Clinton County Fiscal Court held its regular monthly meeting last Thursday, April 16, at the courthouse with all members present.

The few that were in attendance, basically courthouse and judge’s office officials, and the news media, were spaced at least six feet apart adhering to safety mandates, with most adorning safety masks.

Temperatures of all persons in attendance were also taken before they were allowed inside the courthouse where the meeting was held in the upstairs courtroom.

The approximate 50-minute meeting was carried live via the Clinton County Judge/Executive’s Facebook page.

After acknowledging the monthly treasurer’s report, the court moved on to claims and bills where the meeting saw some controversy arise between Sheriff Jeff Vincent and County Judge Ricky Craig.

While discussing the claims and bills, Magistrate Jerry Lowhorn questioned how the $20,000 to the sheriff’s department, voted on the previous month, would be listed.

Sheriff Vincent basically had the same concerns, as the court had voted 5-1 to allot the office that amount for operating expenses.

Judge Craig and County Treasurer Cindy Thrasher told the sheriff and court members that DLG (Department of Local Government) officials had informed the county that to pay the sheriff’s claim, which the court voted for, would have to be done by amending the county’s budget and the sheriff’s department would have to submit invoices for purchases made with the allotment.

During the March meeting, the sheriff had submitted a $42,000 check to the county in excess fees from his office, but he noted at the meeting he was not asking for $20,000 of those fees back, but rather an allotment from the county to help operate and fund his office for the coming year.

During the meeting, Thrasher brought a letter to the upstairs courtroom where the meeting was held, and which County Attorney Michael Rains read to the court.

At the time, he stated that it appeared if the sheriff was not asking for part of the excess fees be returned, but rather a separate claim being paid by the court, it would probably be alright to pay the claim.

Rains added, however, that to make sure, he would contact DLG officials and auditors to get opinions on the matter.

On Friday, the County Attorney, after being in contact with state officials, indicated they had also noted that, in fact, the county would have to amend its budget in order to allot the $20,000 claim to the sheriff’s office.

He further added the fiscal court would likely hold a special meeting one day this week to take official action on how the process should be handled.

Eventually, the claims and bills were approved, with the sheriff’s office claim apparently still pending, as were two cash transfers that included $17,000 from the general account to the jail and $25,000 from the Occupational Fund to the ambulance service.

The magistrates also acknowledged receiving the third quarter budget report and budget line items for fund transfers.

The single bid on the inmate telephone/communication system at the jail was opened. The bid was received from Combine Public Communications and offers the installation of all updated equipment at the jail at no expense to the county.

Inmates using the phone system will be charged 20 cents per minute under terms of the contract.

The court then held second reading of the county’s Administrative Code/Policies and Procedures with some items being included in the document.

Magistrate Ray Marcum again advocating to have department heads to provide an annual evaluation of employees, which led to a brief discussion about pay raises and whether or not it would be fair to give some people raises and others not.

Marcum eventually said he was not advocating the evaluations for the purpose of giving raises, but to have employee records on file with the county, which the remainder of the court members agreed to.

Magistrate Mickey Riddle also recommended magistrates receive information packets prior to the day of, or day before meetings so they would have a chance to go through the paperwork, such as budgets, etc. prior to meetings.

Both of the aforementioned suggestions were added into the Administrative Code and Policies and Procedures document.

Although unrelated directly to the Administrative Code, some magistrates indicated they felt, despite the county’s tight financial condition at the current time, they should give county employees at least some type of pay increase in the upcoming 2020-21 fiscal year budget.

Judge Craig told court members they needed to meet and go over the projected budget in detail and look for ways to make cuts and be able to afford employee raises, if feasible.

The court also acknowledged receiving the County Extension tax rates for the upcoming year. Each taxing district sets its own rates and the county has no control over the rates of each individual district.

Magistrate Lowhorn said he opposed even acknowledging the rates, noting they had again increased and have increased about every year.

The court then approved a resolution accepting the viewer’s report on the W.R. Garner Road in the second magisterial district, as a petition is in the works to accept the road into the county’s road system.

Clinton County Jail employee Barbara Smith then presented funds to the county for inmate booking fees and gave the monthly jail report for February and March, a period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic taking hold and when jail inmates could still be on work detail.

Smith gave an update on the number of bags of trash collected along roadways, tires picked up on county roads, two dump sites being cleaned and other work inmates had done over the period.

The next regular meeting of Clinton County Fiscal Court is scheduled for Thursday, May 21, at 5 p.m.