Fiscal court discusses budget, agreement with city
A first reading of the county budget for the 2025-2026 fiscal year was conducted at the Laurel County Fiscal Court's meeting Monday morning.
The funds, which are subject to change before official adoption at the next meeting, are as follows:
General Fund — $17,227,565
Road Fund — $5,698,780
Jail Fund — $13,841,000
LGEA — $37,020
Forest — $9,003
Occupational Tax Fund — $8,216,324
Opioid Settlement — $1,083,000
LOPC — $6,502
County Clerk Storage Funds — $176,060
These funds come to a grand total of $46,295,254. The motion to approve the reading was made by Magistrate Jeff Book.
Also discussed at the meeting was the agreement between the city and county regarding the London-Laurel County 911 Communications Center. Judge-Executive David Westerfield requested that the agreement be extended for three months to give himself and the magistrates adequate time to review it before submission as it would have been due June 15, and submission is required 30 days in advance. The magistrates approved the extension.
Magistrates additionally approved the MOA (memorandum of agreement) and resolution regarding Durango One, LLC — a business which will be located in the spec building near Ison & Co.
Both the monthly financial report and accounts payables were approved with no discussion, following motions by Magistrate John Crawford which received unanimous support.
Judge Westerfield then shared that he found a 2017 F350 truck from the state to replace another which is having engine-related issues. The purchase of the truck, in the amount of $70,500, was approved by each of the magistrates following a motion by Bobby Overbay.
The cash transfer report included $2,170 from General Fund to Jail Fund — U.S. Marshals Service, and $5,941.44 from General Fund to Jail Fund — U.S. Treasury ICE. The meeting came to adjournment following the report.
The Laurel County Fiscal Court regularly meets at 8:45 a.m. on the second Monday and 9:30 a.m. on the final Thursday of each month. The next meeting will take place Thursday, May 29.
NOTE: This article has been updated to clarify that the LGEA budget is $37,020.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Releases 2024 Impact Report
SAN FRANCISCO, June 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLBank San Francisco) today released its 2024 Impact Report, which shines a spotlight on the privately capitalized cooperative wholesale bank's daily support for local financial institution members; $103.3 million in grants awarded for affordable housing, homeownership, and economic development; robust engagement with stakeholders; and a workforce empowered to meet the evolving needs of its members with agility and impact. 'Our 2024 Impact Report demonstrates the value we deliver to our members and the communities they serve,' said Joseph Amato, interim president and CEO of FHLBank San Francisco. 'Because of the financial services we provide to our members every day – including advances and letters of credit – we are able to invest directly in programs and initiatives that strengthen communities by increasing the supply of affordable housing, expanding access to homeownership, and fueling economic growth and opportunity.' In 2024, FHLBank San Francisco partnered with its members to award $103.3 million in grants for housing, economic development programs and other initiatives including: Affordable Housing Program (AHP) General Fund and Nevada Targeted Fund: $61.3 million in grants awarded to create, preserve, or purchase nearly 3,900 affordable housing units. WISH and Middle-Income Downpayment Assistance programs: $31.2 million in matching grants delivered to 791 first-time homebuyers. AHEAD economic development grants: $7.3 million in grants awarded to 84 nonprofits to support innovative, community-based economic development initiatives that strengthen local communities. FHLBank San Francisco members also accessed $1.4 billion in the Bank's discounted advances and letters of credit products to create nearly 1,100 owner-occupied and 2,900 rental housing units and to support other community lending and economic development activities, including funding small business loans. Together with its members – primarily community-based financial institutions – FHLBank San Francisco continues to make a positive impact across its three-state district of Arizona, California, Nevada, and other areas where its members do business. To learn more about how FHLBank San Francisco accomplishes its mission of providing members with reliable access to liquidity, essential financial services and expertise, and resources for housing and community and economic development, download the full 2024 Impact Report at About Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco is a member-driven cooperative helping local lenders in Arizona, California, and Nevada build strong communities, create opportunity, and change lives for the better. The tools and resources we provide to our member financial institutions — commercial banks, credit unions, industrial loan companies, savings institutions, insurance companies, and community development financial institutions — propel homeownership, finance quality affordable housing, drive economic vitality, and revitalize whole neighborhoods. Together with our members and other partners, we are making the communities we serve more vibrant and resilient. CONTACT: Contact: Mary Long longm@ (415) 616-2556 Chris Hammond hammondc@ (415) 616-3763Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
City Council begins 2026 budget process
Jun. 3—During its work session Monday night, the Austin City Council took the first steps toward its 2026 budget with Director of Administrative Services Tom Dankert laying out the timeline for the process as well as a request for direction from the council on where best to focus their efforts. While nothing definitive is decided in these very early steps, Dankert did lay out a trio of questions for council to consider, which include staffing levels, fund balance usage and the 2026 tax levy. Pertaining to the first question, the city is looking at an estimated increase in employee investment of a little over $1.185 million and includes wages and benefits, though Dankert in his presentation pointed out that the estimate does not include changes due to Compensation and Classification re-evaluations. He also pointed out that all eight of the city's bargaining unit contracts will expire on Dec. 31. Point two is asking council members to keep in mind its staffing as it pertains to General Fund expenditures. 2024 expenditures accounted for 49% or just over $10.4 million, which falls just outside of the city's internal police of 42-48% of expenditures, but the Minnesota Office of State Auditor advises cities to stay within the 35-50% range. Putting this into context, new staff would require permanent funding which would have an impact on the budget and could create issues if that funding isn't there. Finally, the third question brought into play three areas that could have impacts one way or the other regarding the 2026 tax levy. The first is a spot of good news in that the Flats on 21 apartment complex no longer has access to tax abatements after it expires this year, which will add $48,000 of new tax base to the city books. However, at the same time the city — like every other governmental entity — will have to consider the impacts of inflationary costs regarding things like materials, vehicles, utilities and more. Further complicating the process is that the State Legislature has thus far failed to clear its own budget, bringing into play a likely special section to get it sorted out. Further adding to this is that one version of the state's budget included a possible reduction in Local Government Aid of approximately $300,000. This will impart a level of uncertainty in the City Council's work as any work done between now and the finalization of the budget could be impacted depending on what they do at the state level. Even though the council didn't make any concrete recommendations regarding the budget Monday night, it did hold a discussion and vote on the possibility of creating a budget committee that Council Member Jason Baskin argued could help the council stay on top of the process throughout in a timely fashion. Ultimately, it failed by a vote of 4-2 (Baskin had to leave before the vote) with some members fearing the optics of doing work behind closed doors, even though ideas would still be brought to regular council meetings for public conversation as the whole council. Council Members Mike Postma and Jeff Austin voted in favor of it while Rebecca Waller, Paul Fischer, Oballa Oballa and Laura Helle voted against. Still, the conversation did prompt the idea of holding more council meetings during the process that would maintain the spirit of what Baskin proposed. As for the timeline itself, department heads will receive budget documents and direction by June 16 and are expected to return those documents by July 11. Further budget refinement will take place with the council following that with a goal of setting a proposed tax levy and preliminary budget at the Sept. 15 meeting. State law requires these figures to be approved by Sept. 30. The Truth in Taxation Hearing will take place sometime between Nov. 25 and Dec. 12 with the final adoption slated for Dec. 15.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Yahoo
Legislative task force seeks alternative funding sources for Alabama courts
Members of the Cost Cost Task Force gather to discuss ongoing issues with court-imposed fines and fees at the Alabama Supreme Court on Monday, May 19, 2025. (Ralph Chapoco/Alabama Reflector) A group of judges, legislators and agency staff will explore ways to fund the state's court system in lieu of relying on fines and fees imposed by the courts. Members of the Court Cost Task Force convened the first meeting on Monday at the Alabama Supreme Court to review possible alternative funding streams to pay expenses for a court system that has been chronically underfunded. 'Most court costs, which you will see in just a minute, are going to non-court entities,' said Sarah Hicks Stewart, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who presided over the meeting. 'By that, I mean non-judicial branch people. The vast majority of court costs are not going to court.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Non-court entities are receiving their funding from the fines imposed by the courts that are not tied to the state's criminal legal system, Stewart said. The group plans to issue a report near the start of the 2026 legislative session in January outlining recommendations to the Legislature to mitigate the issues that arise when courts impose fines and fees on individuals who need access to the courts. Courts receive a significant portion of their operational expenses from fines and fees that judges impose. But the revenues collected go to pay for programs that are not necessarily tied to the court system. Revenues that are disbursed to agencies are also not enough to cover the full cost of operating and must rely on other sources. Fines and fees also disproportionately affect the state's most vulnerable populations. According to data obtained from the Alabama State Bar website, courts collected about $480 million from court fines and fees imposed by the courts. Of that, about $26.5 million went on to pay for expenses for court operations. The majority, about $312 million or 67%, went to third parties. Some of it is in the form of restitution for criminal cases. About $160 million went to judgments while another $118 million was disbursed toward the Alabama Central Disbursement Division Child Support Unit to process child support payments. Almost $1.5 million went toward child support payments. About $126 million are disbursed to non-court expenses, such as the General Fund budget, which receives money from sales taxes from the internet. According to the Alabama State Bar Association's website, the General Fund budget receives almost $75 million of the fines and fees that are paid to the courts. There are also disparities in the fines and fees that courts impose that people will pay depending on the county. Constitution Act 96 is supposed to prohibit the Alabama Legislature from enacting any laws 'regulating costs and charges of courts, or fees, commissions or allowances of public officers' to specific counties and not all the counties in the state. But fines and fees imposed on people by courts differ depending on the county because local officials convince state lawmakers to sponsor legislation to impose additional costs that fund different programs within those counties. 'Our Legislature is very clever to figure out that if they have a local act with statewide constitutional implications, then they could trump that statewide constitutional Act 96,' Stewart said. 'That is how they are all presented now, something that the state votes on as constitutional amendments, and that is how the local acts are continuing to get passed.' An increasing number of bills get enacted that increase the filing fees which then pose problems for people who require access to the criminal justice system. 'You have got the filing fees that are collected upfront with civil filings,' Stewart said. 'We have some places in which that number is so high right now that it is really becoming an access to justice issue for people who can afford to file something with that particular county.' Collecting payments on civil filings is easier because they are imposed on the front end, before individuals may access court. A larger problem is collecting payments for criminal cases when the court orders fines and fees, as well as restitution payments shortly after a case has been adjudicated. Brenda Ganey, the clerk of courts for Baldwin County, estimated that courts collect about 22% of the fines and fees that courts impose on defendants after they violate the law. 'To me, the low hanging fruit in all this is, how do we increase the 22% of collections, because that is money sitting there right now that, no matter what you change, no matter what you make uniform across the board, we are leaving 78% of potential money,' said Rep. Chris Blackshear, R-Smiths Station, vice chair of the House Ways and Means General Fund Committee and who attended the meeting. J. Langford Floyd, a former judge who helped Stewart with the research, said that would be 'blood out of a turnip.' 'Usually your criminal defendants are your lower income to no income people,' he said. 'They are also the 20,000 that are sitting in the state penitentiary that have no way to pay it, and don't really care about paying as long as they are in the state penitentiary.' 'If there could be some incentive for the defendant to pay what they owe, then that would make collection easier,' said Robert E. Wilters, the vice president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association. Legislators such as Blackshear and Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, said that additional revenue options, such as raising taxes, were not an option they would consider. 'Why is it so difficult to do what is right,' Blackshear said. 'And that is to not break the law. Don't do the crime. That is the simple solution.' The group will meet again during the summer to further discuss ideas. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
