There’s an old saying to the effect, “things are tough all over” and although the national economy is showing small signs of improving, many states and local governments are still suffering financially and trying to come up with ways to balance their budgets. Clinton County is no exception and the adverse financial condition of the county, as well as looking at ways of trying to “make ends meet” took up most of last week’s regular meeting of the Clinton County Fiscal Court.

A long discussion, sometimes a bit heated, some debate and some suggestions were all voiced when the meeting agenda got to the health insurance issue, but in the short-term, no official actions were taken.

Judge/Executive Lyle Huff began the discussion by telling court members, all of whom were present, that the cost of county employee health insurance was increasing annually and would be around $41,000 more this year. “We can’t sustain (budget) without a revenue influx,” he said.

County Treasurer Dallas Sidwell basically concurred, saying the county had to either increase revenue or make cuts and inferred by the end of March (about three months prior to the end of the current fiscal budget year), the county would be about out of revenue.

The county had just made the monthly insurance premium payment and Judge Huff said it was to his understanding that if the (insurance) policy were to lapse, it isn’t renewable.

There was a suggestion made about possibly rebidding the policy, but also concerns that no other company may pick it up.

Magistrate Mickey Riddle said that “We knew this (budget problems) over a year ago,” but never made cuts and hired other people, referring to one employee in particular who was given a raise in relation to additional duties.

Judge Huff said they had the money at that time and it came from a separate 911 account.

Magistrate Charlotte Bernard then mentioned an issue (addressing Magistrate Riddle) about a motion to award a higher bid to an out-of-town firm and said the only hiring the county had done were those who had been (state) mandated, such as jail employees.

This exchange led to questions about jail staffing requirements and recent Kentucky Statute requirements for numbers of jail employees in counties that house 80 prisoners or less.

There was also an exchange between Magistrates Riddle and Bernard in discussing the situations with the ambulance service and sheriff’s departments. Magistrate Bernard inferred the ambulance service had to have part-time employees to meet mandated requirements and Riddle countered that the sheriff’s office was having to work under staffed with the employees they have having to work over time.

Magistrate Willard Johnson said he felt the entire situation began back around 1993 when the Occupational Tax was first put into place and then taken off. It was later reinstated. He said the county was still making the same amount of annual revenue, but costs of operating has increased.

Johnson said he felt the court had two options, either create a new tax or make cuts across the board. “No one at this table is responsible,” he continued. “It just costs more.”

Treasurer Sidwell also agreed to Johnson’s perception, saying that over the past several years, “expenditures have gone up and revenues have stayed the same.”

Judge Huff then began a brief list of options that was presented by the court members overall, saying he was in favor of an insurance tax. Such a tax would apparently be included on vehicle, home, watercraft, etc. insurance bills. “It’s time to make a decision,” the judge said.

The judge also suggested possibly meeting with officials from DLG (Department of Local Government) to discuss how to manage such a tax, but somewhat stipulated that the full court would have to be unified on the proposal.

Magistrate Johnson said if there had to be a tax, he’d rather see it on everyone who could afford it rather than those it would adversely affect the most, such as the low-income and elderly.

Judge Huff said the court needed to take action prior to the end of March and even then admitted such a (insurance premium) tax revenue wouldn’t be seen until October.

Magistrate Bernard, although not disagreeing for the need for such a tax, did say the court needed some advice and more information about it, saying “we need to know the long and straight” about it.

Judge Huff had told the court members he had come to the meeting with two options, one being the insurance premium tax.

Magistrate Phillip Parrigin asked the judge what his other option was, which Huff replied was ceasing to pay the county employee health insurance. That option, the judge said, would save around $100,000 by June 30, the end of the current fiscal year.

At the conclusion of discussion on the issue, no motions were made and no official action, pertaining to health insurance or any other suggestion, was taken.

In December, in the absence of the judge/executive, both county clerk and sheriff’s office budgets for the coming year had been presented to the court for consideration. However, Judge Huff had requested no action be taken until he could be present at the meeting.

Court members delayed action on both budgets at that time.

Last week, Judge Huff also recommended action on those budgets again be continued until a final solution to the county’s employee health insurance could be reached.