In two unheard of moves, Carbon County officials unveiled its 2024 spending plan weeks ahead of the upcoming General Election and voted down one of three of the budgets that make up the $73.8 million proposed budget.

During the county commissioners’ meeting on Thursday, the commissioners voted 2-1 to approve a preliminary $60,145,827 budget for the operating funds and 2-1 to approve a preliminary $8,156,441 special funds budget. Commissioners’ Chairman Wayne Nothstein voted no for these two matters, stressing that he felt using fund balances will only compound a problem down the road that will cost the county taxpayers more.

In a third motion, Nothstein was the sole yes vote for a proposed $5.5 million capital projects budget, while both Commissioners Chris Lukasevich and Rocky Ahner voted against the matter, saying the budget called for having over a million set aside that they didn’t feel was necessary.

Jeff Weiss of Zelenkofske Axelrod LLC, the financial consultant for the county, said that rejecting one of the three budgets may force a change in the scheduled final adoption, which was slated for Dec. 14, depending on how long it takes to rework and vote on the capital projects budget again.

“If the board adopts the proposed capital project budget within the next few weeks, you can still meet the Dec. 14 adoption,” Weiss said, noting that the extended period for review was to allow salary board executive sessions to occur that are related to salaries.

As the budgets stood, if all three preliminary plans were adopted, the county would hold the line on millage, keeping it at 12.25 mills.

However, that final millage rate may or may not be adjusted based on a new capital projects budget.

County officials speak out

Ahner said before his votes on the three actions that he feels going to the taxpayers’ bank accounts is not the solution for the county.

He said that within the proposed budgets, there are increases to salaries, improving operations and completion of large projects.

“Salaries should be high priority,” Ahner said, “In many departments, training staff for them to go to another county exceeds the money we could actually give them to stay.”

With regards to voting against the capital projects fund, Ahner said, “The courthouse projected completion is May or June of 2025 (so) unless there’s another project that I’m not aware of, there’s no need to fully exhaust the $5.5 million allocated to the project in 2024.”

Nothstein looked at the other aspect of the budget.

The beginning balance is projected to be $6.9 million, while the ending balance is expected to be approximately $1.6 million.

“We are exceeding our budget expenditures by $5.3 million,” he said, pointing out that $625,000 is set aside for salaries for next year, which is on top of the $800,000 set aside last year for the salary readjustments.

Nothstein pointed out that there are several tax claim assessment hearings taking place that could cost the county in the long run, and tax revenue is only increasing minimally.

“There’s a lot of other things that are coming up, not only the threat of (a county) reassessment, which could be over $6 million should we get forced into it; but we are looking at the open space referendum.

“We are passing budget increases whether it be service contracts for computers or whatever, and it just keeps going up.”

Spending effects

Nothstein warned that the county’s credit rating could be affected down the road by not having the money left in the future, making the need for a tax anticipation note a reality.

He stressed that part of this is compounded by the state mandating programs and then not reimbursing the counties for the amount they are supposed to be reimbursed.

For example, the county is supposed to be reimbursed 77.5% for district magistrate costs, but the state doesn’t have the money so it lowered the reimbursement rate to 65%.

“Who makes up that difference?” Nothstein asked. “The county taxpayers. ... So my question to the other commissioners is what is your plan going forward for the following years because we cannot keep spending like this without doing something in the future.”

Lukasevich responded saying that Nothstein allowed a historic 68.7% tax increase to happen under his watch; while he and Ahner are working to rebalance the tax revenues with the expenditures to the best of their ability.

He added that the capital projects fund has $1.2 million above and beyond what is necessary; and that a savings could be not moving the clerk of courts office in the courthouse.

Lukasevich continued that Nothstein failed to work to find other solutions other than tax increases, and noted that he stands by the proposed operating fund.

Nothstein responded that Lukasevich failed to mention that the previous board also eliminated the occupational tax for taxpayers and noted that the sale of Weatherwood funds are being used to balance a budget instead of maintaining a healthy balance.

“In the next two, three years, there is going to have to be a drastic change on our budgeting process in our expenditures,” Nothstein said.