Putting in order a tangled discussion over the county’s courthouse project, County Attorney Craig Nelson gave his recommendation regarding the proceeding in the next board meeting. He said the board should nullify a motion entered on Sept. 3 that would have backtracked on a courthouse bonding decision, because it contradicts a motion passed previously.

The Sept. 3 motion by Dan Belshan was that the county would issue general obligation bonds with a public referendum for the courthouse project. The board decided to table it.

But in a special meeting on Aug. 27, the board had passed a motion to go with a combination of three deferent types of non-referendum bonds: general obligation bonds for the jail and leased-revenue bonds for the law enforcement center and the rest of the county government function, by a 3-2 vote. Later that day, the commissioners, meeting as the Housing Redevelopment Authority board, decided to accept the county board’s decision and be in charge of issuing the leased-revenue bonds.

&uot;The tabled motion is inconsistent with a motion that has already been passed. So, it should be out of order,&uot; said Nelson. &uot;If any commissioner wants to take a different route, the original motion has to be rescinded.&uot;

County Board Chairman Dave Mullenbach said he would follow the procedure pointed out by Nelson and declare the Sept. 3 motion void during the next board meeting.

Belshan can still enter a motion to rescind the Aug. 27 motion. He said that original motion was invalid in the first place. Belshan has said the proceedings when the commissioners voted for the non-referendum bonding violated the state’s open meeting law.

But Nelson denied the allegation and said the motion was properly carried and valid in every respect.