County financial review paints

By Shar Porier
WICK NEWS SERVICE
Published/Last Modified on Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:05 PM MST


BISBEE  —  Cochise  County is looking good budgetwise in spite of rising costs and dropping revenues.


During a special meeting held Tuesday afternoon, county finance director Lois Klein gave the board of supervisors the good news in the mid-year review of finances.

The four main sources of revenue for the county have been holding steady and, in the case of the county’s 5 percent sales tax, has actually showed an increase.

“We’re already at $2.612 million through October,” Klein said. “We budgeted $7.965 million, which represents a 3.8 percent increase over last year. If the trend continues, we may end up with over $8 million.”

Klein attributes the increase to residents shopping locally to save gas money and the people who come from south of the border to shop.

Supervisor Paul Newman told fellow board member Pat Call and board Chairman Richard Searle that some counties have initiated a hiring freeze on all open positions since revenues are down.

But there are populations  in Cochise County that add to the economy in a big way — those of Fort Huachuca and the retirement community.

“Our economy is a little different and always has been a little different,” Searle said. “It’s not as susceptible to some of the economy issues of other parts of the state.”

Call, too, saw the county’s economy being different.

“Our highs may not be as high as some, but our lows are not as low … Fort Huachuca adds something like $800 million to this economy. That sort of levels out things,” Call said.

Klein said the bad news is that the money coming into the county from state shared sales tax has dropped. It was budgeted at $13 million, and the county may end up pulling that out of the state. But if problems continue financially for Arizona, there could be less money coming from that source.

The state sales tax is distributed through a formula that Klein called “convoluted” and that has to do with point of sales and population compared with the rest of the state.

Call said the county had been “weaning” itself off the state handout since the sum received fluctuated so much.

Auto lieu taxes are also down a bit from last year, she added.

A big drop that may well be due to the housing bust is the county inspection fees. Klein budgeted $500,000. The county has received only $192,720 which is just 38.5 percent at the mid-year point.

Another drop was seen in the immunizations offered by the county. Flu, hepatitis B and other immunization fees total just $10,000 while $75,000 was budgeted, she said.

Even justice of the peace court fines and forfeitures have not produced revenue as expected. Klein budgeted around $2.25 million, but the county has only received around $900,000.

Though revenues are barely sustaining the county, county departments have been frugal and many departments are well below estimated costs. Some of the reduction in expenses is because there are a number of vacant positions in county offices.

In the Highway Department, which is funded totally through Highway User Revenue Funds, the ledger is holding close to the $16.933 million that was budgeted for the year. At the six-month mark, slightly more than $8 million has been received.

Next year, HURF may be at risk as the state legislators come to grips with the state deficit. “The issue of HURF funds for this fiscal year is not a concern, but we can’t discount the issue in the coming budget year,” County Administrator Mike Ortega said.

At this point, Klein saw no reason to make any budget amendments. Newman said he wanted to have a work session to discuss the possibility of giving the county taxpayers a rebate to stimulate the economy.

Ortega told the supervisors he would schedule it.

“At this halfway point, we’re doing pretty well,” Call added.

“I’m concerned though with what may happen at the state level. But, the health of the budget in spite of this shows how well the county has managed funds.”

Comments

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   









Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750