Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Budget To Be Voted Upon Third Time

A third reading of the proposed 1996 budget for Clark County will be needed.

The Clark County Quorum Court met in special session Thursday, Nov. 30 for the second reading of the county's financial document, along with discussion of the budget.

Clark County Judge Grady Runyan opened the meeting by telling the justices they had been gathered for one purpose and one purpose only. This was for the second reading of ordinance 95-10, the county's proposed budget.

Justice Mary Cooper began by questioning members of the court's budget committee, Larry Thomerson, Bill Conine and Bill Morman, if they had agreed to the budget before it was brought before the court.

Thomerson and Conine said they agreed with the basic document, while Morman said he wasn't 100 percent behind it.

Juanita "Dot" Curry then asked why someone was "trying to run a white elephant" through the county.

She said the budget as presented contained an extra person for the tax assessor's office, while members of the court were bickering about hiring a temporary full-time deputy for the county clerk.

Conine responded, saying Curry should have raised questions about the budget during Monday night's meeting when changes could have been made.

He said any issues the justices had questions about could have been discussed and changes made. "We don't have to spoon feed you with it," he said.

Runyan, taking control of the meeting before arguments could get out of hand, said the justices had copies of the budget several days before Monday night's meeting. If they had any questions about it, they should have been written down by department number and line item. "You should have made notes," he said.

Conine explained why Hal Bass, Clark County Election Commissioner, and Stan Roberson, fire chief at Caddo Valley, were brought in Monday night. He said people had called him asking questions about their requests.

Bass had asked for a budget of $36,375 for the commission, which included $10,000 for a secretary, Karen Wiemans. He explained there will be at least eight elections in 196, and each election requires at least five weeks of full-time work.

The court approved this request.

Roberson, on the other hand, had asked for $10,000 to help purchase a new emergency vehicle for the Caddo Valley Rescue Unit.

His request was denied.

Thomerson spoke up, saying he voted against the extra employees, the one in the assessor's office and the deputy in the clerk's office. He said the court as a whole decided to leave the clerk's deputy in the budget.

"We don't need extra people in the courthouse," Morman said. "We need roving employees to go where they're needed."

Morman suggested a pool of employees which could be used by the officials as they are needed.

Thomerson offered up an amendment to delete the extra employees from the budget in both the clerk's and assessor's offices.

Runyan reminded the court no changes could be made to the budget until after it is passed.

He informed the court of its options on the matter, saying if it passed Thursday night with at least six votes, it would automatically be placed on the third reading.

Or, he said, if the document received eight votes, it would be approved.

Five votes, the JPs were told, would result in the automatic third reading as well.

"It's your option," he said. "If it doesn't pass in two more readings it's declared a moot point by law. We can come back then and delete items and do it over again, completely."

Justice Albert Neal said he didn't know of the extra help was needed or not, but told the court it wouldn't be fair to hire a person for one office and not for another.

He said in this computer age, more and more companies are downsizing, telling their employees to work smarter, not harder.

Runyan again reminded the court no changes could be made to the budget as presented until it is disposed of.

JP Dick Batson spoke up, telling the other 10 justices they need to remember the problem the county had a few years ago with overtime pay. He said it cost the county $50,000 to avoid being sued.

Runyan asked for a roll call vote for the second reading of the budget. "There's been ample discussion," he said. "This is just a reading, the second reading."

Getting the budget read the second time passed with a 7-4 vote. The quorum court secretary read the entire document, line by line, item by item.

In the middle of the reading, Thomerson walked over to where Conine was and began whispering to him. Runyan pounded his gavel, interrupting the reading, and said quiet was required for the reading.

Thomerson and Conine left the proceedings, going out into the hall, where they stayed for about five minutes before returning.

When the reading ended, Batson moved for a third reading. This was seconded by Conine.

The justices discussed the procedure involved in doing this, and were reminded by Runyan they had to either adopt the budget as presented with eight votes, or it would go to the third reading.

Batson withdrew his motion for a third reading and moved to adopt.

This time, the budget issue passed 6-5.

The proposed budget for 1996 will be read a third and final time during the court's regular meeting Monday, Dec. 11.

It was erroneously reported in last week's budget article the issue would have to be tabled for 30 days before coming up for its second reading.

By law, under appropriation statute 14-14-507 (which Runyan read to the court), appropriation ordinances can be placed on a second or third reading as long as at least 24 hours have passed since the last reading.

The projected general funds for 1996 in the county are $3,078,080. Of this amount, only 90 percent can be appropriated. This amounts to $2,770,272.

The proposed budget is for $2,499,281.66, which leaves $270,990.36 unappropriated.

Regardless of the how the court votes Dec. 11, Runyan said the budget will be approved by law.

Once the issue is resolved, the justices can go back and look at making changes to it.