Some unexpected delays in getting first reading of a new fiscal year budget taken care of had Clinton County Fiscal Court in somewhat of a rush mode last week in getting the document finished in time to forward to the Department of Local Government by the deadline period, and returned in order to have a second and final reading by June 30.

Court members had been presented with a copy of the 2017-18 budget a few weeks ago, however, they did not proceed at the time to approve first reading. The proposed budget has to be sent to the Department of Local Government, signed off on and returned by this past Monday, June 19.

A two-week publication notice of the budget is also required.

Since first reading had not been held, it prompted the need for a special call meeting to be held last Thursday morning, June 15 to take action in time to get the budget sent to the state in time to be returned by early this week. All court members were present for the call meeting, as well as assistant County Attorney Gary Little, who noted the urgency in taking action.

During a review of the proposed budget last week, magistrates noted a difference in the total budget they were viewing from the current year’s amount–which initially showed the budget to be $1.5 million higher, prompting magistrates, attorney Little and Clinton County Judge/Executive Richard Armstrong to take a closer look and try to determine why the amount was that much higher.

The budget totals initially showed a total of around $6.3 million, but magistrates questioned why it was only $4.7 million for this year, prompted Clinton County Treasurer Tuesday Davis and Clinton County Administrative Assistant Penny Jo Stearns to begin reviewing that particular copy of the budget and find out about the difference in amounts.

At one point, attorney Little said he was not seeing where the money was going to, adding that it (expenditures and revenues) had to balance. He also added the budget should have been presented and acted upon “weeks ago.” It was also noted that as of last week, Clinton was one of five counties in the state that had not submitted its proposed budget to the DLG.

Little said it “comes back to all elected officials” and even suggested, if necessary an emergency appropriations ordinance. He noted the county had to have the budget back from the state by noon the following Monday.

It was noted that once the budget was approved on first reading, it would be emailed immediately to the Department of Local Government, in time to have it back by early this week.

Judge Armstrong directed Davis and Stearns to find the discrepancies in budget numbers, saying “when we get it right, we will approve it.”

The court took about a half-hour break while Davis and Stearns reviewed the budget and when the meeting was back in session, they found that two transfers had been put in the wrong place, including a $1.2 million difference in the road fund and several thousand difference in the Occupational Tax fund.

When the problem was discovered and the correct numbers put in place, the total budget came to around $4.9 million, or approximately $200,000 higher than last year, as opposed to the $1.5 million that had appeared in the original documents magistrates were seeing at the start of the meeting.

At one point, judge Armstrong admitted that he should have asked for a first reading when the budget was first presented a few weeks ago.

Once the discrepancies were found and the totals balanced, the judge asked for a motion to approve first reading and submit it to the DLG as well as to advertise it and set a date for second reading.

Magistrate Hershell Key made the motion, which was seconded by magistrate Terry Buster. However, the motion did not pass unanimously as there were two dissensions.

Magistrates Key, Buster, Johnny Russell and Patty Guinn voted yes, with magistrates Mickey Riddle and Ricky Craig voting no.

Judge Armstrong questioned Riddle why he was opposed, saying if there was anything wrong “we can fix it now and then approve it,” after Riddle had indicated he would not vote for it at this particular time. The judge also said he thought it (vote) should be unanimous.

Riddle said he had not had a chance to look over (the revised version) of the budget and would not vote on it at that time.

At one point during the discussion prior to the vote, magistrate Craig said, “just take a vote.”

Attorney Little, in acknowledging that magistrates had the right to review it before voting, also noted the urgency due to the timing, saying our backs are “against the wall right now…if we don’t pass it, there will be egg on everyone.”

Following the brief exchange, a roll call vote was taken with the first reading being passed 4-2, which included that the budget be advertised with a second reading scheduled for Thursday, June 29 at 8:30 a.m.

With the budget being the only item of business on the agenda for the call meeting, the approximate one and-a-half hour session was adjourned.

The court also held another special call meeting this past Tuesday, June 20 in place of its regular meeting which had been cancelled. Details on that meeting will be published in next week’s Clinton County News.