Laserfiche WebLink
GENERAL OVERVIEW SESSION — JOSEPH A. BAIRD, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <br />Administrator Baird used a PowerPoint Presentation to support his budget message. He <br />presented the 2009/2010 proposed Budget of $301,601,307, which is a decrease of $84,513,107 <br />or 21.89% less than last year. He stated that the proposed budget was a difficult one; however, <br />the Board's goal of reducing the ad valorem taxes was accomplished, with total ad valorem <br />collections of about $88,048,650, a decrease of $9.9 million or 10.1% less than last year. <br />Administrator Baird reiterated that the budget has been challenging, and said that some <br />very difficult decisions had to be made. He outlined the major budget impacts, including a tax <br />roll decline in the General Fund of around 9%; an 11.4% reduction in the MSTU (Municipal <br />Services Taxing Unit); a 10.0% decline in the Emergency Services District; a $2.3 million (or <br />over 10%) decline in sales tax and other revenues; building permit and impact fee revenue <br />reductions of 40% each; and interest earning reductions of about 3.7 million or 42%. <br />Administrator Baird advised that there would be no raises for the County employees, except for <br />the IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) Local 2201, and that 39 full-time positions <br />had been eliminated. <br />Administrator Baird reported that the proposed budget accomplishes everything that the <br />Board requested; however, in the General Fund, staff came close to, but was unable to reach, the <br />desired goal. He presented the proposed millage for the General Fund millage as 3.0892, noting <br />that in attempting to fulfill the Commission's budgetary goals, a $2 million reduction had been <br />made to the Sheriff's Budget. He reported that the Emergency Services District millage, at <br />1.7148, is the same as last year; the M.S.T.U. Fund is below last year's rate, at 1.0774; and <br />noted that a property owner of a typical house with a homestead exemption should not have a tax <br />increase on the portion for which the County Commission is responsible. <br />July 23, 2009 2 <br />