Calhoun County Council considers spending limits

Calhoun County Council is considering limits on how much employees can spend without going to council for approval.

Council gave unanimous first reading last week to a proposed ordinance that lays out the spending authority structure for department heads, the county administrator and county council.

The proposal:

• Allows department heads to approve spending less than $500.

• Allows the county administrator to approve spending between $500 and $20,000.

• Allows the county administrator, plus the council chair or vice chair, to approve spending between $20,000 and $50,000 for emergency purposes only.

• Requires county council to approve spending above $100,000 by vote in a public meeting.

According to the proposed ordinance, all the spending will be, “subject to the annual budget passed by council.”

During a discussion about the ordinance before the vote, Councilwoman Rebecca Bonnette requested changes in the original proposal.

For instance, she said department heads should have the authority to spend up to $500.

“I feel like they (department heads) are hired to make those kind of decisions,” Bonnette said.

She also sought another change in the original proposal, which would have given the administrator and council chair or vice chair the ability to spend up to $100,000 anytime.

She asked that the proposal be changed to give the county administrator and council chair or vice chair the authority to spend $50,000 and stipulate that the funds can be spent for emergencies only, as confirmed by the chair and or vice chair.

Prior to the vote, some members of the public expressed concerns that the proposed $100,000 spending limit.

“I think council should be the one that makes the decision of any amount that is spent. It should go from you to the administrator and not from the administrator to you,” resident JoAn Stone said.

Resident Tris Waystack asked for council to cap the amount the administrator can spend alone at $15,000 and cap the amount that can be spent during emergencies at $50,000.

“We are always going to have things in the county that can’t wait for the next council meeting,” Waystack said. “He has got to have the authority to make a decision at that point, but if there is something that gets to a point over $50,000, you gentlemen and ladies are available to make a decision and can get involved.”

Waystack also requested an emergency situation be defined.

Council Vice Chair Ken Westbury said the ordinance is designed to establish formal limits on spending.

“That has not been done in the past,” Westbury said.

Westbury said an unspoken agreement was that the administrator could spend up to $20,000, which has been how the county has functioned for years.

Westbury also explained the limits the county’s budget places on transfers and transactions.

“That money at the budget time goes into specific accounts,” Westbury explained. “It is not just a blanket figure.”

“Nobody can move money out of those accounts except for county council,” Westbury continued. “This (ordinance) does not give anybody the right to move money out of one account into another account to cover some expense. That is not the case with either the administrator or the amounts he can spend.”

“He is spending money that we have already designated for that particular use,” Westbury said. “He is just authorizing at that point for expediency to be able to enter contracts up to that $20,000 fee.”

The ordinance is being considered to allow decisions to be made without having to wait every two weeks for a council meeting to be held.

Councilman Richard Carson agreed with Bonnette on the $50,000 spending limit during emergencies.

“You’ve got to be able to act on it on the spur of the moment,” he said.

Council Chairman James Haigler voted for lowering the emergency spending amount, but said he would also like to make sure that a decision can be made by the majority of council and not require the vote of all five members.

Bonnette expressed her agreement with that.

Sandy Run resident Amy Hill said she’s concerned that Bonnette, who is new to council, was not appropriately briefed on agenda items far enough in advance of Monday’s meeting.

“In order for our councilwoman to represent us fairly, I don’t appreciate or think that it sheds a good light for her not to be briefed on these subject matters until the weekend before the first reading,” Hill said.

Westbury said he was not aware that Bonnette was not aware of it.

In other matters:

• Council gave unanimous second reading approval to an amended ordinance that makes changes to the county’s boards and commissions.

Council initially tabled second reading to give council members more time to review the ordinance, including changes in the Calhoun County Historical Commission and Fire Commission duties.

Mentions of the Calhoun County Historical Commission and Fire Commission have been removed from the ordinance.

• Sandy Run resident Dennis Spilde asked council why it is building a recreational walking trail in Sandy Run near a trash collection site at a cost of about $100,000.

He noted the county is already renting the 40-acre Heyward Community Park in the area. The park also has a walking trail.

“Isn’t that a duplication of effort?” Spilde said. “I think the walking trail at Heyward is going to be much better than the one next to the dump.

“Why did we choose the dump to put a walking trail next to? We have all been around. We know what the dump smells like sometimes. We know what the dump looks like sometimes.”

Following the meeting, Calhoun County Administrator John McLauchlin said the county met with residents of the Sandy Run community prior to starting on the walking track project.

“Since the county owns property between the EMS station and the convenience site and it is centrally located in the community, we proposed to locate the quarter mile oval ‘rubberized’ walking track and playground there,” McLauchlin said. “At the meeting, several citizens were in favor of this proposal and location as long as the county stays on top of the potential nuisances.

“We do understand the aesthetics of locating near a convenience site and, because of that, the county will monitor and correct any issues that may arise.”

The county started negotiations over the Heyward park after the county had already started the walking track project.

“Yes, the Heyward Park has a wooded, nature walking trail that the county is planning on rehabilitating at some point in the near future,” McLauchlin said. “The nature trail is one of many amenities at the Heyward Park and will offer a different walking experience and will potentially attract different individuals/interests.”