Greenfield passes permanent appropriations during special session

The Greenfield City Council voted 5-0 to pass its 2011 permanent appropriations ordinance Tuesday evening during a special session that lasted less than four minutes. 

The meeting was necessary after council failed to receive enough votes to waive the three-reading rule during its regular meeting Dec. 21. Council member Harvey Everhart voted against the measure, saying that there were too many "glaring errors" in the ordinance. 

Council president Betty Jackman was not in attendance during the regular meeting, and the 3-1 vote was not enough to waive the three-reading rule for the emergency ordinance. 

Everhart said on Dec. 21 that he would vote in favor of the ordinance if the errors that concerned him - particularly street funds and police pension - were addressed. On Tuesday he voted to pass the ordinance. 

Council called the meeting to order nearly 15 minutes after its advertised start time so that typos could be fixed in the hard copies of the ordinance. 

When Jackman called the meeting to order, she asked Greenfield Finance Director Karen Daniels to address the changes. 

In the area of "street" Daniels said that she "shifted $2,000 from 'county auditor charges' to 'health and D&O insurance,'" which took that fund from $13,000 to $15,000 and took "county auditor charges" to zero.

A typo in the account number was changed in the section of the permissive motor vehicle fund. 

There was discussion as to whether or not the ordinance number needed to be changed, but clerk of council Roberta Karnes said she believed the matters that changed were only typos, so the ordinance number could stay the same, and the ordinance did not need to read "as amended."

Having heard the first reading on Dec. 21, council voted to waive the three-reading rule and passed the emergency legislation 5-0.

Following the meeting, Everhart told The Highland County Press that while he still has concerns regarding the budget, he wanted to give the finance director "the benefit of the doubt."

"We had a finance committee meeting (Dec. 27) and went over the figures in spreadsheets," Everhart said. "I had concerns in the police pensions, and some of the funds for police pensions are not in the police funds, but in the miscellaneous funds."

On Dec. 21 Everhart had said he was concerned that there were not enough funds to cover certain areas, particularly if the $579,050 would be enough for the police department, taking into consideration upcoming retirements and new officers. 

Daniels had said she considered the budget a "working document" and that she anticipated it to change, and that it was a template for the city to start the year. Had the ordinance not passed, the city would not have been able to write any checks in 2011, according to council members. 

Everhart had said that he would vote in favor of the ordinance if the city would "fix the glaring errors. If you know you have glaring errors, I can't (vote for it)."

On Tuesday, Everhart said, "Yes, I changed my vote. I still have concerns. I still think there is fluff, but I am going to give Karen the benefit of the doubt. I still have some questions, but she has always done a good job since I've been here."

Everhart said one area in which he still has concerns is the sewer department, which had $93,000 in a line item in 2010 that jumped to $140,000 in 2011.