GREENFIELD — Hancock County Commissioners are recommending the most substantial of several possible raises for county employees, saying the county council should move ahead with the increases in 2022 even though it could lead to a decrease in the reserve funds kept on hand in case of financial emergency.
“We have a problem that isn’t going to go away just because the numbers aren’t there,” Commissioner John Jessup said. “…It’s time for us to make hard decisions that we don’t like.”
Jessup and the other commissioners said at the county budget meeting on Tuesday, June 1, that they want the county council to give public safety employees a 24% raise in 2022, and all other employees a 7% raise. That number follows the recommendations of two committees created to study the idea of giving raises to county employees after Sheriff Brad Burkhart asked the county to consider a raise as a way of attracting and retaining more employees. Other department heads have also said raises are needed to stop employees from leaving for other, higher-paying positions.
The public safety increase will apply only to sheriff’s deputies, not to other employees like those who work in the county’s 911 center. The commissioners also want the council to give Burkhart permission to hire up to nine additional sheriff’s deputies.
Several lesser amounts for the raises were considered, including some that would pace out the increase over multiple years. But the commissioners say the county needs to take the step of raising salaries if they want the state government to address the underlying reasons why it may put them in a tough financial spot.
Jessup said on Thursday, June 3, that he thought he had made a strong case for why the raises were necessary. Now, it’s up to the county council to take action. Its next meeting is on the morning of Wednesday, June 9.
The county’s financial adviser, Greg Guerrettaz, said the county’s financial reserves are in good shape, but there is always a risk to cutting into that money. For example, it could impact the county’s high credit rating, although he said the overall fiscal health of the county government is more important than the amount of money it has in the bank.
“It’s going to draw down some of our reserves,” he said. “The question will be how long is it sustainable?”
For Burkhart, the conversation over raises has dragged on long enough; he initially asked the county government to raise his deputies’ salary in August of last year. He said he’s grateful for the commissioners’ recommendation and cautiously optimistic about what might happen next.
“I am frustrated that it’s taking such a long time,” he said.
The matter is now in the hands of the county’s fiscal body, the council, where several members said they weren’t ready to commit to an expenditure that might imperil their reserve funds.
“Ongoing sustainability will be of the utmost importance,” council member Jeannine Gray said.
Council member Bill Bolander said he’d like to go for the highest proposed raise, but needs to see more data about its long-term impact.
“We’re not like the federal government, where we can print money,” he said.
Systemic problems
Members of both the board of commissioners and the council have complained that one reason they don’t have enough revenue coming in to give their employees a raise is because of the number of tax increment financing districts and tax abatements in the county, which siphon funds away from everyday expenses of county government.
Guerrettaz argued that TIF districts and tax abatements are not the largest factor limiting the county’s property tax revenue. Because of state property tax caps, he said, the county would be unable to collect a significantly higher amount of tax even if there were no TIF districts or tax abatements in place.
Because Hancock County has grown at a faster pace than the state in general in recent years, Guerrettaz said, it can’t increase its property tax valuations at a pace that keeps up with the economic growth it’s experiencing. Without a legislative solution to that, he said, there’s no way to extract more property tax money, at least not enough to make a difference.
County council member Keely Butrum was skeptical of that argument.
“I’m having a hard time believing that all across the state, people develop, develop, develop, and that in no case is anyone getting anything out of that other than building more roads for more development,” she said.
Jessup, however, agreed that the way the state manages tax caps is the primary problem. He said there should be a mechanism that allows communities like Hancock County to increase their assessed value more quickly.
“We’re growing faster than what the state has arbitrarily decided that we can,” he said.
Income tax revenue from new residents attracted by an increased number of jobs is one benefit of new industrial development that some have pointed to; other officials are skeptical about whether that’s the case, saying a high proportion of workers at places like Amazon’s new logistics center commute from outside the county.
Guerrettaz said he uses data from the Indiana Department of Transportation to estimate how many employees at Hancock County’s large developments are coming into the county for work, as opposed to living within it. He thinks about 60% of employees live in the county, but for locations like Amazon that are close to the Marion County line, it may be closer to 50%.
Kent Fisk, another council member, argued that the county can’t rely on using new businesses to attract new taxpayers as a way to fund its expenses, saying that a higher population could mean a lower quality of life.
“So, do you not think the lines are big enough at Kroger, that the schools, 30 kids per classroom isn’t enough, you want 40 kids per classroom? The roads aren’t crowded enough?” Fisk said. “If you fill up the whole county with houses — and they’re not even going to be houses that pay enough tax for their children to be at school… If you’re chasing income tax, you’re just going to end up being the east side of Indianapolis.”
“What are we doing it for?” Fisk asked rhetorically. “It can’t be for quality of life, it can’t be for better schools, it can’t be for more access to health care, it can’t be for any of that, because we won’t have it.”