Pratt County auditors, commissioners flag payroll‑budget mismatches as draft 2024 levy and raises are debated
Loading...
Summary
County staff presented a draft 2024 budget that showed gaps between payroll ‘actuals’ and budget columns, prompting commissioners to direct staff to recalculate using full staffing plus a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment and to firm up levy/hearing dates for July; the neighborhood revitalization levy (1.54 mills) and sheriff salary figures drew particular scrutiny.
Pratt County commissioners spent the bulk of their meeting reviewing a draft 2024 budget that staff said contains inconsistencies between what departments are currently paying employees and the amounts shown in the budget column.
Scott, who presented the worksheet, told the board he had produced a comparison between the county’s payroll sheet and the 2024 budget and found notable differences in several departments. "If you give them a budget of 2.5 or 2.1, it doesn't really matter how the line items spend out," Scott said, describing how elected officials may reallocate line items internally once overall authority is set. He called attention to the sheriff's personnel figures and to road and bridge numbers that appeared lower in the budget than in payroll figures.
Commissioners discussed two ways to apply a planned 3% pay increase: on last year’s budgeted payroll or on the county's current, actual payroll. The board agreed to instruct staff to produce a revised worksheet showing 'full employment plus 3%' — meaning every funded position filled at the proposed 3% raise — so commissioners can see the cash‑flow and reserves impact. "What we could basically do is go back to the '24 budget personnel services line item and then add the 3%," Scott said; commissioners concurred that additional detail would clarify whether apparent savings are due to vacancies or to accounting differences.
The draft also includes a neighborhood revitalization program that equates to about 1.54 mills this year; Scott said that figure reduces the county’s available cash balances by roughly $91,000 against some fund totals. Commissioners asked staff to verify the revenue and the timing before finalizing levy and hearing notices.
On schedule, staff noted the board must set the levy rate and hearing date in time to meet publication requirements. Commissioners discussed aiming to set rate and date at a July meeting and to provide the necessary notice for a public hearing; staff said they would follow statutory publication windows and return with corrected spreadsheets and a recommendation.
Next steps: staff will recompute personnel and budget columns using the agreed approach, circulate corrected worksheets to the commission, and return with a recommended levy rate and hearing date for formal action. The board set an internal target to resolve discrepancies and provide notice in time for the required publication period.
