Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mitchell County reviews departmental budgets and questions annual billing practices
Summary
Supervisors pressed department leads about midyear billing and justification for percentage increases, focusing on copy fees, depositions and service fees driven by juvenile caseloads; staff agreed to split annual bills or submit half in November so midyear budgets reflect usage.
Mitchell County officials spent the bulk of a budget-review session on how departments account for annually billed items and whether midyear spending justifies proposed percentage increases.
The discussion opened with the county treasurer’s budget totals, including a $53,008.20 line for FICA, IPERS and insurance, and a general-supplemental taxes-and-insurance subtotal the treasurer reported as roughly $102,047. Speaker 3 asked for line-item evidence showing current-year use whenever a department proposes a 2% increase in supplies or copy fees; Speaker 3 said, “if it doesn't show that you've used any of it, how does it justify a 2% increase?”
County staff and department representatives said the timing of invoices often obscures midyear usage. The county’s practice of billing some items annually means December invoices can make a fund appear unused at the halfway point; Speaker 1 offered to split bills or submit the first half of annual charges in November so those costs appear in the first-half budget. “If we could at least get the first half of any of these things so they land before we start doing these budgets,” Speaker 1 said, “that would be wise.”
Officials highlighted copy fees and legal-related costs. The county received a single copy-fees invoice of $4,472 that, when presented as a full-year charge, appeared to make a department’s spending spike midyear. Speaker 5 and others described rising service fees tied to juvenile caseloads and court scheduling: judges are setting preliminary conferences separate from adjudicatory hearings, which can require serving parties twice and increases service costs. “We end up serving people twice” was the characterization used by Speaker 5.
On depositions, Speaker 5 noted prior years had been variable — some years reaching several thousand dollars for big cases, other years much less — meaning estimates can be difficult. The group agreed to document recent spend for contested line items and to consider quarterly or biannual billing for historically annual charges to improve transparency.
Next steps: staff will attempt to split or time invoices so midyear budget sheets better reflect actual usage and provide a more defensible basis for percentage adjustments. No binding motions or votes occurred on the matter during the session.
