While the primary agenda item during Monday’s Fisher County Commissioners Court meeting was to adopt the 20232024 budget and tax rate, familiar controversies surfaced regarding conflict-of-interest bills, which the court tabled after accusations of improprieties and pricing inconsistencies.
In a rare budget cycle for Fisher County officials, the court unanimously adopted the FY 2023 – 2024 budget and tax rates. With little controversy leading up to Monday’s public hearing, the court briefly reviewed the roughly $6 million annual budget and M&O, I&S, and road and bridge tax rates, with a combined $0.47 per $100 in annual tax levies.
The point of contention amongst the court occurred earlier in the meeting, requiring a short recess before resuming to address the issue. In the court’s review of outstanding bills to approve, Commissioner Preston Martin noted invoices the county received from Doris Pippin for the sale of caliche.
In reference to the invoices owed, as well as others approved against his opposing vote in prior meetings, the material was invoiced at the rate of $4.00 per cubic foot. Martin said this double the court’s approved bid amount of $2.00 per foot.
“Why are we paying four when we agreed to two,” asked Martin, reading from the contract, which outlined the price of the material and its legally binding aspects. He also read from the letter the court received from County Attorney Michael Hall in June 2022 that also confirmed the $2.00 per foot rate.
The letter referenced similar caliche bills Martin and former Commissioner Kevin Stuart stalled payment during the spring of 2022. Martin said that overall, he estimates the court has paid over $20,000 at the four-dollar rate when the cost of material was bid at half.
After discussions turned into familiar debates between Martin and Commissioner Gordon Pippin — whose family owns the caliche pit in question — Judge Holt reminded the court that the consideration was to approve the bills.
Martin said if brought to a vote, he would not vote in favor of paying the caliche bills, alluding to underthe- table dealings where an official agrees to allow a price for goods to be increased without notifying the court or the public. Commissioner Micah Evans questioned why the officials insist on attacking one another instead of managing county business.
“If it was such an issue, why was it not brought to light prior to any of this instead of using a public platform to push your own personal agenda?” said Evans, expressing his aggravation with officials bringing disputes to the forefront during otherwise regular agenda items, asking the court for a brief recess. Upon reconvening, Evans made a motion to table the contested bills until he had a chance to review all corresponding documents.
However, the contract involving the $2.00 rate was exclusive to roads associated with the Sylvester/McCauley water grant, which also expired in January. Additionally, the invoices reflecting the $4.00 rate were for material used on roads not associated with the grant. While purchases made outside of various grant guidelines are discretionary, it remains unclear why the bills are disputed.