Mount Olive Finance Director Jamie Butler, center, answers a question about the town’s proposed budget as Mayor Pro-tem Steve Wiggins, left, and Commissioner Tommy Brown follow along on a printout. During the budget work session held Tuesday, April 25, in the town hall conference room, the board talked about possible increases in the property tax and water rates. No action was taken. (Steve Herring|mountolivetribune.com)
Mount Olive Town Commissioner Vicky Darden examines the town’s budget proposal displayed on a large-screen TV during a Tuesday, April 25, work session. In the background, Commissioner Delreese Simmons checks some information. (Steve Herring|mountolivetribune.com)
A possible property tax increase of three cents or possibly even six cents was floated Tuesday, April 25, as the Mount Olive Town Board unveiled its preliminary budget for fiscal year 2023-24 during its initial budget work session.
Discussed as well was a possible water rate increase.
No decision was made on either proposal.
“To recap, we are going to budget for ad valorem (property tax) as is unless I hear anything different from you guys,” said Jamie Butler, the town’s finance director. “I know this is just a talking session.
“As far as from now to then, until I see something different, I am going to leave it (tax rate) as it is, but know that that is a point of contention.”
The draft budget includes a 2.5 percent pay increase for town employees, money for sidewalks and new street signs.
While not included in the initial draft, commissioners said they want funding added for a video camera surveillance system.It has been estimated it would cost between $75,000 and $85,000 for the town to scrap the existing outdated camera system and replace it with a new one.
Should a tax increase make it through the budget process, it would be the second rate hike in as many years.
When the board approved the current budget last year, the property tax rate was bumped from 64 cents to 67 cents per $100 in property valuation.
Butler said Commissioner Delreese Simmons had asked her to do some research on possible increases.
Increasing the rate from 67 cents to 70 cents per $100 in property valuation would mean an additional $15 in the taxes owed on a house valued at $50,000 and a $30 increase in the tax bill for a house valued at $100,000 Butler said.
The 3-cent increase would generate an additional $86,000 in tax revenues, she added.
“And then we did it to 73 (cents),” Butler said. “If we brought it up to 6 cents, that is when it turned into $168,000 in revenue.”
That would translate to an additional $30 annually in taxes for property valued at $50,000 and $60 for property valued at $100,000, Butler explained.
Butler said that until she hears differently from the board she will leave the water rates unchanged.
Water Clerk Tia Best and Utilities Supervisor Jeremy King have been asked to make presentations at the board’s May 9 session that shows potential increases in water bills and the resulting revenues, Butler said.
It also will show how specific increases would affect average monthly water bills, she added.
It can show as well what the average water bill currently is, Butler said.
“We need more information before we figure out a rate increase,” Commissioner Barbara Kornegay said. “We need to see how this whole budget is going to roll up before we can have that conversation.”
Kornegay said commissioners need to hear that information prior to the May 9 board session. She suggested that it could be presented at the board’s May 2 ordinance review work session.
That meeting needs to include water rates and taxes, she said.
“We can talk about garbage, too,” Mayor Pro-tem Steve Wiggins added.
A N.C. Rural Water Association representative presented something similar last year, Town Manager Jammie Royall said.
“She had suggested that we come with the largest increase right away and then back off and come gradually each year after that to help us get our charges in line with what our expenses are,” Kornegay said.
“When I talked to her afterward she told us during the presentation that she did not have the final numbers on her projection for us — so what she showed us was just a projection. But she said she would calculate and send it to us, but I have never seen that.”
Best has attended a class on that process and now has access to that information. Also, she is familiar with what the average bill is every month, Butler added.
That would show the board if it needs to jump in with a big number in the beginning and then spread it out, or if gradual increases could be done, Kornegay said.
“Water-sewer is supposed to pay for itself,” she said.
It needs to be looked at more than it has been in the past, Butler said.
“The government put out that big round of money, and it was to kind of to get everybody straight and to do what we need to do for our water and sewer,” Royall said. “After that we are going to have to be self sufficient on it. We are going to have to keep up with our own water treatment system and wastewater treatment system.”
If the town does not adjust its water rates to ensure the system pays its own way, the state is not going to talk to the town anymore about any grants, Kornegay explained.
“They are just going to shut the door,” she said.
Kornegay said that the $1,200 budgeted for street signs is not enough.
Royall said he would go up to at least $3,500.
“We are going to have to do this in steps,” he explained. “The last signs that I got, which are all gone now except for one or two of them, was right at $2,500 and that was just a few signs down Main and Breazeale.”
Wiggins asked if the signs were mounted on 4×4 posts or metal poles.
Green iron posts are used because the wood posts can twist so much as to disorient the signs, Royall said. The cost is about the same for both.
“Did you say you bought $2,500 worth of signs and they all disappeared?” Wiggins asked.
That is correct, Royall said.
“I think there are three left,” he said.
In response to questioning by Kornegay, Royall said the town had replaced about 25 signs.
Wiggins asked Royall why he thought the signs are disappearing and that he had a theory that people are stealing the metal poles.
“I was thinking 4×4 rather than metal,” Wiggins said. “I was thinking somebodywas just stealing it like some people steal copper out of air conditioners.”
The brackets on top are being taken and in some instances the posts are taken as well, Royall explained.
Royall said his idea is to pour concrete in the post hole so that people cannot pull them up.
Simmons said he once saw some people walking down Breazeale Avenue with the whole sign like it was a parade.
Simmons said he also has seen cases where the wooden post have rotted.
“But is $3,500 enough?” Kornegay asked. “I don’t think it is.”
Royall agreed it isn’t enough to replace all of the missing signs. The goal would be to replace signs on the main streets and add more each year, he said.
“I think we need a list, and we need to try to get them all, if we can,” Kornegay said. “If it is not more than $10,000, we just need to do it. It is a lot of money, but we have a lot of people who want their signs. I want mine.
“I would like to know how much we need to replace all the signs. If it is exorbitant, and we can’t do it, then let’s adopt something, but $3,500 does not sound like enough to take care of all we have.”
Royall agreed and added that $3,500 would purchase about 10 signs, possibly less.
The town has at least 30 that are missing, Kornegay said.
“That would be $10,500 right there,” she said.
Kornegay suggested having Police Chief Jason Hughes inventory how many street signs are missing.
“I just know that I am tired of hearing about signs” she said.
The next budget work session will be held from 9 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Thursday, May 4, in the town hall conference room.
The town has to adopt a budget by June 30. Prior to adoption, the budget proposal will be open for public inspection and comment.
