Public, council debate budget at special meeting

“I still think that we have way overprojected our revenue for the next year and I have some real concerns.”

This statement from Saratoga resident Kristen Teubner during the June 11 special meeting of the Saratoga Town Council seemed to encompass the concerns expressed by other residents as the governing body held the second reading of the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2020/2021. As the State of Wyoming anticipates a $1.5 billion deficit over the next two years, the Saratoga Town Council has currently set their expected revenues at 95 percent of the four year average.

As was reported previously (see “No second for that motion” on page 9 of the June 10 Saratoga Sun), Councilmember Jon Nelson did not second a motion to pass Ordinance No. 857, citing what he felt were overstated revenues and a “flawed” prioritization of expenditures. For more than an hour in the two hour meeting, Nelson and Councilmember Bob Keel presented and defended their differing projections to the public.

“The reason why I felt we should increase our revenues is because of what we were trending at last year as well as what’s trending with the COVID-19,” said Keel. “In April, when we first had these numbers, it looked pretty grim. It looked like COVID might last until December.”

Keel added that he believed most everyone in the room could agree that Saratoga, Wyoming was not as impacted by the novel coronavirus as Brooklyn, New York and, thus, why he increased his projections across the multiple budget workshops.

“I feel comfortable still,” Keel said. “Whether I’m right or wrong is for the people of Saratoga to judge on election day. I’m trying to do what I think is best.”

Nelson, meanwhile, stated his belief that it was better to project low and pass a budget amendment partway through the fiscal year in case of unanticipated revenues.

“I think it’s more responsible and more appropriate to do that then the other way around where we’re trying to roll back expenditures midway through the year because the revenues aren’t coming in at projected rates,” said Nelson. “This governing body … this Town has had a bad track record of projecting revenues and then we all can see the problem that’s created when we have to go elsewhere to find those, such as enterprise funds, overhead allocations, retroactive administrative fees. It creates a problem. I’m trying to avoid that.” 

Keel was quick to state that Nelson’s claims were baseless, saying “I don’t think that we’ve ever used enterprise funds to pay for deficits in the general fund and that’s what we’ve hired Mr. Childress to do.”

As was reported previously (see “Casting a dissenting vote” on page 1 of the March 11 Saratoga Sun), a February 28 email from James Childress revealed that from, 2014 to 2018, the general fund had seen an excess of expenditures over revenue. Childress further explained in that email that it was understood by previous auditors that the approval of expenditures on a deficit fund balance constituted implicit approval on the part of the Town of Saratoga.

Additionally, during the May 19 meeting of the Saratoga Town Council (see “What is a reasonable allocation” on page 1 of the May 27 Saratoga Sun), Childress informed the Saratoga Town Council that he had performed a 20 year examination transactions between the general fund and the enterprise funds, specifically the water fund, sewer fund, and the weed and pest fund. During that meeting, Childress stated that it was his opinion that there should have been overhead interfund allocations charged by the Town of Saratoga for maintaining those enterprise funds.

“I 100 percent agree that enterprise funds, if we want to go as specific as what goes to the water and sewer joint powers board, are restricted funds. They should only be only used for water and sewer purposes and I can’t say that enough. That’s 100 percent my opinion,” said Keel. “However, I would like for the account we’ve hired to tell us exactly how much money we need to transfer and, once we know that dollar amount, let’s transfer it.”

As discussion continue, Nelson brought up his June 5 email in which he had proposed “modest changes” to four revenue projections; State Sales and Use Tax, State Gasoline Tax, Special Fuel Tax and State Supplemental Tax. Nelson’s proposal was too reduce State Sales and Use Tax from $497,650 to $485,800, State Gasoline Tax from $52,800 to $48,000, Special Fuel Tax from $17,000 to $15,300 and State Supplemental from $143,000 to $129,000.

“What I think people here today are telling us is they don’t even feel like that would be enough,” Keel said.

“And I would agree with them,” replied Nelson.

Following changes made to the revenues, along with changes made in expenditures under the recreation department, the projected revenues and expenditures were listed at $2,954,7694. While there had been an initial deficit of $15,890 that Nelson had proposed come from professional fees under town hall, it was proposed that the money to cover that deficit come from impact funding for the general fund and loss of tourism.

Ordinance No. 857 passed unanimously on second reading.

The next meeting of the Saratoga Town Council will be at 6 p.m. on June 23 at Saratoga Town Hall.