietary Department expenditure item

i          The increase of 4.298% is 1 2/3 times the CPI – U inflation rate of 2.9%. This doesn’t make sense in Dietary. It could be from increased fuel costs for cooking and refrigerating the food plus the increase costs for the food.

b)      Nursing expenditure item

i          A 6.940% increase is extreme. This item should be for wages of the Nursing Staff.

ii        There was an increase in the size of the staff during last year, but that shouldn’t account for an increase of $383,990.

c)      Housekeeping expenditure item

i          Where does a $23,644 increase come from?

ii        This item should be revued for accuracy.

d)      Physicians & Pharmacy expenditure item

i          The increase is quite small.

ii        My thought is that the people in the Nursing Home should either qualify for Social Security Medicare and the Prescription Drug Plan available or they should already qualify for Medicaid. There should either be corresponding revenue for this item or there shouldn’t be an increase.

e)      Special Services expenditure item

i          What is this item? Could this be for the performers that come to entertain the patients?

ii        Why are we paying more for an item we don’t know what it’s for?

f)       Activities expenditure item

i          This increase is quite small and I understand that this item is for the group outings for the patients that are able to leave the facility for short times during the day.

g)      Hairdressing expenditure item

i          The increase is larger than what would be considered acceptable, but I understand that the young at heart women feel better when they have their hair done. I will give this one a pass.

 

My next post will contain more specific information to help Skip understand where the budget went wrong. Let the debate continue.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Debate Begins.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.laconia-nh.us/mt-tb.cgi/17

» It used to be “Where’s the Beef?” from The Blogging Councilor

Now it’s “Where’s the Answers?” At the Laconia City Council meeting on Monday, March 10th during the City Manager’s Report item on the agenda there was more discussion about the Belknap County budget and the Public Hearing. This was reported... Read More

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Greg K published on March 9, 2008 3:14 AM.

The Meeting was a Partial Success was the previous entry in this blog.

Do we really need a broad-based tax? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.


View my page on Rebuild the Party


Powered by Movable Type 4.01