Budget committee narrows staffing priorities and backs standalone administrative-services budget for Curry County

On Wednesday, May 27, the Curry County budget committee approved the day’s agenda and then spent the work session finalizing a proposed organizational chart and discussing how the county charges departments for administrative services.

The committee chair told members they needed to give staff clear direction on which positions to prioritize and asked staff to return with concrete dollar figures. That direction centered on four near-term priorities: an on-site finance director, contracted human-resources support, a deputy director of county operations and reinstating a sanitarian (public health inspector). “We need to give staff direction on these roles and whether or not we want to move forward with them,” the chair said.

Why it matters: committee members said the current approach to allocating indirect administrative charges—often calculated by FTEs, square footage or ad hoc formulas—has made departmental budgets opaque and has the effect of counting general-fund dollars multiple times. Several members argued that presenting administrative services as a single, budgeted unit would reduce transfers, make department-level budgets more realistic and improve transparency for the public.

Staff described several implementation options. One was to treat admin services as a standalone department funded from the same general-fund pool rather than moving money into and back out of multiple department budgets. Staff recommended starting with last year’s allocations as a baseline, then adjusting for any new positions the committee chooses to add. A staff member cautioned that some proposed hires—most notably a sanitarian—would require seed funding in the first year even if they could be partially fee-supported later. The transcript includes a staff estimate for a sanitarian compensation package at about $123,000 (salary plus benefits); staff were asked to clarify how much of that could be offset by permitting fees and to provide historical revenue comparisons.

Committee members discussed outsourcing HR functions to regional providers or private vendors to ensure objective oversight and to ease recruitment and retention burdens in a small county. The group also agreed the roadmaster title (instead of a broader public-works director) was appropriate for the county’s responsibilities and would not increase general-fund costs.

Next steps: staff were directed to prepare two org charts (current and proposed), provide revenue and expense estimates for the priority positions, and model the standalone administrative-services budget using last year’s allocations as a starting point. The committee scheduled a follow-up for June 3 to receive budget worksheets and initial departmental presentations, with additional sessions tentatively set for June 4 and June 10 to continue review and finalize recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.

Formal actions and votes at the session were limited. The committee approved the meeting agenda by voice vote after a motion and second at the start of the session; no opposition was recorded. No formal votes were taken on staffing or budget-structure changes—those were left as direction for staff to return with proposed figures.

What remains unclear: staff must return with detailed revenue-offset estimates for the sanitarian role and with precise costings for the proposed finance director, deputy DCO and contracted HR services. Committee members also asked staff to provide side-by-side budget views so the public can see department budgets without double-counting indirect charges.

The committee adjourned after setting the June meeting schedule and confirming staff assignments.