The atmosphere in the supervisors’ room at the Antelope County courthouse in Neligh became a bit explosive for a while last Thursday morning.

A special Aug. 22 meeting of the county commissioners had been set, exclusively, for budget discussion. However, an item for setting the date of a special recall election was added to the agenda by Lisa Payne, county clerk.

As the meeting began, Tom Borer, commission chairman, asked for a motion to remove the item from the agenda. Dean Smith complied, offering the motion.

“I think we should wait for the county attorney,” Payne said before Borer seconded the motion.

Heated dialog ensued regarding plans for a mail-only election and allegations of wrongdoing by circulators of recent recall petitions.

When Borer asked for discussion on the motion at hand, Smith said, “As long as we are on the topic, I am just curious – it’s out on social media that It’s been set.”

Citing the Nebraska Association of County Officials’ handbook, Borer said the board can’t call such election until five days after those who are subject to a recall election are notified, to allow them time to resign if they so choose.

After Henery suggested waiting for the attorney’s arrival, Smith advised the meeting was called to discuss the budget, nothing else.

‘If we are going to set a date, then, we’re also, as far as I am concerned, we’re going to set what type of election it will be,” he said.

Despite advice from Payne and Joe Abler, county attorney, the motion went to a vote, passing 3-2, Eli Jacob and Charlie Henery voting nay. A motion to approve an amended agenda passed on a similar vote.

An emergency meeting was called the following morning to set the recall election for Oct. 15.

Bentley asked the clerk directly if she had opted for a mail ballot.

“That’s my choice,” Payne replied. “I haven’t selected anything, I talked to the secretary of state’s office about that.”

Despite advice from Payne and Joe Abler, county attorney, the motion went to a vote, passing 3-2, Eli Jacob and Charlie Henery voting nay. A motion to approve an amended agenda passed on a similar vote.

An emergency meeting was called the following morning to set the recall election for Oct. 15.

Bentley asked the clerk directly if she had opted for a mail ballot.

“That’s my choice,” Payne replied. “I haven’t selected anything, I talked to the secretary of state’s office about that.”

Smith suggested issues with having a fair election when ballots are mailed, saying mail elections are “opening the gate for corruption, intimidation of the voter, no way to validate that a (voter) is not coerced.”

Although the board had not yet received the official report, Smith said he, Borer and Payne sat through an exit interview after the county’s most recent audit.

“The accusations of misappropriation of funds - there was no misappropriated funds in the audit,” he said, citing the exit interview. Borer and Payne agreed.

“Absolutely none,” Smith continued. The audit looks better than it has in the previous years. There’s less errors than what there has been. It’s in better shape…There’s an allegation that’s on that document of recall that’s not true - no misappropriation of funds.”

He went on to explain the law firm that conducted the investigation referred to on petition documents, is on retainer to handle county legal needs, with funds budgeted last year and proposed for the coming year, to handle the county’s legal needs. He also reaffirmed the entire board voted to hire the firm.

“How many of the people were told, if they sign this, they’ll get to vote on who gets to replace them? How many people were told that? How many people were told falsehoods? And you think the ballots should be a mail-in ballot?” he asked.

Payne said, “Maybe that’s not the instance (petition filers) referred to.”

Bentley alleged actions by circulators, including two who he said were in uniform. He alleged intimidation, falsehoods and failure to read reasons for recall and defense statements in full.

Abler responded, “I have no way of doing anything, unless it’s officially complained.”

“I’ve had 40 people tell me they are scared to death of what the repercussions will be if they file any kind of a grievance,” Bentley said.

When asked if a complainant could be held anonymous, the attorney said if action is taken in court or any kind of public forum, “there is no anonymity.”

“Is it illegal for law enforcement officers to gather signatures while they’re in uniform?” Bentley asked.

“Is it illegal? It is certainly possible misconduct, absolutely,” the attorney replied. “If a report is made, then action will be taken.”

Continuing his objection to a mail-in ballot, Bentley said, “Those same two individuals (who) it has been alleged were in uniform, both of (them), to gather signatures, nothing’s going to stop them from also, in my opinion, force them - or intimidate them - into voting the way they want (them) to.”

“It was stated numerous times to me, by a lot, a lot of individuals, that (the individual) did not read the allegations nor my response, at all. He talked about other issues that weren’t even on (petitions)," he said.

Comment from an audience member was stopped. Asked by Smith if comments were being taken from the audience, Borer indicated not until the board finished discussion on the matter.

The conversation became more volatile as Bentley continued, with comments by the clerk and the accused petition circulator, prompting the sheriff to intervene.

“You better stop guys,” Moore said. “You are digging a hole.”

Borer asked the attorney if the county should opt for a walk-in election, “to be safe.”

“That’s certainly an option,” Abler replied, “I’m not saying that’s not a viable option, absolutely.”

“By statute, that’s not for you to decide,” Payne told Borer.

After approving a resolution allowing subdivisions to levy under the county’s levy allocation limit and a fund transfer brought to the table by Payne to rectify a miscalculation when funds were transferred at the Aug. 13 meeting, budget discussion proceeded, amicably.

Stating he had reviewed the budget documents, Bentley asked to be excused from discussion and left the meeting.

Borer asked Kelly Mueller for the certified valuation information. She indicated county values increased by $24 million, to $2,483,485,076.

Asked by Borer if valuation was up 1 or 2%, Mueller replied yes.

Each county office holder, in turn, offered explanation or answered questions raised by the commissioners as they proceeded through the 70-Page document.

No suggestions for cuts were given. In fact, a few increases were suggested by commissioners. Further adjustments may be made, with a final budget to be set after a public hearing is held.

After proposed budgets were reviewed, county leaders mulled possible scenarios for taxing, which could increase tax levies by two cents to as much as seven cents per $100 valuation, with the lower proposal including use of cash reserve funds.

Borer estimated a seven-cent increase in levy would equate to $1,000 per quarter of irrigated crop land.

“I am not for raising taxes,” he said. “I would like to visit with some of my taxpayers before I commit.”

By far, the largest increase proposed was seen in the road and bridge budget presented by Casey Dittrich, road superintendent.

“If the board is willing to change the levy, we can fix more roads,” he said.

Payne asked the audience, “Do you want to raise taxes, or do you want to fix roads?”

“Since the 18th of June, corn prices have dropped 21%,” Bob Lingenfelter of rural Plainview said. “Agriculture is not necessarily rolling in cash.”

Borer asked Terry Brookhauser what he thought.

“A lot of ours can be handled with graders, it (isn’t) a high dollar deal,” the Brunswick farmer replied. “I think we need to hold the budget down, live within our means for a while and see what happens…If you start raising taxes 1,000 bucks a quarter, that’s going to really make some people squeal.”

Regina Krebs, an accountant who assisted Payne compile budget information, refuted Borer’s computation, indicating the increase in taxes for an average irrigated quarter would be $425, reminding the chairman that ag land is valued at 70%.

“I can live with a couple hundred dollars,” Brookhauser said, adding that some younger farmers would have a difficult time.

Krebs also explained levy limitations, “According to state law, there are exclusions that we can bring into the levy. The exclusion allows you to increase your tax asking by the amount of that exclusion, above and beyond what would normally be allowed by state law.”

This year, specifically dependent on an emergency declaration, a 2.5 cent levy-limit exclusion is allowed for out-of-pocket payments to fund emergency relief. It is a one-time only exclusion.

Krebs said, “We can’t come back five years from now and say, ‘we’re still paying for flood damage, we want to take the exclusion now.’”

She said out-of-pocket expense for the county was estimated at $700,000, qualifying a 2.5-cent levy-limit exclusion.

“I think that 2.5 cents, we need to really consider, just because of that one-time exclusion,” she said. “We really should be looking at another one and one-half to two cents.

“I can see a real issue in you guys paying for the remaining flood damage, from a cash-flow issue if we don’t get FEMA dollars, because you’ve already drained your cash reserve. That two-cent difference is already taking into account some of that cash reserve that is drained. It is a very complicated set of circumstances this year, on how to move forward, how to treat the taxpayer fairly, how to make sure the county gets reimbursed on one-time exclusion and making sure we have cash-flow available, if we don’t get reimbursed from FEMA or something.

“If we did come in with the seven cents we looked at, 2.5 cents of that would absolutely come off next year because that exclusion would go away.”

A suggestion was made to use FEMA reimbursement for property tax relief rather than repaying the Inheritance Fund and allow it to grow for future emergency expense.

Dittrich said, “If we get FEMA funds sooner than we plan, that would also help rebuild the cash reserve. I think we all had agriculture people in mind when we started this conversation.”

The total Dittrich requested for roads is $4.757 million, down $287,000 from the amount budgeted last year. Actual expense shown for 18-19 fiscal year was just over $3 million. The proposed budget includes $750,000 for paving (up 230K), $350,000 for armor coating (no change), $600,000 for gravel (down 100K) and $320,000 for other road and bridge materials, mostly asphalt grinding, (up 270K). He said much of that is already spent or committed to current projects. The budget proposal also includes $295,000 for fuel, the same as previous, and $150,000 in engineering fees, also static; as well as total wage expense, including potential new hires and cash-in-lieu payments, proposed at $1,052,200, up 56K. Actual wage expense in FY18-19 was listed at about $850,000.

Moore asked for an increase of nearly $24,000 in the sheriff’s department budget, most of it to cover shifts of two officers who will be gone for 16 weeks of training, along with covering vacation and sick leave. The Law Enforcement Center budget is proposed with an increase of about $26,000 but is lower than the actual expense for last year. Moore said the largest increase there is for technology, including a program to communicate with state patrol troopers and a state mandated e-ticket program that requires computers in vehicles. He also anticipates increased costs for two “big” upcoming trials.

Proposed expenditures for the jail commissary, a non-tax supported budget, according to Payne, are down $60,000, half of the amount budgeted last year, but more than actual spending.

Payne proposed the building and grounds budget on behalf of the groundskeepers, with a decrease of $27,000, but about 10 grand more than actual spending last year.

Deb Branstiter had reduced the supplies line in her county treasurer office budget by nearly $2,000 to offset increases in other areas, including salaries. Concerned that was too much to cut supplies, which includes statements mailed, $1,000 was added back in, resulting in an overall budget increase of $3,885. She agreed with the adjustment.

Liz Doerr, part-time zoning administrator, proposed spending for the zoning/planning office with a slight decrease, despite an increase in the salary line, which she explained included a cost-of-living increase matching what she will receive in Knox County.

The Weed Control Authority budget proposal also decreased, but Bruce Ofe, superintendent, attributed it to a one-time increase last year to cover the $15,000 purchase of a vehicle.

The clerk’s proposed budget also saw an increase of about $4,000. Payne’s election commission budget increased by about $7,000, with two special elections and regular elections noted. She also submitted the register of deeds proposed budget, which decreased by more than $6,000, mostly in microfilming expenses.

Budgets proposed by the county assessor and clerks of the county and district courts also went up between $3,000 and $6,000, with the county attorney’s increase at less than $1,000.