By KIRSTEN LASKEY
Los Alamos Daily Post

The Los Alamos County budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 was approved although not unanimously. On April 25, the budget was passed 5-2 with Council Chair David Izraelevitz and Councilor Antonio Maggiore casting the opposing votes.

April 25 was the final night of the budget hearings which were held April 17-18 and April 24-25. Throughout the hearings, heads of the County departments presented their budgets as well as additional budget add-on options for Council’s consideration. The Council issued tentative approvals to each department budget before adopting the entire budget.

Total expenditures for the FY18 adopted budget is $200,916,360 which includes $51,774,694 for the General Fund and $71,462,741 for the Utilities Fund. A big factor in developing the budget is the estimation of County revenues, Budget and Performance Manager Karen Kendall said. One driving force for revenue is Gross Receipts Tax (GRT), which is projected to be $4 million below what was budgeted in FY17 and about $2 million below the original forecast for FY18. The County’s GRT mainly comes from Los Alamos National Laboratory, which was operating under a continuing resolution and as a result, the lab’s spending was restricted. GRT, Kendall explained, is not based on the size of the lab’s budget but on specific spending categories subject to GRT taxation. GRT from the laboratory makes up 60 percent of the County’s general fund revenue. “So that’s the lion share,” she said.

Another component of the budget this time is the Recreation Bond and any associated spending, Kendall said. If the bond should not pass the associated spending will not occur. Kendall added, “Council would need to determine what the next steps would be.”  

The other sources of revenue in the general fund are property taxes, user fees, investment income and grants. “We try to leverage grants whenever possible,” Kendall said. There are three strategic focus areas addressed in the budget: economic vitality, quality of life and quality governance.  Kendall explained that the priority focus areas identified in Council’s strategic plan are used when determining the budget.

In the area of economic vitality, issues such as building the local tourism economy and eliminating blight are addressed, Kendall said. For quality of life, areas of focus are promoting the various housing options available to the community and developing affordable workforce housing.

For quality governance, the goal is to implement the comprehensive plan with an emphasis on zoning as well as improving and implementing the building code process. “Whenever we create a budget, we ask ourselves if the budget supports County Council’s strategic focus areas and supports providing excellent services to our citizens and visitors,” Kendall said. There were several objectives for the budget. One was to maintain a 20 percent reserve and ensure expenditures only increased 2 percent over the FY17 adopted budget.

Kendall explained the County has financial policies which include a specific amount in the General Fund unassigned fund balance. The target is for the unassigned fund balance to be at  15 percent to 20 percent of General Fund revenues. The Council achieved a budgeted target of 19.9 percent unassigned fund balance after adding budget options. The County Manager proposed an overall 2 percent increase in General Fund expenditures based on revenue projections and a provided Council with a list of budget options for consideration to achieve the 20 percent target, Kendall said.

In order to achieve these requirements, Council cut out a 1 percent salary adjustment for County employees. The 1 percent salary adjustment was in addition to 2 percent adjustment included in the base budget. A $58,911 salary for a full-time office specialist for the sheriff’s office also made the cutting room floor.

The position as well as the Sheriff’s remaining budget along with the department’s duties will be negotiated at a future County Council meeting.

Additionally, Council decided not to spend $7,500 for materials to market and promote the County’s DWI program.

While not cut, Council decided to follow Public Works Director Philo Shelton’s recommendation to budget $118,000 for streets and traffic improvements rather than the $170,000 that Council tentatively approved in an earlier budget hearing. While some budget add-on items were dropped, a few were picked back up and returned to adopted budget.

During a previous budget hearing, Council tentatively approved to remove $20,000 from the Community Services Department’s budget for library collections. That item was returned. Additionally, Council agreed to fund $21,000 for a victim’s advocate position at the police department. However, the position will be limited to one year with the expectation that another budget request for the position will be given to Council next year.

Whether or not to provide a salary adjustment to County employees drew a lengthy discussion. During a previous budget hearing, Council tentatively approved a half percent adjustment but ultimately moved to not provide any. Councilor Pete Sheehey made the original suggestion to not provide a salary adjustment this year. He pointed out last year staff got a major salary adjustment, which totaled $500,000. With gross receipts tax revenue projected to decrease this coming fiscal year, Sheehey felt it wasn’t feasible to give raises, adding this was a difficult decision and should not be a regular occurrence. “The County is a good place to work, we have good employees and we want to keep them,” he said.

Councilor James Chrobocinski agreed. “I‘m pleased with the budget,” he said. “We came in where we said we were going in. We have to live within our means. I hope staff understand; we think very highly of them but we have to exercise some fiscal constraint.”

Not everyone agreed to cut the salary adjustment. Izraelevitz said he could not vote for the budget. He felt the budget was balanced on the back of staff’s salaries and that Council was not maintaining the salary plan, which seemed unfair.

Maggiore also had concerns with the budget. He pointed out it seemed rather hypocritical to reduce the Public Works Department’s budget for streets and traffic improvements when earlier in the budget hearings, the Department of Public Utilities was questioned on their rates and whether they were high enough to afford improvements to the County’s infrastructure.  Maggiore added he also did not entirely agree with the Council’s decision on removing the salary adjustment.

Despite some disagreements, the majority of the Council supported the budget.

Council Vice Chair Susan O’Leary said, “I am so proud of County staff and our Council and I appreciate so much the feedback we have put into this process and the public input that we have gotten. I think we have really a fantastic year planned and look forward to hearing how all of you spend this money in providing great services to the community.”

Councilor Chris Chandler also commended the budget. “I think it is a very responsible budget,” she said. “It is a citizen-focused budget.”  However, she felt number of FTE (full time equivalent) employee positions in the County needed to be addressed. Chandler said she felt the County needs to start exercising control over its FTEs. “Given where we are and we’re adding FTEs as it is … I think we should start cutting back on our FTE count.”

Councilor Rick Reiss complimented the County and the Council for approving a balance budget.

“I cheered everyone before we started the meeting with, ‘Let’s show the Feds and the state how to do a budget’ and we just did on time and on schedule … this is a good process; I think we did well and everyone got something out of this,” he said.