My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/14/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
2/14/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:10 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:15:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/14/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
$700,000. The annualized cost of salary increases is $206,000 to <br />the taxing funds and $255,000 county -wide. As you can see, those <br />numbers quickly add up to $1,300,000 in taxing funds and $1,500,000 <br />total County -wide. We also have salary projections and a possible <br />step program for Board employees. The other obligations are not <br />just for the taxing funds, but County -wide for all funds. Some of <br />the obligations that are unknown at this time are mandates, the <br />constitutional officers budget changes, EMS overtime, outside <br />agencies that rely on our funding, the HRS department, the PEP reef <br />bond issue, the impact of the'old courthouse, the old Gifford <br />landfill, the GEO bond for environmentally sensitive land, and the <br />Sebastian utility acquisition. <br />Commissioner Eggert inquired whether there were funds in the <br />sales tax for the Gifford landfill and Director Baird responded <br />that the funds are there but there will be an impact on the budget. <br />Director Baird continued that one of the major factors in the <br />budget revenue is a tax roll growth, which controls the millage. <br />We believe that new construction numbers should be a lot better in <br />the coming year based on building permit revenue and building <br />permit information. We also do not think that citrus groves will <br />be devalued to the same extent as in the past 2 years. The prior <br />year drop in the roll after the value adjustment board still must <br />be adjusted, and we believe that state revenues will be better this <br />year due to development such as the New Horizon mall. We will not <br />be able to budget as much cash forward as last year, which will <br />have a negative impact from the revenue side. The SWDD assessments <br />rely a lot on mandates. Building revenues are doing a lot better <br />than projected; however, the change in interest rates could change <br />that dramatically. Our budget preparation process is basically set <br />by state law and requirements. We start gathering information and <br />revamping the packets in February and March, and send the package <br />out in late March or the beginning of April to the departments. <br />The departments return the packages in May, at which time the <br />County Administrator and the budget office review them and make <br />their decisions. During the period between May and July a lot of <br />things change. The departments account for a very small portion of <br />the general fund budget and we must wait for the state numbers <br />relative to agencies like HRS, the state attorney, the public <br />defender and judges, as these numbers affect our budget. The <br />constitutional officers' numbers are also due in May and June. <br />Therefore, we only have approximately 30% of our information from <br />the expenditure side in May or June. By state law, the property <br />appraiser delivers the tax roll around June 30th or July 1st. Our <br />FEBRUARY 14, 1995 43 ROOK 94 i-,� ,IJ F 3 73 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.