Quorum Court amends budget-cleanup ordinance to require depository‑board sign‑off on fund transfers

Marion County’s quorum court voted on March 10 to amend a budget-cleanup ordinance so that any court order transferring funds between accounts must be approved by the county depository board.

The court introduced Ordinance 26‑10, described by the clerk as a state‑mandated cleanup to allow limited transfers within the 2025 budget. During discussion, several justices said the draft language was too broad and could legally permit transfers between departments without sufficient oversight. One justice warned the change “could move money from the treasurer’s department to law enforcement or move the money from law enforcement to the transfer station,” and urged clearer wording.

Mister Russo, who explained the county’s intent, said the provision was meant to address year‑end and clerical problems that create negative balances and to allow limited transfers into the sheriff’s department to cover shortfalls before sales tax revenue arrives. He told the court the simplest fix would require that a court order be signed by elected officials — the county judge and the county treasurer (and optionally the county collector) — or by the depository board.

To address the oversight concern, a justice moved for an interlineation amendment to change the ordinance language to read “by court order as approved by the depository board.” The amendment was seconded and adopted by voice/roll call.

Supporters said the change preserves the court’s ability to manage budget fixes rapidly while adding a procedural check. One justice said the amendment was “efficient and appropriate.” Opponents had worried that, left as written, the ordinance might unintentionally expand the court’s reappropriation authority.

The court’s action leaves the amended Ordinance 26‑10 in effect for the cleanup transfers described in the session, with oversight put in place via depository‑board sign‑off and the existing practice of including court orders in meeting packets for later review.

The court also agreed to revisit the wording in committee if further clarification is needed. The personnel committee separately said it would rework an unrelated inclement‑weather personnel policy and bring it back to the court for consideration.

Next steps: the ordinance amendment was adopted at the meeting; court staff and counsel indicated they will make any necessary technical edits and supply the final ordinance language in a subsequent packet.