Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court approves budget amendments to replenish fire department overtime and cover software and certificate pay
Summary
Potter County commissioners voted to approve three budget amendments reallocating contingency funds to cover an unanticipated tax office software cost, certificate pay allocations across departments, and to reset overtime funding after TIFMAS reimbursements; the court emphasized reimbursements make the county whole.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Potter County Commissioners Court approved three related budget amendments to address an unexpected software renewal cost in the tax office, to allocate certificate‑pay funds for multiple departments, and to reset overtime lines after TIFMAS reimbursements.
Brandon, who briefed the court on the package, said the first amendment was to cover ‘‘the tax collector software that they have, the contract was a little bit higher than when it came in for renewal,’’ and asked the court to move $3,650 from contingency to the tax office budget. He also described a second amendment to fund certificate pay across departments and a third to correct how TIFMAS reimbursements posted so overtime funding would not be reduced. ‘‘Ultimately, Potter County's made whole on all of the TIFMAS assignments that the fire department goes out on,’’ he said.
A commissioner moved to approve the contingency transfers to make the fire department whole; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The court later voted 5–0 to approve the remaining orders covering certificate pay across the listed departments. The court asked staff to ensure the TIFMAS reimbursements are accounted for correctly in future budgets so overtime buckets remain stable.
The amendments were presented as corrective and operational—intended to restore departmental overtime capacity and implement previously approved policy decisions rather than to create new recurring obligations. The court’s action included approval of the specific tax‑office software purchase and the certificate‑pay allocations described in the materials.
