EARL WATT
• Leader & Times
Seward County Commissioner Todd Stanton, along with Commissioner Steve Helm, voted no on exceeding revenue neutral rate and on increasing the mill levy by 13.4 mills Monday, but they were outvoted by Tammy Sutherland-Abbott, Scott Carr and Presephoni Fuller.
“I felt the budget process left much to be desired,” Stanton said. “There was not due consideration given to many issues.”
Stanton stated at the Revenue Neutral Rate hearing that Seward County only needed about $250,000 more to satisfy the tax refund that may be needed depending on the ruling of a current court case on the potential overpayment of property tax by Arkalon Ethanol.
“According to Dustin (Ormiston, the accountant who reviews the county budget), not me, the amount owed for the three years in question plus interest on those is approximately $1.777 million. The county tells us it has set aside a little more than half a million a year for the past two years,” Stanton said. “That’s a little more than $1 million sitting in the general fund, but legally it should be in a restricted fund, toward this potential judgement, whatever it may end up being. In the new budget, there is supposed to be earmarked another half million. That’s $1.5 million toward the potential judgement. That leaves you approximately $250,000 short, if that were decided by the district court judge. In that scenario, no additional funds should be needed. That could be cash flowed.”
With the increase that was supported in a 3-2 vote, Stanton said it was unclear how much of that was for regular budget items and for the pending case.
“There now seems to be questions about the authority under state statute to levy and collect funds for judgments that have yet to be rendered,” Stanton said. “I understand it is possible, but there are specific regulations on how that must be done. Not having those regulations presented to us at the time, I don’t know if we have or haven’t. That information came to light by citizen investigation after Monday. It appears to me that specific statutes should have been presented to all five commissioners. They were not.”
Local citizen David Box asked if the funds were being placed in a restricted fund as directed by KSA 75-6110. While Chairman Scott Carr and County Administrator April Warden both said they were familiar with the statute, there was no restricted fund established as legally required.
“We were told by the administrator and chairman they were familiar with the statute,” Stanton said. “I believe the administrator stated while she was aware, she had consulted other counties and could not find anyone who followed the statute.”
Citizens have also suggested borrowing the funds with a no-funds warrant if a judgement were rendered against the county, but staff said such option was only available to be repaid in one year.
“It’s like an unsecured loan at the bank,” Stanton said. “We were told it was not a good idea. It could damage the county’s credit rating. In my experience having worked in bonds, it’s not a big enough ding to be concerned about, nor are we contemplating a bond issue which would be dinged. We were told no-warrant bonds were only good for a year. I have since found out that is incorrect. Statutes in Kanss allow issuance of no-warrant bonds over a five-year period. That lessens the burden on the citizens.”
Even though those questions were asked weeks ago, Stanton said no information was provided to him until the night of the budget hearing.
“For some odd reason, that information was unavailable until the very day we voted on the budget,” Stanton said. “We only received a short verbal summary, not a written document we typically get from outside consultants.”
In addition to the pending refund, Stanton said Commissioner Helm had suggested about $2 million in potential cuts, but his proposals were not given necessary discussion.
“Without looking at reducing the proposed budget along the lines Commissioner Helm proposed, something in the neighborhood of 4 mills would cover inflation and other needs including anything that might come forward within the next fiscal year regarding the pending case,” Stanton said.
But in his view, public input was not given serious consideration.
“I felt the town halls had a distinct narrative being presented,” he said. “I felt they could have been structured to answer specific questions or solicit ideas from the public. We have found out the public is extremely knowledgeable about these matters.”
With some advisement of the county being questioned by Stanton and others, he said the current issue would not be near as dire if the county had a finance director or similar position.
“The position we are in currently would be vastly different if a finance director were in place,” he said. “Better alternatives would have been known further ahead in the process. Alternatives not yet presented would have been. In my view, the county cannot continue without a finance director, or comptroller if you want to call it that. We cannot move forward without one. How will we pay for them? We restructured one department where a significant portion of that salary can be found. I am convinced funds in that budget can be put to that use. The more important view is we can’t afford not to put a person in that position as soon as possible. That person must be a professionally trained finance person coming to us from the outside who owes no allegiance to anyone. It’s the only way to rectify this situation.”
