Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget Ratables Error topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Millville budget introduced with $19.6 million ratables error; commissioners warned of next‑year tax impact
Summary
City finance staff presented the draft 2025 budget, including a 3.62‑cent local tax increase, while disclosing an extra $19,625,000 line in certified ratables that officials said cannot be removed from this year's introduced budget and likely will increase next year's tax rate.
City finance staff presented the introduced municipal budget and told the Millville City Commission that an erroneous $19,625,000 figure in the certified net valuation was included in the county certification and therefore remains part of the introduced 2025 budget.
During the budget presentation, the finance director reviewed state budgeting rules (Title 40A and local finance notices), constraints on appropriations and revenues, and explained that current‑year revenues generally cannot exceed prior‑year receipts without written proof. The introduced budget included a local tax increase of 3.62 cents; the director said “a penny on the tax rate is approximately a hundred and $40,000,” and gave an example that a $200,000 property would see an increase of about $72.40 for the year.
Commissioner Hewitt and other commissioners pressed staff about a $19.6 million certified ratables item that appeared to be incorrect. The finance director said the dollar amount came from the county tax board certification and “we have to use that as our net valuation,” adding that the city already built a $1 million reserve for tax appeals into the budget to cover shortfalls related to that certification. The director said the city cannot change the introduced budget to remove the amount; adjustments would affect future budgets and likely increase next year's local tax rate by roughly two cents, depending on other factors.
Staff summarized fund‑balance planning: the budget uses $7 million of fund balance, of which $2 million was an offset tied to a prior ordinance connected to the sale of a property and capital project; the remaining projected fund balance after the introduced budget is just over $3.6 million. The director cautioned that fund balance and one‑time revenues are not guaranteed and that the city must be conservative in budgeting recurring expenses.
Commissioners and members of the public demanded greater internal checks after the discovery. A public commenter asked whether the city can implement a “check and balance” process so departments and offices cross‑verify large changes; staff said the matter is under review and that appropriate action has been taken toward the county and tax court to resolve certification errors.
The budget presentation concluded with the finance director noting the public hearing and adoption will occur at a subsequent meeting; the introduced budget remains on file and will go through the normal state review and adoption process.
