One person voiced concerns at the May 28 public hearing on the county’s proposed spending plan for the upcoming fiscal year.
Charles Vivier, of the Blue Ridge District, questioned the expenses/revenue ratio in two county departments: Erosion and Sediment and Building Inspection.
Expenses for the former are $54,000 and revenues are $1,000, Vivier said budget documents showed. Building Inspection expenses totaled $164,000, according to Vivier, who noted the revenue generated was $41,000.
Vivier said that he does not understand why one person could not be certified in both disciplines as a cost saving measure.
He also questioned the validity of the $486,000 expense for the School Resource Officers (SROs) program in which sworn officers are assigned to work in county schools.
“I know we jumped into it several years ago as a reaction (to) what was happening across the country. Can we revisit that,” Vivier asked.
Noting that the county cannot go bankrupt, Vivier also questioned the need for the supervisors to approve a Revenue Anticipation Note of up to $3.5 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
Jane Fulk, of the Dan River District, said Vivier’s comments about combining the two departments were “good ideas,” and that she will research.
Lock Boyce, of the Mayo river District, said combining the two departments would be “a train wreck,” and that he “takes full blame” for the SRO program, which helps not only to provide security but also when custody and other issues arise in schools.
Crystal Harris, of the Smith River District, said there may be options to tweak the SRO program, because many of the officers are paid overtime. She also noted the initial head of the Soil and Erosion department said that job was full-time.
Karl Weiss, of the Blue Ridge District, said fees in the Soil and Erosion/Building Inspection departments could be raised, but he “did not want to put that extra burden on the people building the project.” With respect to the resource program, Weiss said the “SROs are nonnegotiable to me.”
Rickie Fulcher, chairman and of the Peters Creek District, said the way he understood it, the gist of Vivier’s comments were intended to let the board know it needs to continue working on the budget.
“We need to be looking at these areas either to increase revenues or decrease expenses,” Fulcher said about all of the county’s cost centers.
The board is scheduled to vote on the proposed budget at its June 10 meeting.
But Fulcher said approval of the spending plan will not mark an end. He said supervisors must continue to see “if there is anything we can do” for future fiscal years. The board, he said, “is not starting vacation on July 1.
