[1:47] We're at 6:05, whenever you're ready.
>> Yep.
[1:50] Just trying to make sure I hit the right
button.
[1:51] Okay, that button was about to fall off
for some reason.
[1:57] » Good evening. Call to order
the regular quorum court finance and
[2:02] budget committee for May.
Thank you all for coming. Welcome.
[2:07] We'll start with the prayer prayer and
pledge and JP Washington is will
[2:12] provide that.
[2:18] » Thank you.
Please bow your heads for a word of
[2:21] prayer if that is your custom and if not
you can enjoy a moment of silence.
[2:25] » [clears throat]
>> Lord, we thank you for the opportunity
[2:27] to be here for this meeting tonight. We
acknowledge that all wisdom, authority,
[2:31] and justice comes from you.
Your word declares that out of the
[2:35] abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
So, let our words tonight flow from
[2:39] hearts
filled with wisdom, integrity,
[2:41] compassion, humility, and a sincere
desire to serve the citizens of
[2:45] Washington County well.
I thank you that every discussion or
[2:49] debate tonight is guided by integrity
and respect.
[2:52] » [snorts]
>> Thank you for removing pride, agendas,
[2:55] contention, and replacing them with
humility and understanding.
[2:59] Lord, protect this atmosphere from
confusion, hostility, and distraction.
[3:02] We pray for productive dialogue,
thoughtful solutions, and outcomes that
[3:06] will benefit the people of this county.
We thank you for every unique
[3:10] perspective and area of expertise that
each of the justices bring and we thank
[3:15] you that wise counsel emerges in this
room because in the multitude of
[3:18] counselors there is safety. May
everything done tonight reflect justice,
[3:23] righteousness, and a heart to serve.
This we pray. Amen.
[3:28] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[3:33] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[3:39] justice for all.
[3:44] » Thank you, JP Washington.
Item three is the adoption of the
[3:49] agenda.
JP Ricker.
[3:51] » I make a motion to move items number
eight, nine, and 10 to positions four,
[3:56] five, and six.
[4:01] » Was that JP Coger second? JP
>> Hires.
[4:06] Hires.
>> Thank you.
[4:09] We have a motion by JP Ricker to move
eight, nine, and 10
[4:12] up to above four.
Um the reason is we we have some support
[4:18] staff that needs to get to graduations
tonight. So, these are the things that I
[4:21] think we've had legal questions on. I
want to make sure we have the support
[4:23] for that and then move on from there. I
got a motion by JP Ricker, a second by
[4:27] JP Hires. All those in favor say I.
All those opposed?
[4:32] That passes.
[4:36] Entertain a motion to approve the
amended agenda. JP Ricker.
[4:39] » Second.
>> Second by JP Washington. All those in
[4:43] favor say I.
All those opposed?
[4:47] With that, moving to what was item
eight,
[4:52] Comptroller Sherman has some information
on the CRI update, some some numbers
[4:56] that he's put together he wants to
provide
[4:59] um for the rest of us. He He handed this
out
[5:02] to the horseshoe when he came in this
evening.
[5:10] » Okay, good good evening everyone.
Um
[5:13] Justice Pond asked me last
meeting to try to come up with a cost
[5:18] analysis uh by bed or by
detainee that we have in the CRI. So,
[5:25] that's sort of what's
brought on this talking paper. So, that
[5:30] first year there, the grant year,
and I want to talk in grant years, too,
[5:36] because that's how the money flows. So,
and and when we we run on the calendar
[5:40] year, this grant runs on the federal
fiscal year. How it comes down is
[5:44] managed by DFNA, but I'm pretty sure
it's federal money.
[5:48] Uh so, the first year there one 1
October 24 to 30 September
[5:55] uh we did an ordinance for 575,000.
That was basically to start the program
[6:00] up. Some of that though was a match for
the first year's grant. So, if you see
[6:07] the first year's grant was 355
uh thousand and if you remember how we
[6:13] do the 75%
uh the total
[6:18] uh so, that it's not 70 it's not uh 25%
of that 355. That 355 is 75% the total,
[6:26] so we have to put the other 25. So, if
you do the math, that was 118,000.
[6:32] So, I considered the additional 456,000
uh as startup cost on uh getting getting
[6:41] the program rolling.
So,
[6:45] there was during during this time period
there was 154 days and uh we were
[6:50] communicated with the sheriff and worked
with the sheriff to get the average cost
[6:55] per detention officer and that includes
benefits, all that kind of stuff. So, if
[7:01] they take health insurance,
uh their holiday incentive pay,
[7:05] overtime, all that kind of stuff. We
looked at each officer that's assigned
[7:09] there and came up with an average that
they make that cost the county uh $40.53
[7:16] when you add everything together.
So, they were there if you
[7:20] basically you have two officers on staff
all time. So, you'd multiply that two
[7:25] two times uh 400 four $40.53
and then they're they're 24 hours a day
[7:31] times 24 and then how many days are
there? So,
[7:35] uh they were there 154 days during this
grant period. Uh so, that's where that
[7:41] 299 comes from.
Um I added this since I sent this out
[7:47] via email the initial buildings and
grounds cost. Uh talked to uh
[7:52] Director Ledgerwood, and they basically
put $17,000
[7:57] of work into converting the um the old
CSU into the CRI.
[8:03] Um utilities, uh
that was actual cost. Uh I could I could
[8:09] look those up for that building. So it
was 14,000 for the number of months, and
[8:15] basically the program started uh in
April of '25.
[8:20] So from April of '25 to uh September is
where those numbers come from. Those are
[8:26] actual numbers. And then of course that
year the grant was 355,000
[8:33] uh
for that that was reim- reimbursable.
[8:36] The way it works is they tell us the
number, and then we submit it to them,
[8:41] uh okay, this is what qualifies. We
submit to the government this is what we
[8:45] did this month, and then they send us
reimbursement. Up to 355,000.
[8:50] So that's how that works.
Is there any questions on the first
[8:54] grant year before I move on to the
second
[8:57] grant year?
>> JP Coger?
[9:00] » Yes, thank you. Um Mr. Sherman, I have
the same questions about uh
[9:06] that we've been going back and forth
with today, but why wouldn't
[9:10] ground initial building and ground cost
and utilities be income?
[9:15] » Why would it be? Well, I don't
truthfully I don't see anything as
[9:19] income. What I just talk about is
funding sources, like where is it coming
[9:23] from?
Uh and buildings and grounds went in
[9:26] there, and so that's a true county cost
to me. So when I'm doing these, the
[9:31] funding sources really are
interchangeable with cost to me because
[9:36] uh
you know, we're not in the business to
[9:38] make profit or be in deficit, so it's
the the buildings and grounds, whatever
[9:43] they need to do on that is like I'm
recognizing it as a cost. I'm not I'm
[9:48] not saying that it's revenue, you know
what I mean?
[9:51] » I don't
>> So.
[9:52] » I I thought it was because it's under
funding source.
[9:55] » Yeah, but but every cost has to have a
funding source like in my mind, so
[10:02] because if you don't that would mean
it's not appropriated by you guys and
[10:06] then we'd be breaking the law, so.
>> Okay, thank you very much.
[10:10] » Um.
[10:13] So, on the second grant year, this is
really an estimate of what I foresee the
[10:21] full year going. Uh,
so it started at 1 October of 25 and it
[10:26] runs through 30 September
of this year.
[10:30] So,
our uh, match there, the ordinance uh,
[10:34] uh,
uh, 2025-73, our match was 94,000
[10:38] basically.
So, now the detention officers, it's the
[10:41] same calculation except that 4023
uh, times 24 hours times two officers is
[10:49] times 365 because that's they're going
to be in there every single day. So,
[10:54] that's where that 710 comes from, so
it's that's the big biggest expense down
[10:59] there right now is the detention
officers with the benefits and salaries.
[11:04] So, it's 710,000 to cover
two people being on staff 24 hours a
[11:10] day, 365 days a year.
Uh, then utilities, basically what I did
[11:17] is I looked at an average
of
[11:20] um,
the utilities
[11:23] since it since the the inception of this
because in the beginning there wasn't
[11:27] that many people there, so they they
what we what we saw was the water bill
[11:31] go up some. In the beginning you didn't
have that much. So now the water bill so
[11:36] I'm pretty sure that that's a a decent
number. So $2,400 a month for utilities
[11:42] times 12 28,000.
Now the mental health services, that's
[11:48] what that's the proposed ordinance
that's on the docket tonight. And that's
[11:53] 169,000
to provide mental health services.
[11:59] And then the state and federal grant is
284,000.
[12:04] That's that's the 75% of the total. The
94,000
[12:08] is 25% which were required required to
put in.
[12:14] So if you take all those numbers the the
numbers that I'm concerned about is
[12:20] anything that the county pays. So the
94,000
[12:24] the 710 like I don't I don't view the
710 as revenue or income. I just view
[12:31] the funding source was the sheriff's
office is covering that. So none of the
[12:36] grant pays for that. That's all coming
out of the the county's hide and the
[12:41] sheriff's budget. So that's where that
comes from right now. And then the
[12:44] 28,000 and then if you pass the 169,000
that's the true cost to the county
[12:52] because I didn't include the grant in in
the calculation at cost per person
[12:58] because if this program would go away
grant goes away. Um so true cost to the
[13:05] county is one 1 million three if you see
one 1 million
[13:12] 3,000. You see it down there.
Cost per bed.
[13:17] So when we get into the cost per bed
basically there's 30 bed capacity times
[13:22] 365
so you have 10,950 bed days is how that
[13:28] works out. Uh
so then what you do is you you divide
[13:33] that 1,003,000
by that
[13:38] uh
10,950
[13:41] and that's how you calculate $91.64
per bed.
[13:46] » [snorts]
>> Uh
[13:47] now one thing I did uh Justice Coger, we
had some um emails back and forth as she
[13:53] wanted to see the cost per detainee with
with what the census is. So the average
[13:58] census uh from Returning Home's number
is 24.
[14:03] So if you do this do the math and you
say, "Okay, 24
[14:07] times 365,
now your denominator
[14:12] there you see is 8,760.
So right now the true cost per detainee
[14:19] is $114.55.
[14:23] But I would say that the concept is
probably to fill the beds up.
[14:27] So
and then
[14:31] when you compare that to the legislative
audits uh cost cost report for detainees
[14:37] down at the jail,
they do that about every two to three
[14:41] years. Uh last one they did was in 2023
and it's a ginormous spreadsheet that we
[14:47] have to fill out a bunch of numbers.
It costs $80.52.
[14:52] So a bed to me costs $11.12 more per day
uh
[14:58] at the CRI.
Um
[15:02] in general I try to stay neutral
uh on projects, but I do think the CRI
[15:08] is a good mission and for only $11 more
a day
[15:12] you provide
mental health services, you provide
[15:16] education, you provide a lot more stuff
than they actually get down at the uh
[15:20] detention cen- detention center.
Is there any questions on how all that
[15:26] was calculated?
>> JP Burns
[15:31] Burns
>> I'm JP Burns. I'm sorry.
[15:34] » [clears throat]
>> Um
[15:36] Yeah, I
I am concerned
[15:41] about an item we have on this
um
[15:47] where we paid off a vehicle.
[15:52] » Okay, well, on on I know what you're
talking about. That's the law library.
[15:57] That that money came out of the law
library that paid off a vehicle for a
[16:00] returning home.
I mean, we can have that discussion now,
[16:04] but it was really outside this grant and
all that kind of stuff because
[16:09] it will be brought up again in the law
library discussion.
[16:12] » Well, and it was it was not the CRI.
Agreed.
[16:14] » Right. Yeah, it's
>> Do you have any questions?
[16:17] » Okay, what's the difference in the CRI
and the returning home?
[16:23] » Well, the the the CRI
you know, the contract we contract for
[16:29] returning home. Like I'll give you that.
And they also got the cap out there, but
[16:33] has nothing to do with the CRI.
Uh but the funding source for that
[16:38] vehicle
did not come from any of this.
[16:42] The funding source was the the law
library, which is also on the docket
[16:46] tonight.
>> All right.
[16:48] We'll get to that then.
>> Yeah. And but
[16:52] the CRI
it it was my understanding that the CRI
[16:59] was
um
[17:02] the receiving entity for the grant. Is
that true?
[17:09] » Correct.
>> Okay.
[17:11] And then
where does returning home come in?
[17:18] » Well, they
>> whole new entity on its own?
[17:21] » Uh
kind of. I mean, it it it does like we
[17:24] just didn't go to the government and say
uh we have this idea. We did have
[17:28] returning home behind us saying, "Hey,
we could do this." So, we apply for the
[17:33] grant in the name of the CRI project,
and then we contract for certain
[17:39] services through uh returning home.
So.
[17:42] » So, returning home
is a totally different entity. Do we
[17:47] support that with this grant anywhere?
>> Uh all of these figures, yeah, we do.
[17:54] Mhm. So, all this county money uh has
gone into the It doesn't go to uh
[18:00] returning home, but it goes into the
facility like the detention officers,
[18:04] any of the startup. Certain things are
not reimbursed
[18:08] uh by the government. Uh so, certain
things do have to be paid out of county
[18:13] money. Uh for example, like food is
example because they do have food down
[18:19] at the detention center, so that's not
reimbursable.
[18:22] Uh clothing is another example. So, they
we get a lotment for clothing at the
[18:26] detention center, but uh with this
program,
[18:30] you know, you're trying to uh have it so
you can
[18:34] uh
get them back into society and, you
[18:38] know, so.
>> I'm I'm with you 100% on that. Anything
[18:42] we can do to get people out of the jail
in a
[18:44] in a positive sense is I'm all for it.
>> Right.
[18:48] » However,
I am concerned about
[18:53] returning home
and CRI being two different entities.
[19:00] Okay?
And my question is, uh do they both have
[19:06] uh the same
um
[19:10] uh
[19:13] Oh, what do you call it? The uh uh
>> Well,
[19:16] » uh
number four
[19:18] um
uh
[19:20] non um
[19:23] I can't think of what kind of say
>> It's like the the CRI
[19:29] is county entity for sure. Like it falls
under the county tax ID and it and then
[19:35] and then we turn around and contract
with Returning Home, which is an LLC
[19:39] that has its own private uh um
tax ID number.
[19:44] » Tax ID number.
>> So Comptroller Sherman, the the way I
[19:46] think about it is CRI and CAP are
programs that the county has decided
[19:50] they want to pursue.
And
[19:53] Returning Home is the organization we've
contracted with to run those programs.
[19:58] Would that be appropriate, sir?
>> Correct.
[20:00] » Okay.
>> Okay, so we we've got two different
[20:03] entities that we're funding here.
>> We have two programs, CAP and CRI.
[20:09] » Two different two different entities
because they each have
[20:13] different tax ID number.
Right?
[20:17] » Correct. The county has one and
Returning Home has one.
[20:21] » And where is Returning Home located?
>> Where is Returning Home where?
[20:26] » Located?
>> Uh I'm not sure where they're physically
[20:29] located, but they do business in our
thing here and then they do the CAP is
[20:34] out in Huntsville.
>> What what's the the CAP?
[20:38] » Returning Home.
>> That's that's another program outside of
[20:43] this. So we're starting to get outside
of this, but uh that's a whole 'nother
[20:48] program that
uh
[20:50] » But we're funding part of it.
>> Correct.
[20:53] » And we're funding something that's in
Madison County.
[20:57] » Uh I don't know exactly. I mean they
>> It it yeah, it is it is in Madison
[21:01] County yeah, physically.
>> Okay.
[21:04] » But it's it's it's Washington County
detainees
[21:07] that it's
>> only Correct.
[21:10] » only
>> Correct.
[21:12] » Um Nick
Okay.
[21:16] They just happen to part the property
that they use that they house in happens
[21:19] to be a Madison County, but it's only
Washington County detainees that you're
[21:23] putting through the CAT program.
[21:29] » I can't hear you.
>> He basically said the beds that
[21:33] that we fund are only from Washington
County, but he does have some Madison
[21:38] County that Madison County funds.
At at the CAT. So this is totally
[21:44] separate from it.
>> Okay.
[21:46] » CRI
>> Yeah, that answers my question.
[21:49] » Okay.
>> Thank you, sir.
[21:56] JP Lopez
>> Yep. Thank you, Chair. And I'll be
[21:59] pretty brief brief here. My question is
just
[22:03] I was under the impression that um
Arusha provided services for the the
[22:09] previous year. Was that incorrect cuz I
I don't see it accounted for on that
[22:13] grant year one, but they did say that
they had provided those services. Is
[22:16] that correct? I mean
>> Correct. I mean during that first year
[22:20] we started the program the first person
started program in April of 25. So
[22:26] that's why those are actual cost. I can
go back and see what we actually spent.
[22:30] » Not necessarily, but I thank you. I just
wanted to make sure I wouldn't didn't
[22:33] miss something. Thank you.
[22:36] » JP Rio
[22:40] » Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Sherman, I wanted to thank you for
[22:43] putting these numbers together because I
think this is the first time that we've
[22:46] ever seen
all these numbers that go into the CRI
[22:49] all on one page together because I think
it's sort of you know, we get different
[22:54] pieces of it come to us at different
times of the year and
[22:57] it hasn't really been clear to me what
all these numbers are. So I'm really
[23:01] like happy to see it. Um and I know you
put this together to your best of of
[23:06] your ability and we we kind of you know
talked about that. I'm not
[23:10] there's for two reasons I'm not
completely sure that we're still truly
[23:14] comparing apples to apples.
For one,
[23:18] um
you know, I kind of have questions
[23:21] whether we should even be including
uh the detention officers their salaries
[23:26] in this at all
because I asked that over emailed um to
[23:30] the sheriff to see
um you know, like if the CRI didn't
[23:34] exist, um how many of these
uh positions
[23:42] you know, would these positions go away?
Would these positions still exist?
[23:45] Um and Sheriff Cantrell is sitting back
there, but he replied over email and I
[23:50] can read it. Uh the deputies assigned to
the CRI are not additional deputies.
[23:55] When the CRI was first proposed, the
Washington County Sheriff's Office was a
[23:58] willing participant. We wanted to see if
the program produced viable and
[24:02] repeatable results.
Washington County Sheriff's Office
[24:05] agreed to reassign two deputies from
each of the four detention shifts to the
[24:09] CRI.
This caused more work for the deputies
[24:12] assigned to the main jail, but we felt
it was a worthwhile endeavor to see what
[24:15] the data actually reveals.
As far as workforce efficiency goes, the
[24:19] CRI is not as labor efficient as the
main jail. Two deputies at the main jail
[24:24] are routinely assigned to the minimum
security housing unit with 96 beds.
[24:29] Two deputies at the CRI are assigned to
30 beds. So that's less than a third.
[24:35] We continually operate with a workforce
deficit and have for many years. So
[24:39] there's, you know, as we know, they've
continually had
[24:43] uh open positions and job openings
um in the detention side. With 25 open
[24:49] positions at any given time and a jail
population that is almost always over
[24:53] maximum capacity, the eight deputies of
the CRI would still be needed at the
[24:58] main jail even if the CRI didn't exist.
So, it's not like those, you know, those
[25:04] hours are like extra hours that wouldn't
exist if the CRI didn't exist. You know,
[25:10] so my, you know, so I'm wondering, you
know, I I've never looked at like this
[25:14] legislative audit that came out that
that determined our,
[25:18] uh, you know, jail inmate cost report.
So, I don't know how they're calculating
[25:22] it, whether the, you know, whether
they're
[25:25] they're factoring in all the costs of
the detention officers, including open
[25:29] positions, or whether they're not
counting positions that haven't been
[25:33] filled. I don't really know.
Um, and then also, uh, the last
[25:38] legislative audit we got was 2023. And
we know with inflation and everything,
[25:43] so we're kind of comparing 2023
to 2024 and 2025.
[25:49] Um, you know, so different years. And
I'm guessing probably with the prices
[25:54] going up that the
that the, you know, cost per day
[25:58] detainee at the main jail is probably
higher than $80.52.
[26:02] » I would say that's accurate. But,
>> Yeah.
[26:04] » you know, they'll they'll probably be
back around in
[26:09] uh, maybe even this they're going to
start the, uh, '25 audit here shortly.
[26:13] So, we might do it during that. They do
it about every 2 years or so.
[26:17] » Yeah. So.
Okay.
[26:19] » And and
um, I would say that, uh, you're right
[26:24] that like those officers, it's not like
we hired extra officers.
[26:27] » Right.
>> And we would just move them back. But,
[26:29] it does create, uh,
you know, shortage even more down
[26:32] Sheriff. It's not like it's totally a
wash. That's
[26:36] » Yeah. It might create some officers.
>> my When I allocate expenses, I still
[26:40] think that it's probably decent to
allocate it wherever they are, you know,
[26:43] wherever they're Yeah. But, that being
said, we're not going to, uh, you're not
[26:48] going to save money if the CRI closed
tomorrow. It would not save $710,000.
[26:53] Those people would move back to the
jail.
[26:54] » They'd move back to the jail, right? I
think maybe possibly the only thing
[26:57] we're creating right now with that is
maybe overtime costs at the main jail.
[27:03] » Because
>> Because the existing workforce over
[27:05] there has to stretch a little further.
So, okay.
[27:09] Um
and then um
[27:13] What was my other question about this?
Um
[27:16] can't remember. I'll come back to you.
Thanks.
[27:21] » JP Coger
>> Mr. Chair
[27:24] Uh okay, so I too appreciate all the
work you put into this and I appreciate
[27:28] your patience with me today as I as
we've gone back and forth about this.
[27:33] Um so I I
I think I understand the point that
[27:36] you're trying that you made with about
the detention office salaries, but I
[27:40] this is what I'm thinking when I think
about why they should be included and
[27:44] I'd like to just give those to you and
to the public so we could think about
[27:48] them or talk about them. First of all,
the sheriff confirmed that eight
[27:52] deputies were specifically reassigned to
operate the CRI.
[27:57] Uh the sheriff also confirmed that
reassigning those deputies created
[28:01] additional strain on staffing at the at
the main jail.
[28:05] Those staffing resources are therefore
no longer available elsewhere elsewhere
[28:09] in the detention center.
The CRI requires a significantly higher
[28:14] staffing ratio than the minimum security
unit at the main jail.
[28:18] Uh CRI has two deputies for 30 beds and
versus two deputies for 96 beds at
[28:24] minimum security.
Even if the payroll positions already
[28:28] list existed, taxpayers are still
devoting substantial county labor
[28:33] resources to operate the CRI.
That's why I think the staffing costs
[28:37] make the salaries relevant when
evaluating the the true cost of the CRI.
[28:44] And also today I asked about if you
could give us a number
[28:49] I understand you've estimated and you
have to do that if you want to go
[28:52] through the end of the second grant
period. But were you able to come out
[28:56] with a the actual number for through
February through April 30th of 2026 for
[29:01] bed days and and expenses?
>> I have not as of yet, no.
[29:06] » Okay.
And did you take into account that
[29:09] sometimes the beds aren't full? You you
assume that there were 30 beds every day
[29:14] that were full and sometimes they're
not.
[29:16] » Well, that's why I did that
the average census of 24 there right
[29:21] behind.
So that is where the million 3,000
[29:26] divided by
8,760
[29:31] bed days versus the 10,000. So yeah, I
took that into account.
[29:34] » Were you able to give us a breakdown on
between how much money of those
[29:38] professional services was paid [snorts]
to Arissa Health and how much was paid
[29:43] to Returning Home?
>> Not yet, but I can do that too. That's
[29:47] all salaries to Returning Home or Arissa
Health and I'm assuming and you know,
[29:54] for the year if if they're asking for
169, maybe that you know, it's goes 169
[29:59] in the
for the Arissa Health and then minus
[30:03] that 499 would be
Returning Home.
[30:08] » Okay, so to to close what I was
thinking, if we did not provide the
[30:13] Sheriff Deputies for the CRI, the CRI
could not operate.
[30:18] » Correct.
>> If we did not So if we had to hire
[30:21] outside security, which I doubt that we
could even do that because they're in
[30:25] the custody of the Washington County
Sheriff.
[30:30] So but even if we did do that, we'd have
to pay that private security a certain
[30:35] sum.
And we'd be taking that into account as
[30:39] as to how much it was per day, correct?
>> Correct.
[30:43] I mean, I I honestly think that if
if the state came in and audited it,
[30:47] they'd probably include it in there just
cuz you're allocating, you know, they're
[30:51] actually down there.
Is it costing us more money? No, as a
[30:55] county, but it they would allocate it to
that program.
[31:00] » And the taxpayers of Washington County
are paying those deputies.
[31:04] » Correct, but I'm just saying they they
would move back to the jail and not like
[31:08] if they if we closed it, they'd move to
jail and they'd still be getting paid
[31:11] like that.
>> Thank [clears throat] you very much. I
[31:13] think that's all I have.
>> Okay.
[31:16] » JP Ekey.
>> Um yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is
[31:19] there a motion that needs to be made for
10.1 to be passed on to the full quorum
[31:23] court or not just yet?
>> Not No, not not
[31:26] » So, we are just at the
>> there yet. This is This was a report
[31:30] providing information as we we go
through that discussion.
[31:33] » So, number six is what we're discussing,
correct?
[31:38] » It was It was number eight.
>> number eight. Okay.
[31:41] » was CRI update from Comptroller's
office.
[31:43] » Number eight, not number six. Sorry.
Thank you for the clarification.
[31:48] Um
>> Thank you.
[31:49] » If we didn't have the CRI, then we would
have that many more people sleeping on
[31:53] the floor.
I think that's correct.
[31:56] » 30 would move back down on mattresses,
probably.
[32:00] » And these are pre-trial services that we
are providing.
[32:06] » Yeah, I mean, they're they're extra
services for sure, if you want to call
[32:09] them pre-set pre-trial or whatever you
want to call them, but they're extra
[32:13] services trying to reduce the recidivism
coming back into the jail.
[32:17] » I also know that this is a national
program that has been recognized. I
[32:22] mean, this is a program that has been
recognized by the National
[32:26] Association of Counties and received
high praises for
[32:30] what they're doing.
And I also know that mental health
[32:34] services something that
across the country
[32:39] we want, counties want, the government
to provide for and stop you know,
[32:44] through their Medicaid or whatever
services stop funding, but once they are
[32:49] released, then they start funding again.
But during that time, how important and
[32:54] valuable these mental services are
to
[32:58] the people that are being incarcerated.
Um
[33:03] And I know it's it's a movement where we
need to
[33:07] get together and
we can write a resolution to our
[33:11] um
federal legislators and say, "We want
[33:15] mental services paid for."
You This is part of the
[33:21] um
criminal justice system that we need to
[33:24] provide. And we can certainly do that
and take the lead on this
[33:30] to make changes, but until then
I I support
[33:35] what we're doing and
I look at it as, "What is the value of a
[33:39] human being?"
And what is the value of a changed human
[33:44] being?
Who
[33:47] his life was changed, her life was
changed. And also, if once this is gets
[33:51] going
>> [clears throat]
[33:53] » we it paves the way for women.
And to stop this and to cut the legs out
[33:59] from under it from and allowing it to
succeed we're not allowing the women.
[34:05] That's the next phase.
So, let's look at the whole picture and
[34:09] value
a human being, a changed human being,
[34:13] and that's what they're doing. So, I
think these are good numbers. $11.12
[34:18] per bid higher than before. Inflation's
crazy.
[34:22] I mean, ground beef is outrageous. So,
anyway
[34:26] that's inflation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[34:29] » Thank you. J.P. Leming.
[34:33] Paul, can you tell me Thank you, Chair.
The
[34:36] how much the grant was for the first
year?
[34:39] Total amount of the grant?
>> Uh the total
[34:41] » was 355, correct?
>> Our part was 118, the match, and the
[34:46] federal reimbursement amount was 355.
>> Okay.
[34:50] And on the second year?
>> The second year, our match was 94.
[34:55] » Right.
>> And
[34:57] grant was 284.
>> Okay.
[34:59] » I'm assuming it might might be a little
bit higher in the first year because of
[35:02] startup costs and things like that.
>> [clears throat]
[35:05] » And now we're up to 1.3 million.
>> Uh well, well, the one point The thing
[35:11] is is we didn't
the the officers are 710,000. That's the
[35:16] biggest expense. That's a county
expense, so you got to put it in there.
[35:20] Um and then the 28,000 for utilities, we
pay that.
[35:25] Um and then if we do this mental health
services at 169 and the match, that's
[35:31] what makes up that 1,003,000 there.
>> Thank you.
[35:39] » JP Bruns?
[35:42] » Thank you, Chair.
Uh one last question.
[35:45] Um
if um
[35:50] if for some reason this grant goes away,
then the program would go away, correct?
[35:57] » Program would either go away or if the
county thought that it was
[36:01] working and a great program, the county
would pony up the additional money.
[36:05] » About 2 million a year, I
>> Uh well, it'd be the We're already
[36:09] It would be that 284,000 additional.
>> Okay.
[36:14] So, if that be the case, and let's say
it did go away,
[36:19] well, my question is
um
[36:23] and Sheriff Cantrell has already hired
people for
[36:29] to fill the positions he took from
down there
[36:33] at the jail.
What do we do with the people?
[36:37] » Uh I think the jail is short no matter
what by like 25 positions. So, Sheriff
[36:43] Cantrell would be overjoyed if that
happened. But, I think that we would
[36:47] hire Isn't that right, Sheriff?
>> Look at that smile.
[36:49] » we hire If we If we hire additional
people. So,
[36:52] » Mhm.
>> you know.
[36:54] I mean, they They can't hire enough
people down there. That's a
[36:56] » Well, yeah, but most of those are going
to be certified. So,
[36:59] » Mhm. Yeah.
>> And you're not going to have certified
[37:02] officers down here usually. So, you're
going to have jailers. So,
[37:07] big difference.
[37:11] Okay. Thank you.
>> JP Paughn?
[37:15] » Yes, thank you. And I wanted to
appreciate
[37:18] what you've done. I wanted to say thank
you, Mr. Chairman, uh
[37:23] for getting these numbers together.
Uh the only thing that
[37:29] maybe not been brought up
in the discussion around the Horseshoe,
[37:34] uh
well, it has, but I'm I'm going to
[37:37] restate.
[37:40] And there might be a question of whether
you want to call the services being
[37:45] provided pre-trial services. Is that not
an appropriate thing to call the what
[37:50] we're doing for
>> It is. I've never I just never thought
[37:54] about it, truthfully.
>> I'm thinking about it as pre-trial
[37:57] services.
Uh
[38:02] by having this number, this small number
of people,
[38:07] housing them someplace else other than
the the jail is is it's a uh
[38:14] it
makes it a little safer and more livable
[38:18] for the detainees
and the detention officers at the main
[38:24] jail.
That's the way I see it.
[38:28] And and uh
[38:32] other part of that or something I do
want to bring up. I want to pay a
[38:36] compliment to our our sheriff.
In the past
[38:42] when there was room at the main jail
some of this same same sort of thing,
[38:48] these programs
when it was not so overcrowded
[38:54] because of the growth we've had in this
county in the
[38:58] the larger number of people we have
coming detaining these to that jail.
[39:04] Uh
and we have a we have a sheriff that's
[39:07] uh of a of a mind to provide this sort
of thing where they can, but
[39:12] there there's just not room for it at
the jail at this time.
[39:17] And and
don't know when there would be any time
[39:20] in the future and
also
[39:26] what we do here, we we can't pass laws
or take away laws
[39:33] that cause the jail to be fuller
or emptier. We don't write the laws.
[39:42] We and and uh
we're not we're not part of the
[39:46] judiciary branch of government. We don't
determine who gets put in that jail or
[39:52] how long they got to stay.
But it is our responsibility to do
[39:57] anything or whatever we can
to uh make that facility is decent and
[40:06] livable as we could.
And I would do appreciate anybody else
[40:10] that's brought up
detainees [clears throat]
[40:14] who have broken the law, they are human
beings, they are individuals. And I And
[40:19] I want to thank these folks back here in
the corner for what they do
[40:23] to uh
[40:25] to make improvements for the situation
and for as many of them as we can.
[40:29] They're
They're providing uh
[40:32] tools that life skills tools, if you
will.
[40:37] To make life better for themselves
and their neighbors and anybody in the
[40:42] community.
I Yeah. I sure appreciate it. Thank you
[40:46] again.
>> To piggyback on that, that's probably
[40:50] That's That's partly why I'm such a
proponent of this is because the only
[40:54] people left holding the bag are the
county jails. The state
[40:58] You see what they're doing? They They
can't get it right. They're trying to
[41:01] build a 3,000-bed facility that's 30
miles away from a water source. They say
[41:05] it'd take a decade to build a pipeline.
And meanwhile, we got people sleeping on
[41:10] the floors. So, anything that takes
pressure off the jail, I'm a proponent
[41:14] of.
>> JP [clears throat] Cogger, I I notice
[41:18] you've asked to be recognized. You've
spoken twice on this subject. I'll need
[41:21] a motion to suspend the rules for a
third time.
[41:24] » So moved.
May I second the motion?
[41:26] » Second.
>> Okay, so I have a motion by JP Pond to
[41:30] allow JP Cogger to speak for a third
time and a second by JP Lopez. All those
[41:35] in favor, say I.
>> I.
[41:36] » All those opposed?
Thank you, JP Cogger.
[41:40] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I did not
realize I had But you're correct. I
[41:43] have.
>> We all
[41:45] » Uh
Okay. Uh I just want One thing I forgot
[41:48] to say is if we did count the uh
the deputy salaries, as I have said that
[41:53] we should, even if we get the full
remaining AR set grant, there will be an
[41:58] overall deficit of approximately
$483,000
[42:01] if we count those salaries in. Thank
you, Chair.
[42:07] » So, you're you've already included
deputy salaries in your calculations
[42:11] that came up with $11 more per bed.
>> Correct.
[42:14] » Correct. That's what I thought. Okay.
Just making sure. There's a lot going on
[42:17] and I thought you had, but then I
started seeing
[42:20] » Yeah, that is the That is the biggest
portion of the expense. Out of a million
[42:23] out of a million three 3,000 710 of it's
>> Yeah, so the
[42:28] » detention option.
>> deputy salaries are in what you've done,
[42:31] which I think the I agree. I think they
should be because they're being used for
[42:34] them. Gives us the true cost of that
program.
[42:37] And we're still at just $11 over what
they would
[42:40] » if you just send them to detention.
>> JP Ecky.
[42:43] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just
curious because I heard JP Coger say
[42:47] that
these are not pre-trial services.
[42:51] Um that the CRI is
I just heard just
[42:56] from over there to here.
If If the chair would allow, what do you
[43:00] consider
pre-trial services?
[43:04] I mean, I don't I'm not
It's always comes up that these are not
[43:08] and when they are.
So
[43:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's your
discretion.
[43:14] » Go ahead.
>> Thank you. I'm happy to answer that, JP
[43:17] Ecky. Thank you very much. The National
Association of Pre-Trial Services and
[43:21] the American Bar Association defines
pre-trial services as any as those
[43:26] services that will get someone released
from from jail on the least restrictive
[43:31] conditions possible as quickly as
possible. When you're keeping people
[43:36] locked up when they're pre-trial, that
is not pre-trial services according to
[43:40] those that I just cited. Thank you.
>> So it's locked up even though our judges
[43:47] like Judge Beaumont
defers people to the CRI.
[43:52] And it's non-violent criminals.
[43:57] So at least now we know. Thank you.
Thank you for that clarification.
[44:02] » Thank you, Chair. I remembered my other
question. And this is a little bit
[44:05] outside Well, it's
pretty much outside the scope of this
[44:09] financial discussion,
but I think the other, you know, now
[44:12] that we have these numbers, I think the
other piece of data that I'd really like
[44:17] to see is what is the recidivism rate in
the CRI versus the recidivism rate
[44:26] for the population of the main jail. And
to compare those two numbers apples to
[44:30] apples, and to me that would be
uh
[44:33] that would be an additional number, you
know, in addition to comparing just the
[44:37] the cost of the bed days, and we can go
back and forth over that,
[44:41] but that would be the factor of like the
outcomes, right? And then, related to
[44:46] that is how many, you know, we've run
this where
[44:50] you know, we're still in year two,
right? We're we'll reach the end of year
[44:53] two at in September.
How long should the experiment run
[44:58] for us to get a good handle on what, you
know, cuz year one was set up, right?
[45:03] And then
year two, and how long should the
[45:05] experiment run to be able to know
what the true ongoing recidivism rate of
[45:11] people participating in the program is
versus people who aren't getting these
[45:16] services, uh who have are just sitting
in the main
[45:20] jail,
you know, without without getting this.
[45:23] » [clears throat]
>> Well, I talked to Sheriff Cantrell, and
[45:27] he told me the state looks at it on a
three-year interval.
[45:30] So,
uh that's that's basically they they use
[45:34] a three-year year interval. So, if that
person returns back, I'm assuming within
[45:38] three years, that would be a return, you
know. So.
[45:40] » Okay. Nick, do you have Do you want to
add anything?
[45:45] » [clears throat]
[45:48] » Thank you. Uh so, when we got started,
uh on average 80% of individuals that
[45:54] have lifestyle crimes, non-violent non
non-sexual offenders,
[45:58] um go back 80% of the time. So,
nationally.
[46:01] Um we have not been able to pull the
numbers of everyone else that was in
[46:04] jail. So, our goal the initial KPI was
to drop it in half. So, 40% is what
[46:10] we're shooting for. Over the first 12
months of working with clients and
[46:13] clients getting released, we're at a
19.38%
[46:17] of return to incarceration.
And that's based on FOIA'ing the county
[46:22] jail to get their arrest records.
[46:28] So, just know that's just year one. So,
once they've been out for a second year,
[46:32] they may start getting picked up. So,
please understand we're still shooting
[46:35] for 40.
>> Right. I I I think again, I agree with
[46:38] JP We stopped probably too early. We're
only going one year, we're going in the
[46:41] second year. Yeah. So, is it really we
start looking at year four and you know,
[46:45] based on what I heard came from
the sheriff year four and start looking
[46:51] at that
rate to really start [clears throat]
[46:53] looking to see are we successful or not?
>> Yeah, best practices three years after
[46:58] implementation is when they they do
recidivism rates.
[47:02] » Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thanks.
[47:06] » JP Lemming.
>> I was just going to ask him 19% of 10,
[47:11] 20, 30? How many?
19% of what?
[47:16] » Uh
It'd be on that uh report I sent you.
[47:20] So, it'd be all the people that
graduated the program. Um
[47:24] I don't have the report in front of me.
So, it's the one that I sent was few
[47:28] days ago. Um
>> Yeah,
[47:30] last [clears throat] week.
[47:35] » Any other questions?
[47:39] Seeing none, make you turn nobody sneaks
in. Thank you, sir.
[47:47] Item nine, what was nine, is uh an
ordinance authorizing the Washington
[47:53] County, Arkansas to join the Arkansas
property assessed capital expenditure
[47:57] improvement district. JP Stafford.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[48:03] This was on our agenda last month and we
got a lot of questions answered about
[48:07] it, but there were some additional
questions.
[48:10] There was a request
to
[48:13] um
for us to be sent the the technical
[48:17] standards manual and the program guide,
which we all
[48:20] received in our email. And
Jonathan Raspberry is back again from
[48:25] the Arkansas Advanced
Energy Foundation
[48:29] or Energy Group.
And
[48:32] I think before making a motion to move
forward, I just wanted to see if anyone
[48:36] had any
additional questions around this to get
[48:38] their questions answered from from Mr.
Raspberry.
[48:45] » Any questions?
If I remember correctly, last month we
[48:49] landed on there was a document that was
going to come out that JP Coger, I
[48:53] believe you wanted to see. It came out,
we reviewed that.
[48:56] » Okay.
>> They answered you, good.
[48:58] » Okay.
If there's no questions, I'll make a
[49:01] motion to move this to the full quorum
court with a do pass recommendation.
[49:04] [snorts]
>> Second.
[49:12] » So, I have a motion by JP Rio Stafford
to move item nine onto the full quorum
[49:17] court with a do pass recommendation and
second by JP Lopez. Any additional
[49:20] discussion?
[49:23] Any [clears throat] citizen comment?
[49:27] Seeing none,
all those in favor of moving this onto
[49:31] the full quorum court with a do pass
recommendation say I.
[49:33] » I.
>> Those opposed?
[49:37] I believe that passes.
[49:46] So, all those in favor of passing this
onto the full quorum court with a do
[49:50] pass recommendation, raise your hand.
[49:58] All those that
oppose, raise your hand.
[50:03] That passes. I'll move on to the full
quorum court.
[50:06] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[50:11] » [clears throat]
>> Item 10 that was moved up is an
[50:13] ordinance submitting the the community
building initiative grant fund for 2026
[50:19] and for other matters pertaining
thereto.
[50:28] Do I have a motion?
[50:33] JP Ekey
Oops.
[50:35] » Would you restate that?
It's the It's
[50:38] » item 10
>> Item 10, I make a motion that we pass
[50:41] item number 10
to the full quorum court with a do pass
[50:45] recommendation.
[50:49] » So, I have a motion by JP Ekey to move
item 10 onto the full quorum court with
[50:53] a do pass recommendation, second it by
JP Pond. Any discussion?
[50:58] JP Highers
>> Thank you, Chair. Um I was wondering if
[51:01] there's anyone here from AR Care Health
that could speak to us.
[51:06] Yeah. Hi. Thanks.
[51:11] I'm sure you were anticipating this
question. Um AR Care Health has been in
[51:15] the news. Um with the clinics closing in
>> Yes, ma'am.
[51:19] » 41 counties. So, for those of us who on
the horse shoes haven't been
[51:23] paying attention, um the state of
Arkansas actually pulled $4.4 million in
[51:28] state mental health funding recently. Um
I just want reassurances that us
[51:34] entering in the contract with you that
the
[51:36] we're that we're solvent.
>> Um we are.
[51:39] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[51:41] » And if that could be addressed in the
>> she's speaking about a specific piece of
[51:46] our business, the Community Mental
Health Center contract with the
[51:50] Department of Human Services is about
15% of our overall revenues.
[51:55] » Okay.
>> This program specifically is outside of
[51:58] that. Uh
>> [clears throat]
[52:00] » all the work
about 75% of the clients that we serve
[52:05] are all
in services outside of that
[52:08] » [snorts]
>> contract, so there's no worry with that.
[52:11] » Okay. Yeah. Um and this goes back to the
resolution to ask our
[52:16] state to fund mental health services
more because that's $4.4 million that
[52:21] they pulled, so um I'd be down with
that. So, thank you.
[52:25] » I will appreciate that.
>> JP Hackey.
[52:29] » We'll be waiting to see you.
>> [laughter]
[52:33] » JP Koger.
>> Yes, thank you.
[52:36] Not That's okay. Thank you, sir.
>> Okay.
[52:38] » I'd like to ask Mr. Robbins a couple of
questions
[52:42] about before we pass this or before you
vote on this.
[52:51] » [clears throat]
>> Okay, Mr. Robbins, so in the first year
[52:55] of the grant
uh Arisa Health or Ozark Guidance was
[52:59] paid directly by you, correct?
>> No.
[53:01] » What made Returning Home?
>> No.
[53:03] » It didn't come from the county.
Who paid them?
[53:07] » The county.
>> No, Mr.
[53:09] Uh
Sherman has already said it didn't come
[53:12] from the county.
The payments didn't come from the
[53:15] county.
>> That's not accurate.
[53:25] » If if that if that's the case, like I
just look at the overall numbers. So, if
[53:30] if if the county was required to pay it,
I guess we paid it, so.
[53:38] » That came out of the funds that was
approved for Returning Home, but it was
[53:41] not we didn't pay for it. It was the
county funds that moved over to CRI.
[53:45] » that's what I'm trying to say. The
county, we gave the money to you to
[53:49] returning home.
>> No.
[53:51] So, when you guys approved money for the
CRI program, which is the county's
[53:55] program,
>> Mhm.
[53:56] » we have we, Arissa Health, the Sheriff's
Office, numerous entities all provide
[54:02] services.
>> Mhm.
[54:03] » so, they were funded out of that fund
that you guys approved last year.
[54:09] » Okay. Well, how come it's not working
that way this year?
[54:13] How come you're asking for additional
170,000 now?
[54:17] » Um from my understanding, it's cuz
nothing was appropriated for CRI for
[54:20] 2026 except for the match.
Is that correct?
[54:24] » No.
Well, it wasn't mentioned when we did
[54:26] the budget. No one said anything about
this not being included when we did the
[54:29] budget.
>> I mean, I don't work for the county, so
[54:33] I don't I wasn't at the budget meeting.
>> That's Thank you, sir. That's all I have
[54:37] for him. I would like to make one
comment, though.
[54:40] Okay. So, my comment would be that we're
spending a lot of money on this CRI, and
[54:46] I'm not saying it's not doing some good,
but we could have real pre-trial
[54:50] services and get people released from
the jail and stop the overcrowding for
[54:54] around 600 to 700,000 a year depending
on how many pre-trial caseworkers we
[54:59] had. Thank you.
[55:04] » Any other discussion?
So, my my
[55:08] two cents on this.
And I always say that with about four
[55:11] bucks you can go get a cup of coffee at
Starbucks. But anyway,
[55:15] um
you know, I I think it's a good program.
[55:18] I think $11 a bed more than what we're
paying at the detention center
[55:22] is is not is not bad if we can reach the
the the the goals of having them not
[55:28] return, right? I think it's a well-paid,
not a whole lot of money. And so, I
[55:32] support it. Um
what I'm struggling with is is
[55:37] a little bit to what JP Carver was
getting to is is how this occurred and
[55:40] that's not
Returning Home's fault, that's not
[55:43] Arusa's fault, that's the county's
fault.
[55:47] Should have been in the original budget
for CRI.
[55:51] And according to state code in our
budget ordinance, contract should have
[55:55] never been signed unless there was an
appropriation.
[55:58] And we got to do better in the county
on that
[56:01] to not have that continue to reoccur. I
saw it when I first came in that that
[56:05] people would come in and they made
commitments to people to for services
[56:09] that they didn't have money in their
budget to pay for and we had to
[56:12] allocate money in December at the last
minute. It's not the way budgets work.
[56:16] You have a budget
if you don't have enough money through
[56:19] the year to pay for something, you can't
commit to the services. That's the way
[56:22] it works.
And I believe we talked about some
[56:24] training Comptroller Sherman to help
people understand that and that type of
[56:27] thing. So hopefully we can get that that
education out there for for that to
[56:31] occur. So my hope is this will will
happen differently as we
[56:35] go into next year's budget cycle and
move through that.
[56:39] Um but I think we need this program. I
think we need the mental health support
[56:42] in the program [snorts]
to get the results we want to get
[56:46] and therefore I'll I will support. Any
other discussion?
[56:50] Citizen comment.
[56:58] » Good afternoon quorum court. Um
my name is Bryson Austin. I'm a resident
[57:03] of Fayetteville. I reside in uh JP
Washington's uh district. Um
[57:11] First thing I would like to say is that
the CRI was supposed to be a three-month
[57:14] pilot. Supposed to be a three-month
pilot program.
[57:17] Um before that three months was up, they
were already proposing multi-million
[57:22] dollar additions to the old jail um and
adding additional women's beds um cuz
[57:28] there are no women's beds right now.
Um we have not seen the evidence for
[57:32] what this program is doing. Yes, the the
state does track recidivism on a 3 to
[57:37] 5-year revolving basis, so we won't know
um for 3 to 5 years. Um, but also the
[57:44] the original grant for this program
um when they were asking for a three
[57:49] 3-year outlay, um it was about $8
million.
[57:52] Um, um $8 million and then originally it
was supposed to be 70 women um that were
[57:57] added uh and that's been dropped down to
uh to 30 um and it still has the same
[58:03] cost.
The CJCC recommended robust pre-trial
[58:08] services for um the county
to decrease the number of people in the
[58:14] in the jail. The jail has been
overcrowded for a very long time now and
[58:18] they're still
easily about 150, 160 people sleeping on
[58:22] the floor, 358 people being held
pre-trial.
[58:26] Our issue is not with
the the program's idea. It is with the
[58:32] execution. Um what JP Lion said is is
correct, what Chairman Lion says is
[58:36] correct, the county needs to do better.
There was a contract signed before the
[58:41] people with the power of the purse
gave the money.
[58:45] So, that's that's a problem that the
county judge felt it was appropriate for
[58:48] him to sign a contract before he got
your go-ahead. And that's what this
[58:52] entire program has felt like, him
pushing an agenda that was separate from
[58:57] the study that you all funded. $70,000
you funded an assessment asking what the
[59:03] county should do and instead we're
following Nick Robbins and uh Patrick
[59:08] Deacons.
The county judge will not be returning
[59:11] possibly for kind of accounting errors
like this and for behavior like this.
[59:16] There seems to be an endless
amount of questions as to not only the
[59:20] efficacy but the financial well-being
and stability of the CRI. We ask the
[59:24] court request a full assessment of the
CRI's accomplishments and decide whether
[59:28] or not to continue the program. And I
will say an additional note, the
[59:32] national award that the CRI won, they
won for a proposal of an idea. There had
[59:37] been no execution. They won before they
even accepted any people into the
[59:41] program. Before it had started, they won
this national award.
[59:45] You win the national award, apply for it
in March, but you don't start the
[59:49] program until April. It doesn't make
sense what's happening. So, I just ask
[59:53] that we pause and actually develop a
plan within the county. That we that you
[59:58] all work with service providers,
consultants, whatever you need to do to
[1:00:01] develop pre-trial services cuz cuz we
can be serving all of the hundreds of
[1:00:05] people in the jail. Thank you.
[1:00:11] » Good.
>> Hello. My name is Julie and I'm in JP
[1:00:14] Washington's district. Um I just wanted
to point out some of the proposals that
[1:00:18] resulted from the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee. Uh these
[1:00:22] recommendations were available to the
court before the inception of the CRI.
[1:00:26] From the Warehouse Clauses, the Criminal
Justice Coordinating Committee was
[1:00:30] established by Washington County
Ordinance number 2017-44
[1:00:34] pursuant to the Criminal Justice
Efficiency and Safety Act of 2017.
[1:00:39] The CJCC conducted research and an
in-depth study and analysis of criminal
[1:00:43] justice reforms and policies to be
implemented pursuant to the Criminal
[1:00:47] Justice Assessment Study conducted by
the National Center for State Courts in
[1:00:51] 2020. One of the major recommendations
of the CJAS was the Washington County
[1:00:57] invest in a robust pre-trial services
program
[1:01:00] to provide the accused with the adequate
Eighth Amendment protections and case
[1:01:03] management and linkage to the services
to address the root causes of their
[1:01:07] justice involvement.
The National Association of of Counties
[1:01:11] recommends that all counties establish
procedures to screen all arrestees
[1:01:15] booked into county jails to assist
judicial officers
[1:01:18] in making pre-trial release decisions
and to provide the county with a range
[1:01:22] of pre-trial release options. Sorry, my
allergies are bad.
[1:01:26] Those clauses ended with the quorum
county of Washington County, Arkansas,
[1:01:30] for the purposes of reducing
overcrowding in the Washington County
[1:01:33] Detention Center, establishing,
maintaining, and promoting the
[1:01:36] recommendations of the National Center
for State Courts and NAC NAC
[1:01:42] NAC County desires to establish and
create the job positions of peer
[1:01:46] recovery specialist, pre-trial case
worker, and pre-trial supervisor.
[1:01:51] These Those positions would come to an
annual total cost of about $600,000.
[1:01:55] That sounds like a tremendous amount of
man of money, but let's do some quick
[1:01:59] math.
In 2025, Washington County spent $93 per
[1:02:03] detained individual.
If one takes the a jail budget alone and
[1:02:07] divides it by the average population
last year. The current pre-trial
[1:02:11] population stands at 358 per the sheriff
on May 4th at the County Services
[1:02:15] meeting. If 18 people or the jail but
equivalent are released and remain in
[1:02:19] the community as opposed to the jail for
a full year, 365 days multiplied by $93
[1:02:25] a day
times 18 equals $600,000
[1:02:29] and $10 in savings.
The positions net a positive in this
[1:02:32] scenario. If we could get a quarter of
those detained pre-trials out of jail,
[1:02:37] we'd save magnitudes more.
This program would not be about
[1:02:41] releasing those a judge a judge would
deem unsafe. On the contrary, the team
[1:02:45] would be able to provide the court
system with the evidence-based safety
[1:02:48] and needs assessment that has better
than any individual's judgment. We ask
[1:02:51] that the that the court request a full
assessment of the CRI accomplishments
[1:02:55] and decide whether or not to continue
the program.
[1:02:58] In the event the findings are
unsatisfactory, we ask that you consider
[1:03:02] the recommended actions.
Thank you.
[1:03:05] » Thank you.
Citizen's comment.
[1:03:12] » Good afternoon, Kenneth Lovett, Prairie
Grove, Arkansas. I want to echo the
[1:03:16] people that just spoke.
The people of the county have spoken
[1:03:20] clearly that Judge Deacons don't need
return. And that includes a lot of his
[1:03:25] people that's with him, including his
chief of staff and others.
[1:03:28] But, it is up on this Yes. It is up on
this horseshoe
[1:03:35] that needs to make sure things like this
don't happen.
[1:03:39] Judge Deacons led y'all the wrong way.
Y'all were aware of it. And you're
[1:03:42] coming up for votes on it.
In November,
[1:03:46] we'll see how that works out, Mr.
Dennis.
[1:03:48] » Thank you.
[1:03:53] » Any other citizens comment?
[1:03:57] Sorry.
[1:04:00] » [clears throat]
>> So, we have a motion by JP Eckey to pass
[1:04:05] item 10 to the full quorum court the do
pass recommendation, seconded by JP
[1:04:09] Bond. All those in favor, say I. I. All
those opposed?
[1:04:13] » No.
>> Passes.
[1:04:16] » I call for a division of the assembly,
please.
[1:04:19] » All those in favor, raise your hand.
[1:04:23] In favor. Yeah, you sure?
Go ahead.
[1:04:28] Okay, all those in favor, raise your
hand.
[1:04:34] All those that
against, raise your hand.
[1:04:40] It passes. It'll go on to the full
quorum court.
[1:04:48] Going back to the top, item four,
treasurer's report. Treasurer Hill.
[1:04:56] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening,
court.
[1:05:04] This is on?
>> Yes, sir.
[1:05:09] » All right, we'll start at 4.1,
treasurer's summary.
[1:05:13] Again, not a great month for the general
fund as you can see, 5.2 million in
[1:05:17] expenditures compared to 2.2 million
revenue.
[1:05:22] Go down to road.
1.2
[1:05:26] in revenue and 1.3
expenditures.
[1:05:32] And finally down to jail, it's
2 million [clears throat]
[1:05:35] came in and almost 2 and 1/2 went out.
[1:05:40] And at the
bottom of this report, we began a month
[1:05:43] with
70 million in the bank and ended with
[1:05:46] almost 67 million.
[1:05:51] Uh 4.2
comparison this year to last year.
[1:05:57] Revenue is flat as you can see.
General is a little above and so is
[1:06:03] road and jail is down a little bit
mainly because of the flat sales tax.
[1:06:08] Uh next row was the expenditures.
Uh general fund is 2 and 1/2 million
[1:06:15] more
currently than it was in this time in
[1:06:18] 2025.
Road has actually gone down in
[1:06:22] expenditures.
102,000
[1:06:25] and jail is up 124,000.
[1:06:30] 4.3
Started [clears throat] getting our
[1:06:34] current property taxes
in in April.
[1:06:38] First line, you can see 887,000 came in
compared with 650,000 this same time
[1:06:45] last year. It's a
36% increase.
[1:06:49] And you see that second number 7.9
million in May.
[1:06:53] We've already gotten our numbers for
this month and it's 8.4 million.
[1:06:58] So, it's $500,000 increase.
So, that will
[1:07:02] hopefully that will help that
expenditure line.
[1:07:08] Uh 4.4
ARPA report.
[1:07:13] Uh about the only thing we have right
now is the
[1:07:16] COVID mitigation project. About 420,000
was spent in April.
[1:07:22] As you see the
two lines up there totals at 46 million
[1:07:27] 459. That is the total obligations.
Every cent has been obligated.
[1:07:33] And the expenditures for that
so far is 44 million 44.5 million.
[1:07:40] And remaining in the fund as of April
30th is a little over 2.3 million.
[1:07:48] 4.5 the 1 cent sales tax.
879,000
[1:07:53] came in as a
little over 3 and 1/2% increase. So,
[1:07:57] sales tax is starting to show a little
laugh.
[1:08:00] Uh 4.6 the quarter cent jail tax.
Uh 1.3 million came in and that's a
[1:08:07] almost a 4 and 1/2% increase
over 2025.
[1:08:13] And that's all on that report.
Happy to take any questions.
[1:08:17] » JP Ekey.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yell, I
[1:08:20] have a question regarding annexation.
How quickly does that go into effect as
[1:08:25] far as
>> Do what now? I'm sorry.
[1:08:27] » Annexations. When when a
county's annexed by a city
[1:08:32] and that portion no longer goes to the
county. When does that go into effect?
[1:08:38] Is it immediate or at the end of the
budget cycle?
[1:08:41] » Immediate.
>> Immediate.
[1:08:44] » As far as whenever the paperwork is
completed at the state sets the new
[1:08:48] numbers. So, it's not like the census
where
[1:08:51] no, it stays the same for 10 years. Then
it
[1:08:55] whenever you annex it starts
immediately.
[1:08:58] » Oh, wow.
>> Uh
[1:08:59] so,
that's hurt us a little bit this year,
[1:09:01] Not terrible.
>> It does.
[1:09:02] » Uh
I wish we could do something about that
[1:09:06] just annexing
at will
[1:09:09] and not
within
[1:09:11] » Hard West Fork is
trying to like they're going to a vote
[1:09:16] or something on annexation, so
we'll see about that.
[1:09:20] » That would be interesting. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. J.P. Koger.
[1:09:24] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I did send
these questions to Treasure Hill ahead
[1:09:29] of time. I don't like to surprise him,
but he said it'd be better if I just ask
[1:09:33] him out tonight, so
uh if we could look at that report where
[1:09:37] you had uh the ARPA money and um
where it shows ordinance number 23-54
[1:09:45] $1 million in ARPA funds to the EOC. And
then if am I correct that it shows
[1:09:50] expenditures of $572,084.12?
[1:09:56] » Yes.
>> So, that means that we've got
[1:09:58] $427,915.88
[1:10:02] in that one item, correct?
>> Uh
[1:10:06] let's see.
>> Well, I just subtracted of that one from
[1:10:09] a million.
>> Yes.
[1:10:11] » Okay. So, should we consider
transferring or reallocating that money?
[1:10:16] Uh is that something we need to discuss
on the court?
[1:10:18] » I mean, the obligation
period has passed. You can't do anything
[1:10:23] new with it.
Now,
[1:10:26] » Okay.
>> you might
[1:10:28] there might be a consideration you could
move it to a
[1:10:32] Another thing, it's already been
obligated. And pretty much all we have
[1:10:34] left is the
COVID mitigation projects. And I don't
[1:10:37] even know if that's proper according to
the final rules.
[1:10:40] » Okay.
>> But, that may just have to go back to
[1:10:42] the feds.
>> Okay. Well, I hadn't thought about that.
[1:10:45] Uh
Okay, my next question is line item 3511
[1:10:50] the DEM grant, Department of Emergency
Management grant. It shows a deficit of
[1:10:55] $58,173.02
[1:10:59] and we started off April
with a deficit of
[1:11:04] $8,655.
And we had income of $52,000
[1:11:08] and expenses of $101,827.98.
So,
[1:11:13] what did we purchase with that $101,000?
And is it good or is it unusual for a
[1:11:18] grant fund to be overdrawn?
>> That's 4.1.
[1:11:24] Dave, that's 4.1. That
[1:11:29] That'll be line uh line uh 3511.
[1:11:35] It's the first page of that report.
[1:11:40] Is it there? Can you see it? Okay.
[1:11:44] It is not unusual for that grant to be
in the red. It almost always is. It's
[1:11:49] just
Do I like it? No, but
[1:11:53] it is legal.
[1:11:56] 14-15-805
[1:12:00] A grant account that operates as a
reimbursable grant may operate with a
[1:12:03] deficit balance if there is county
general fund balance,
[1:12:08] you know, at least that much in the
fund. The general fund can they can
[1:12:12] cover it if something happens and
may maybe we spent something and the
[1:12:15] grants refused to pay it or something.
That would have to come out of general.
[1:12:20] But as long as
as long as you have enough money in
[1:12:23] general to cover the deficit, it's
perfectly perfectly fine.
[1:12:27] » Okay, what did we buy? What What
Do you know what we bought with that?
[1:12:32] » Uh I looked at April.
I mean, it's several different things.
[1:12:36] Most of it was uh training, instructor
fees.
[1:12:41] We had training with
urban snipers, hostage rescue.
[1:12:47] And then we had
we bought stuff from rescue gear, Smith
[1:12:51] two-way radio.
Just various
[1:12:56] There's no big expenses, but
probably
[1:13:00] 75% of went to those training and
instructor fees.
[1:13:03] » Okay.
And I think you've already answered my
[1:13:06] third question, but there's like Did I
hear you
[1:13:09] » that in there.
>> I'm sorry.
[1:13:11] » I tried to throw that in there on my
report.
[1:13:13] » So, there's 2.3 million left in the ARPA
money as of April 30th.
[1:13:20] » Yes. Uh
if you look but if you look up
[1:13:24] Uh
that's 4.4
[1:13:28] the second half of that report.
Is that
[1:13:31] 4.4?
So, everybody can see what I'm talking
[1:13:35] about.
[1:13:40] It's the second half of that one.
[1:13:44] Okay, right there.
>> Okay.
[1:13:46] » And we have 2.3 remaining in the fund,
but if you look up
[1:13:50] on this report, you see Springdale,
Fayetteville, University of Arkansas.
[1:13:55] They reimbursed for the 911 consoles.
And that money was spent using ARPA
[1:14:00] funds.
So, it's my I don't have a vote, but my
[1:14:04] vote is to send that money back to them.
If not, it's just going to sit there and
[1:14:10] go back to federal government. That's
You actually have 1.9 million
[1:14:15] of actual ARPA funds to spend.
That 2.3 is including those
[1:14:20] reimbursements, those three
reimbursements.
[1:14:23] » Mhm. Okay.
I have
[1:14:26] Um thank you very much. That's all I
have.
[1:14:32] » That's all I got.
>> That's it. Thank you, sir.
[1:14:36] » Thank you.
>> [clears throat]
[1:14:37] » Item five, the employees insurance
report, Mr. Angel.
[1:14:49] » Good evening.
This won't be maybe quite as spirited as
[1:14:52] the others, just some some numbers.
[1:14:56] So, you'll see we had a little more
expensive month
[1:14:59] uh in March than we've had the first
couple of months, but still uh
[1:15:04] I I'm pleased with the numbers as we
finish out the first quarter.
[1:15:07] Uh we did tick up for a total cost of
908,699.81.
[1:15:12] So,
you know, we'd been averaging a little
[1:15:14] over 600,000. So, that's that's quite a
bit more. I can kind of tell you what
[1:15:18] drove that, though.
Um we had an inpatient claim in March
[1:15:22] with with one person that was $182,000.
So,
[1:15:27] that's rough, but you know, this is why
we have the insurance because when
[1:15:29] something really bad happens to
somebody, you know, we can cover that.
[1:15:33] Um
you'll recall we've talked about our
[1:15:35] specific stop-loss before. It's kind of
ironic that number was $182,000.
[1:15:40] Our specific stop-loss plan for the
county uh is $180,000.
[1:15:45] So, that person has now hit their
specific stop-loss for the year. So,
[1:15:50] we do have an aggregating spec in there,
which means all of our folks that hit
[1:15:54] specific deductible have to hit a total
of 100,000, not just one person, you
[1:15:58] know, everyone combined has to go over
by 100,000, and then specific stop-loss
[1:16:03] will start reimbursing us. So,
uh traditionally, we're going to see
[1:16:07] that pretty quickly now that we have
someone over 180,000, but um the the
[1:16:11] point to that is our stop-loss, our
reinsurance will start picking up and
[1:16:15] catching some of these large claimants
for us once we can get through that.
[1:16:20] So, our funding for this month was
719,000,
[1:16:23] which is up about three $3,000 from from
last month. So,
[1:16:28] we had a deficit of 189,000 in March,
but you'll look forward and see we have
[1:16:33] a pharmaceutical rebate there of
$206,400
[1:16:37] and change. So, the reason that's pushed
forward to next month is because they
[1:16:41] give us the number it's going to be, but
they don't just write us a check. It's
[1:16:44] actually in the form of a credit from
our pharmacy benefit manager. So, the
[1:16:48] next $206,000 in prescriptions, we won't
have to write a check for. We just have
[1:16:52] that credit that we operate with the
pharmacy benefit manager. So, it pushes
[1:16:55] it forward to next month. But if you
pull that back to this month when we do
[1:16:59] realize what that number is, we still
ended up plus $17,000. So, um again, not
[1:17:06] the best month. In fact, it's the worst
month of our three, but um
[1:17:09] last year I would have been pretty happy
for this month to be plugged into almost
[1:17:13] anywhere. And uh looking at the first
quarter, uh I am absolutely pleased um
[1:17:18] because we have a a positive funding
difference of $221,566.
[1:17:24] So, after the first quarter, you know,
we're up a quarter million instead of in
[1:17:27] the red. Thank you, Justice Lopez.
So, uh that's that's where we are
[1:17:31] through Q1.
>> Questions for Mr. Angel.
[1:17:38] JP Lopez.
>> No question. I just want to say thank
[1:17:41] you. You know, you I It's
It was a rough year to start last year,
[1:17:45] but you know, you're on fire this one.
>> Well, thank you. Doing our best, sir.
[1:17:50] Appreciate that.
>> Thank you, sir.
[1:17:52] » Thank you all. Have a good night.
>> Item six, the comptroller's report.
[1:17:56] Comptroller Sherman.
[1:18:05] » Which one do we have first?
[1:18:10] Okay.
So, the summary statement of operations,
[1:18:14] we're 33% through the year. And um
everything's looking good. Uh there's no
[1:18:21] nothing that really sticks out to me. Uh
general funds sitting at 29%. So, that's
[1:18:27] pretty good. Uh
you know, we're below budget. Uh then
[1:18:31] the health insurance funds at 31.8. So,
that's one that I watch close all all
[1:18:37] the time, so it's Thank God for
stop-loss insurance. That's all I can
[1:18:41] say for that. Is there any questions on
this report?
[1:18:48] Okay, so the next one is
>> I'm sorry, JP Brunson.
[1:18:52] Um yes, sir. Where is the law library
funds
[1:18:56] that were taken away from the law
library?
[1:18:59] » Yeah, the law library is no longer
uh uh on these reports like you you do
[1:19:05] not have to appropriate that through the
quorum court.
[1:19:09] » Oh.
>> It we we moved it to a 6000 series, is
[1:19:12] that what you call it?
>> Yeah.
[1:19:15] Okay, so there's it it doesn't exist
anywhere.
[1:19:19] » Not on not on this county business, no.
Bobby keeps track of it uh through the
[1:19:24] treasurer for sure.
>> Okay.
[1:19:30] » All right. And he's going to bring he's
he has a whole section on the law
[1:19:33] library himself.
[1:19:40] Okay, the unappropriated reserve, which
is the next three report, uh we didn't
[1:19:44] have any
uh we did not have any requests in uh
[1:19:48] March for appropriation. So, so far this
year, we've only uh had additional
[1:19:53] request of 76,000, which
to me uh shows that we're doing better
[1:19:59] in our budgeting. Uh last year at this
time, we had additional requests of 2.3
[1:20:04] million.
Um different things that went into that
[1:20:07] was the EOC, water conservation,
CRI, uh quorum court, uh per diem, dues,
[1:20:15] and memberships. So, there's a
So, at this time last year, we already
[1:20:19] came back to the well for 2.3 million.
Right now, we've only come back for 76
[1:20:24] plus whatever you do tonight. So, I'm
feeling pretty good about that.
[1:20:31] » Any other questions for Comptroller
Sherman?
[1:20:36] Thank you, sir.
[1:20:39] Item seven, law library update, Treasure
Hill.
[1:20:47] » Dave, could you pull 4.1 up again?
[1:20:52] JP Brown, see where it's at.
This will be on my report every month.
[1:21:03] It'll be a 6009.
[1:21:08] » That's where
That's where you can find it.
[1:21:12] Just on the bottom of that report
that I give every month.
[1:21:18] So, I just want to bring that up to your
attention that
[1:21:20] it is on that list.
[1:21:23] Now, JP Brown did ask me to
gather a little information on the law
[1:21:27] library.
What I'm about to tell you is about all
[1:21:30] I know about the law library, so.
>> [clears throat]
[1:21:34] » First one uh
first page is just the statute for
[1:21:38] county law library.
You can read it as well as I can, but I
[1:21:43] will hit a few high points. It's
First one is county law library shall be
[1:21:47] under the control of a county law
library board
[1:21:50] of not less than three and not more than
five persons who shall be practicing
[1:21:54] attorneys
residing in the county and who shall be
[1:21:57] appointed by the county court from
attorneys nominated by the county bar
[1:22:00] association.
Hold down a little bit, it says
[1:22:03] appointed for five-year terms.
And then it says the board shall direct
[1:22:08] the expenditures
of funds derived for county law library
[1:22:11] purposes.
Any excess funds in the county law
[1:22:15] library
book fund, that's kind of
[1:22:17] interchangeable just from the law
library fund
[1:22:21] not [snorts] needed for the operation
and maintenance of the county law
[1:22:23] library may be expended by the board
for any purpose necessary for the
[1:22:28] improvement in the administration of
justice in the county.
[1:22:33] Let's see.
[1:22:36] When did the law library start? I'm not
sure. This
[1:22:39] This act was the 1971.
I started at the county in '97 and
[1:22:45] we've always had had it, so.
[1:22:50] Next page.
[1:22:55] It just says chart at the top. I know
that's kind of vague, but this came from
[1:22:59] the
Arkansas Legislative Audit Manual.
[1:23:03] And this is where they tell us to put
this law library fund 6009
[1:23:08] that where it is currently residing.
You see at the top it says agency funds
[1:23:13] no appropriation required.
So, that's reason it doesn't come before
[1:23:18] you.
It won't come before you anymore under
[1:23:21] the budget unless
things are changed, but historically we
[1:23:25] kept it in
the 3400 series which came before the
[1:23:29] court. I believe that
goes back to a long time ago where
[1:23:35] a certain law library board
didn't want to I guess mess with the
[1:23:39] day-to-day operations of the
law library, so they wanted to come
[1:23:43] through here to
I guess be easier for them. I'm not
[1:23:47] sure.
That's what I remember, but that's 30
[1:23:50] years ago, so.
However, that that was never properly do
[1:23:55] it that way and before I
leave the county I'm trying to get
[1:23:58] everything
the way it's supposed to be, so.
[1:24:02] » [clears throat]
>> See, it said the board
[1:24:05] like I said, the board should make
decision on expenses and there shouldn't
[1:24:07] be any budget constraints
as long as it's spent on the
[1:24:11] administration of justice and approved
by
[1:24:14] the library board.
The last sheet here.
[1:24:20] This is just the financials the last two
and a half years.
[1:24:23] Biggest revenue stream is the district
courts.
[1:24:27] This is based on percentages that go
back to the
[1:24:31] mid-1990s is called was called Act 1256.
And they they based they put percentages
[1:24:38] on stuff like
we give money to the jail, public
[1:24:41] defender, prosecuting attorney, and the
law library based on percentages.
[1:24:46] However, that act was replaced by Act
371 of last year.
[1:24:51] That doesn't You still have to fund the
law library, but there's no
[1:24:55] provisions or percentages telling you
how much.
[1:24:59] You could give them a dollar a year.
However, this is still a work in
[1:25:03] progress. The municipalities and the
counties are
[1:25:07] still getting [clears throat] training
on all this, so
[1:25:09] it's still a work in progress, like I
said.
[1:25:13] But I tried to make little notes on the
side of these
[1:25:17] expenses
to kind of let you know what it is.
[1:25:21] Sometimes it's not clear.
Uh
[1:25:25] see at the very bottom of that as a 427
there was 352,000
[1:25:30] in that fund.
Let's see.
[1:25:37] And you can see all the expenses there.
Only thing we've expended this year
[1:25:41] is we're fulfilling the contract we have
with LexisNexis, which is an online
[1:25:45] search engine engine.
So, that's the only expense we've had
[1:25:49] this year.
Now, I can take any questions. I'll try
[1:25:54] to answer them.
>> JP Brooms.
[1:26:02] Well, the
the thing I don't understand is
[1:26:07] we
we have an appropriation to the law
[1:26:12] library
out of our county funds.
[1:26:18] And we
>> Uh
[1:26:20] » From last year or
>> What are you talking about? Anytime.
[1:26:23] » Okay.
>> We have had.
[1:26:26] Okay.
>> have had.
[1:26:27] » Okay.
>> [clears throat and cough]
[1:26:30] » However,
and and those county funds
[1:26:35] are voted on in our overall budget by
the quorum court.
[1:26:40] » That's correct.
>> And it's passed by the quorum court.
[1:26:44] Okay.
So,
[1:26:47] we have
um
[1:26:51] designated for a certain entity.
And then
[1:26:57] it gets dissolved
and all of a sudden it's gone.
[1:27:03] » Well, nothing's been dissolved.
I mean, the
[1:27:06] » The
the law library's not been dissolved?
[1:27:10] » Not that I'm aware of.
[1:27:14] I mean, it It did move fund numbers.
>> Okay.
[1:27:18] » But it's still the same.
No money has changed. The money went
[1:27:22] from
that 3400 series to the 6000 series.
[1:27:25] » then who are the
um
[1:27:28] board members?
>> Right now, there's only one. That's
[1:27:31] Attorney Baker.
What I understand there was
[1:27:36] two that resigned and two others were
appointed, but they didn't show up to be
[1:27:40] sworn in.
So, as of right now, we have one board
[1:27:44] member.
[1:27:46] » And that is
>> Attorney Baker.
[1:27:51] Assistant County Attorney.
>> Oh, um
[1:27:54] Catherine Baker.
>> Yes.
[1:27:56] » Okay.
All right. Um
[1:28:00] So,
[1:28:04] we took money that the county allocated,
this
[1:28:09] horseshoe allocated
for the law library
[1:28:15] and we paid off a car.
>> That's correct.
[1:28:20] » for a private entity.
>> That's correct.
[1:28:26] » That we have a contract with, but
there's nothing in that contract about
[1:28:31] telling
us we'll pay a car off.
[1:28:34] » Not that I'm aware of.
>> It's just all of a sudden, poof, we paid
[1:28:38] a car off.
[1:28:41] Okay. And
that's what I don't understand. We're
[1:28:47] missing something here
that
[1:28:52] I
I can't help but think that shouldn't
[1:28:55] have been appropriated by this
horseshoe.
[1:28:59] » Well, I mean, it still has to be signed
off on
[1:29:02] a library board member.
Now, last year, I don't I don't know how
[1:29:06] many
I think they had three or
[1:29:09] board members.
>> Right.
[1:29:11] » It still has to be signed off by the law
library board.
[1:29:14] » Uh-huh. And only one signed off on it,
correct?
[1:29:18] » It was signed off on that vehicle to be
paid off.
[1:29:22] » One
board member signed off.
[1:29:27] » Yes, one There's only one signature on
the invoice.
[1:29:30] » Uh-huh. And there were three board
members at the time.
[1:29:32] » I'm not sure at the time
when this was paid off, I'm not sure
[1:29:37] about
the board members.
[1:29:40] » Okay.
[1:29:44] I just I just don't understand, I guess,
how
[1:29:51] we can appropriate the money out of our
county funds
[1:29:57] » [clears throat]
>> and then send it to an entity. It would
[1:30:02] uh It would seem only right
that if that
[1:30:11] money got taken out and
who decided where the money be taken out
[1:30:17] or not?
>> Not the vehicle?
[1:30:20] » Uh no.
Uh out of the out of the law library.
[1:30:24] Who decided that?
>> Take money
[1:30:29] I'm not sure I understand the question.
>> Okay.
[1:30:32] You have money left over in the law
library.
[1:30:36] » Yes.
>> And all of a sudden
[1:30:39] you zero out law library.
And it put in another account
[1:30:45] that is designated
to be able to be spent however
[1:30:52] without the appropriation of this board.
>> Well, it's it doesn't have to be
[1:30:57] appropriated.
That's why it was moved.
[1:31:00] » Okay, but it was appropriated in.
[1:31:05] But once we appropriated in
then we have no say so.
[1:31:11] » The quorum court does not.
I mean, you really don't you have say so
[1:31:16] before
to set their the amount of budget that
[1:31:19] they requested.
But the law library still the law
[1:31:23] library board
was still in charge of the expenses.
[1:31:28] The same way now it's just there's no
appropriations required. Still the law
[1:31:33] library board
they're supposed is the one supposed to
[1:31:37] be expending the money.
[1:31:41] But it was my suggestion
to get it in compliance with the
[1:31:45] legislative audit.
It's my suggestion.
[1:31:48] » Okay,
as in
[1:31:51] what aspect in compliance?
>> To move it from the 3400 series into the
[1:31:58] what legislative audit says it should
where it should be.
[1:32:04] » Okay.
[1:32:08] Without any notification to this board
whatsoever.
[1:32:13] » County court court.
>> to get a court order.
[1:32:17] Signed by the county judge to
to do this.
[1:32:20] » You had to do what? Get a court
>> order.
[1:32:23] » From?
>> County judge, the county court.
[1:32:27] To move money
from one fund to the other.
[1:32:30] But I mean that
I suggested that would probably be the
[1:32:34] best thing to do.
>> So, you got a court order
[1:32:39] on the county court.
>> Mhm.
[1:32:41] » Not a judicial court.
>> Correct.
[1:32:45] » Okay.
And that person paid off
[1:32:49] this vehicle.
Is that correct?
[1:32:52] » They did what?
>> That That person is the one who directed
[1:32:56] for this vehicle to be paid off?
>> It is County Judge Deacons.
[1:33:02] » Okay.
[1:33:05] That's what
>> Well, I mean it's Again, it's
[1:33:10] It's the law library board's decision.
Whether it's budgeted or not, it's still
[1:33:14] their decision on the expenses.
That's who That's by statute.
[1:33:19] » The one lone person who works for the
judge.
[1:33:22] » Well, when the vehicle was bought, I'm I
don't know the I don't I don't know the
[1:33:25] makeup of the law library at that time.
Law library board.
[1:33:28] » Well, the law library
bought I mean, didn't buy the car. The
[1:33:34] uh returning home bought the car, and
they bought it with an ARVFS loan.
[1:33:40] » Yes.
>> We paid the loan off.
[1:33:43] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:33:45] Without
>> [snorts]
[1:33:48] » you know, by bringing the money back to
the county judge who had sole
[1:33:56] say so on
what was going to happen with this
[1:34:00] money.
And then
[1:34:05] he authorizes the payoff
and gets that car paid off.
[1:34:12] I mean, it just
it smells bad.
[1:34:20] » It It signed off over for me and
>> Well, I I don't blame you. But I I know
[1:34:26] » to write the check so
>> I don't blame you at all. Uh
[1:34:29] I just wanted to make sure I got it
right from you.
[1:34:33] You know, I I I clearly understand that
you did what
[1:34:40] you know, the law what you thought the
law stated and
[1:34:43] and so I I commend you for that, but
it's just, you know, we appropriate that
[1:34:49] money out, we should be able to
appropriate that money to wherever we
[1:34:54] go,
you know, to
[1:34:58] you know, I I just that's 300 and some
thousand dollars that
[1:35:03] we could have had back in our
budget
[1:35:09] insurance things.
>> That's specific money that's supposed to
[1:35:12] go to law library. It's not It is
Well, it's judicial uh
[1:35:18] municipalities district courts
user fees, court costs.
[1:35:24] Part of that goes to law library
by statute.
[1:35:29] I mean, that's
We're not stealing stealing. Shouldn't
[1:35:33] say that in open court. We're not taking
for the general fund or anything like
[1:35:37] that.
That money is specifically specifically
[1:35:41] specifically for the law library.
>> We We when we appropriated it, we gave
[1:35:45] it out of the general fund.
>> No, you appropriated it out of the law
[1:35:50] library fund
to be spent.
[1:35:56] It's all in the law library fund. It's
doesn't have anything to do with any
[1:35:59] other fund.
>> Okay, so when we budgeted
[1:36:04] the money that we budget for the the the
big budget
[1:36:09] does not come out of general fund.
>> Does not.
[1:36:14] It's got its specific revenue stream
that goes to the law library to be spent
[1:36:18] on the administration of justice by the
law library board.
[1:36:28] » Okay, thank you.
>> You're welcome.
[1:36:33] » JP Hires
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I I don't know
[1:36:37] that you're the person to ask this
question of.
[1:36:40] » Well, we'll try.
>> I'm just going to throw this question
[1:36:43] out in case someone can answer. I just
want to circle back
[1:36:47] to um the statute or this uh what is it?
The citation?
[1:36:52] A county law library established
pursuant to this chapter shall be under
[1:36:55] the control of a county law library
board
[1:36:58] of not less than three nor more than
five persons. Are we in violation if we
[1:37:02] only have one member on that board?
>> If it's
[1:37:05] If anything's expended with just one
board member, I would assume we would be
[1:37:09] out of compliance.
>> So, we are out of compliance. Okay, and
[1:37:12] do you know how long we've been out of
compliance?
[1:37:15] » I do not.
I don't I'm not sure when those other
[1:37:18] ones resigned and when the others didn't
show up to be sworn in. I'm
[1:37:22] » Okay, we just we we very quickly
managed to appoint new people to a
[1:37:27] planning board, so I'm very curious as
to how long this has been going on and
[1:37:32] why we haven't
why I'm just now hearing about it. Very
[1:37:35] curious. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
[1:37:42] » JP Coker
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I think
[1:37:46] um my question is sort of like what JP
hires just asked and but you said
[1:37:51] more it's that that we're out of what
and what word did you use?
[1:37:55] » compliance.
>> Compliance. So, my question is for
[1:37:58] county attorney Mr. Lester, do we even
have a valid library board in Washington
[1:38:03] County right now if if we don't have at
least that three
[1:38:07] at the statute says shall
>> Right.
[1:38:11] » So, do we even have a valid library
board?
[1:38:14] » We have so, as it stands now, we have
one member of the county law law library
[1:38:19] board, which means the board cannot take
any action.
[1:38:23] Um so, to give some history, there were
several board members who did not take
[1:38:29] their oath.
And so, the judge appointed board
[1:38:32] members in their absence like an
emergency absence.
[1:38:36] The Washington County Bar Association
sent over two nominees to fill the two
[1:38:40] spots that were vacant after those
appointments.
[1:38:44] The judge through you all filled those
appointments. You all approved those
[1:38:48] appointments.
Those two individuals, based on my
[1:38:51] understanding, did not ever come in and
have never taken the oath of office and
[1:38:56] therefore never took their positions.
Now, understand I'm I'm going to be very
[1:39:00] limited on what I say about this because
there is a pending lawsuit against the
[1:39:04] county
against the county judge who I
[1:39:07] represent, not the law library board.
Um
[1:39:12] after that lawsuit was filed, two
members who were on the board resigned.
[1:39:18] That was after the three members that
were on the board voted
[1:39:23] on these expenditures, which the board
gets to do. And going back to what
[1:39:27] Treasurer Hill said, this is not county
general funds. These are dedicated funds
[1:39:33] that are outside of the control or
um
[1:39:37] really outside the appropriation of the
quorum court because these are dedicated
[1:39:42] funds. And the law library has the the
board has the authority to utilize those
[1:39:47] funds as it seems as it sees fit.
Um I think over the past I think
[1:39:53] historically what happened is this this
quorum court would appropriate funds
[1:39:59] based on the request from the law
library board.
[1:40:03] Um but even before this statute new
statute was passed, it was very clear in
[1:40:08] the law
that the law library board controlled
[1:40:12] the funds of the law library.
Right?
[1:40:16] So, the fact that this quorum court
appropriated funds to a budget is kind
[1:40:21] of irrelevant
in my opinion.
[1:40:25] Um the statute was clear that those
funds were to be utilized and controlled
[1:40:29] by the law library board.
And so, um
[1:40:33] yes, there were expenditures.
My understanding, and I can't cite
[1:40:37] specifically uh what that is, cuz I am
not a member, nor have I ever been a
[1:40:41] member of the law library board,
was that the three members voted
[1:40:47] unanimously uh on these expenditures,
which would uh which is
[1:40:53] a majority vote, which is all that's
required for the expenditures. These
[1:40:57] expenditures all fall under the
administration of justice, which is
[1:41:02] required under the statute of what can
be appropriated from the law library.
[1:41:07] Um and so, um at this time, the actual
lawsuit against the judge and the county
[1:41:14] is that the board members
weren't compliant. Now, we're in a whole
[1:41:19] new area because the two board members
that were on have resigned, leaving one
[1:41:23] board member that was
appropriately approved by the county bar
[1:41:28] association. So, as it stands now, the
law library board is vacant four
[1:41:34] members.
Um
[1:41:36] so, it can't conduct any business at
this point until the members that were
[1:41:42] sent and approved by you are sworn in,
and that hasn't happened cuz they
[1:41:46] haven't been sworn in.
Um so that's kind of where we are right
[1:41:50] now.
>> Okay. Um who How would I get a copy of
[1:41:55] the minutes of the board meeting where
those were approved? Who would I
[1:41:57] contact?
>> Uh you could ask Ms. Baker uh or you
[1:42:01] could look up the lawsuit because that's
all included in all of that.
[1:42:05] » Okay. Just a couple more questions.
Where is the law library?
[1:42:12] » There So well, if we want to get into
it, I'll be happy to tell you about the
[1:42:15] law library.
>> Well, but is it it's located
[1:42:18] » let's go ahead.
>> Okay.
[1:42:19] » The law library
was uh at the historic courthouse.
[1:42:25] We were paying a uh law librarian about
$5,000 a month to manage the law
[1:42:31] library.
What we found out is that individual
[1:42:35] came into the office about once a month.
Didn't have a computer that was even
[1:42:40] hooked up to the internet or anything
like that. So we had a bunch of old
[1:42:43] books down there.
Um basically
[1:42:48] law library research is now all digital.
They don't produce books like they used
[1:42:54] to. Used to you would go We have a law
library at the law school that is
[1:43:00] has everything you could ever imagine.
>> I'll go with that.
[1:43:02] » have that at the county. So it was an
online resource for people that needed
[1:43:07] it.
What we found out or what I understand
[1:43:10] that we found out was the only people
that ever accessed
[1:43:14] the
account that the law library paid for
[1:43:18] were members or former members of the
law library board who are utilizing that
[1:43:24] as a research tool in their private
practice, which is illegal.
[1:43:28] Okay?
That's That's what the law library is
[1:43:31] for.
These people had access, they were the
[1:43:33] only people that had access, and that's
what they utilized it for in their
[1:43:36] private practice. As a lawyer, we can't
do that.
[1:43:40] Um
So,
[1:43:42] uh we set up there were kiosks that were
set up for research.
[1:43:48] Uh I believe statistically there was one
or two people a month for the past, I
[1:43:54] don't know how many years,
that would actually utilize those
[1:43:59] research tools.
And so, um
[1:44:04] that's kind of my understanding without
any further detail, and and that's just
[1:44:08] kind of what I I believe I've heard is
the is what's going on. That's kind of
[1:44:13] what where the law library was.
>> So, if I could find a kiosk, I Is it
[1:44:18] open to the public?
>> Absolutely. That was the purpose of the
[1:44:21] law library is to be open to the public.
>> So, where should I start looking for a
[1:44:25] kiosk?
>> Well, the the kiosk that had been set up
[1:44:28] years ago, uh one was at the Jones
Center,
[1:44:32] and then there was a kiosk set up at the
historic courthouse. Yet, none of those
[1:44:37] computers were plugged in to the
internet
[1:44:40] or the electrical outlets.
>> Or the what?
[1:44:43] » The electrical outlets.
>> Oh.
[1:44:46] » Which is what it takes for a computer,
obviously, to run. Yeah.
[1:44:50] » Okay, so the Jones Center would probably
be my best bet then.
[1:44:54] » Last I heard, yes. I I've never been
there, I've never seen it, I don't know
[1:44:57] anything about it, but that's what I
heard.
[1:44:59] » So, do I need a password?
>> Uh I believe that I don't I don't I
[1:45:04] can't answer that. I can't answer any of
those questions. My understanding was
[1:45:07] there was it was set up where someone
could come in, the password and every
[1:45:12] the username and password was there
available. Um
[1:45:16] but I don't I I've never utilized that,
so I don't know. At one point the law
[1:45:20] library
there's a building right next to um
[1:45:27] I don't know Barristers Building is what
it used to be called.
[1:45:30] So, the historic courthouse, if you go
north of building, there's the old
[1:45:34] theater as it was called. Um I know at
one point there was Mitchell
[1:45:39] Communications in there and then Seven
Brew was in there.
[1:45:42] Right next to it is a building that you
can see the top level
[1:45:46] uh from college. There's a garage
entrance between
[1:45:51] between the um theater building and the
old jail
[1:45:55] that people go into I don't know who
owns that or whatever, but at one point
[1:45:59] when I I know before I was at the
county, the law library was actually in
[1:46:02] that building, which is a private
building not owned by the county or
[1:46:05] anything.
Um
[1:46:08] Last uh last time the law library was
down on the on the ground floor where
[1:46:13] you come into the historic courthouse,
that's where the actual law library was
[1:46:18] contained
um at some point.
[1:46:20] » Okay, thank you.
>> You're welcome.
[1:46:27] » JP Brunz.
Um
[1:46:30] yes, sir.
Uh if that's
[1:46:33] if that money does not get appropriated
um through
[1:46:39] this horseshoe
can we remove it off of the budget?
[1:46:46] » It won't be on the budget coming up.
>> Okay.
[1:46:50] All right. So,
but it's been on the budget the past.
[1:46:54] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:46:56] So, you've removed it off the budget.
That's good.
[1:46:59] » Yes.
>> Yeah. All right. Thank you.
[1:47:01] » You're welcome.
[1:47:04] » JP Leming.
>> Thank you, Chair. Brian, are we paying
[1:47:08] anybody now to do that?
>> No, we're not.
[1:47:11] » Okay, so that 5,000's going into the
library fund.
[1:47:14] » That's correct.
>> Thank you.
[1:47:18] » Any other questions?
[1:47:22] Treasurer Harold, do you have anything
else?
[1:47:24] » Nope, that's all I had.
>> All right, thank you, sir.
[1:47:26] » Thank you.
[1:47:38] » Thank you.
[1:47:40] » Okay, now we're jumping to item 11.
Which is an ordinance amending the
[1:47:46] county jail operations and maintenance
budget for 2026. As I understand it,
[1:47:51] this is
re-appropriate there were
[1:47:54] funds appropriated for replacement of
air conditioners that we do so many
[1:47:59] every so year every every year.
And so, [clears throat] last year it
[1:48:04] wasn't fully used, it was pulled into
the unappropriated or pulled it back out
[1:48:07] of unappropriated so we can do that this
year. Sheriff, is Did I state that
[1:48:12] correctly, sir?
[1:48:21] » Uh yes, Mr. Chairman, [clears throat]
that's that's correct. We just didn't
[1:48:24] get it done last year. Uh the year ran
out before we got to spend the money and
[1:48:28] it rolled back into the unappropriated
reserves in the jail fund and
[1:48:31] we'd like to ask that be re-appropriated
so we can continue with our air
[1:48:36] conditioner replacement cycle.
>> Okay.
[1:48:41] JP Lem
[1:48:45] Sorry.
>> Yes, I'd like to make amendment to this.
[1:48:48] I I just really don't think that the
words the writing on
[1:48:52] uh line 18 is necessary. I don't think
it has anything to do with this. I think
[1:48:57] that's just a punch in the sheriff's
gut. So, I'd like to have that language
[1:49:01] removed.
>> Second.
[1:49:03] » So, I have a motion by JP Lemming to
amend this ordinance removing
[1:49:09] line 18
>> and part of 19.
[1:49:11] » Through basically line 18 started with
through through the comma county funds
[1:49:17] on line 19. Is that correct, Mr. Chair?
>> I think that's not necessary.
[1:49:20] » And I have a second by JP Harris. Thank
you, JP Harris.
[1:49:28] Discussion
on the amendment.
[1:49:37] JP Coger.
>> I'm not sure
[1:49:40] I'd like to ask if
the if these were
[1:49:44] what we just removed the
change in procurement procedures or that
[1:49:48] were instituted, what were they and are
they still in effect? Is should that
[1:49:52] wait for the final motion?
>> So, that was in the amendment. So, that
[1:49:56] would say So, it'd still be whereas in
2025 a change in procurement procedures
[1:50:00] was initiated
which required two additional bidding
[1:50:04] processes that had not been required in
years past. First bids were solicited
[1:50:09] for the for a consultant to assist with
the bidding process of the RTUs, then
[1:50:13] the RTUs themselves
to be sent out to bid.
[1:50:17] Is what that would read with the what
we're striking out.
[1:50:20] » Okay.
So, are those
[1:50:23] procurement changes still in effect?
>> My understanding
[1:50:30] regarding the two
the procurement change requiring the two
[1:50:33] different bids, one for a consultant and
one for the
[1:50:36] for the actual units are still in
effect.
[1:50:38] » I think so.
>> Okay.
[1:50:39] » Yeah, I I would say yes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:50:44] » JP Stafford.
>> I'm against removing this because this
[1:50:48] is what actually happened.
>> I'm sorry.
[1:50:54] Sorry, I
[1:50:57] » Thank you, Chair. I was too far away
from the microphone.
[1:51:00] Uh
I'm against removing this language
[1:51:02] because this is just a factual statement
of what actually happened.
[1:51:07] » Okay.
JP Washington.
[1:51:10] » Um thank you, Chair. Is that entire
paragraph needed at all?
[1:51:16] Um,
because we're amending the budget
[1:51:21] because
the bid
[1:51:24] they won the bid in on December 3rd,
right? But, because it was the end of
[1:51:29] the year, it wasn't
funded. And so, now we're basically just
[1:51:33] reappropriating money that we've already
appropriated. Is that second whereas
[1:51:38] even necessary? Does that add any
additional meeting meaning
[1:51:44] to the entire ordinance? I I just don't
believe that it does, and I would just
[1:51:47] like to amend the amendment that that
entire paragraph be removed.
[1:52:05] » Yeah, we do. Let's Let's finish that,
then we'll come back
[1:52:09] to your
further amendment.
[1:52:11] That's okay.
[1:52:15] » You can amend them in a minute.
>> Or you can amend
[1:52:17] Okay.
Okay.
[1:52:21] Yeah, thank you.
So,
[1:52:29] Yeah, so so the the amendment on the
table now
[1:52:33] is to remove the second whereas
entirely. Is that correct? Okay.
[1:52:42] Yes.
By JP Washington, second by JP
[1:52:46] Massengale.
Discussion?
[1:52:53] No discussion. So, we have an amendment
to remove the entire second whereas,
[1:52:58] lines 17 through line 21
from this ordinance by JP Washington,
[1:53:02] second by JP Massengale. All those in
favor say "Aye."
[1:53:05] » Aye.
>> All those opposed?
[1:53:07] » No.
>> It passes. So that second whereas is
[1:53:10] removed.
Which more or less does away with the
[1:53:13] first All right. So the first amendment
dies.
[1:53:17] Good.
[1:53:24] So I I need to entertain a motion on
this.
[1:53:27] » Motion passes.
>> So JP Leming has made a motion to pass
[1:53:31] this on to the full
quorum court the amended ordinance onto
[1:53:35] the full quorum court to do pass
recommendation seconded by JP Dean.
[1:53:40] Any other discussion on this ordinance?
[1:53:46] Seeing none, any citizen comment?
[1:53:50] Seeing none, um have a motion by JP
Leming to pass item
[1:53:55] 11
to the full quorum court to do pass
[1:53:59] recommendation seconded by JP Dean. All
those in favor say I.
[1:54:04] » I.
>> All those opposed?
[1:54:06] That passes.
[1:54:17] So item 12 is an ordinance anticipating
additional revenue in the amount of
[1:54:21] $10,898
in the law enforcement grant fund and
[1:54:25] appropriating $10,898
from the law enforcement grant fund to
[1:54:30] the JAG grant budget for 2026.
[1:54:37] JP Ricker.
>> Motion pass full quorum court do pass.
[1:54:45] » So I have a motion to pass item 12 to
the full quorum court to do pass
[1:54:48] recommendation by JP Ricker seconded by
JP Dean. Any discussion?
[1:54:55] Citizens comment.
I have a motion to pass item 12 to the
[1:55:00] full quorum court to do pass
recommendation by JP Ricker seconded by
[1:55:04] JP Dean. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:55:06] » All those opposed?
That passes.
[1:55:14] Item 13 is an ordinance recognizing
additional revenue in the amount of
[1:55:18] $43,118.57
in the road department fund and
[1:55:22] appropriating $43,118.57
[1:55:26] to the road department budget for 2026.
JP Ricker.
[1:55:29] » Motion pass full quorum court due pass
recommendation.
[1:55:36] » Have a motion to pass item 13 the full
quorum court the due pass recommendation
[1:55:40] by JP Ricker and seconded by JP Dean.
Discussion?
[1:55:45] Citizen comment.
So I have a motion by JP Ricker to pass
[1:55:50] item 13 the full quorum court the due
pass recommendation seconded by JP Dean.
[1:55:53] All those in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:55:55] » All those opposed?
That passes.
[1:56:02] Do we have citizens comments item 14?
[1:56:07] JP Lopez.
>> [clears throat]
[1:56:09] » I would like to add a Should I add items
to the consent agenda after or before
[1:56:13] citizens comment? Now, um I believe the
only ones that qualify then items
[1:56:18] uh 12 and 13 to consent agenda I believe
we weren't in consensus on
[1:56:23] the item before that
>> Which one? 12 13?
[1:56:26] » Uh 12 and 13. I don't think 11 passed
uh without like all in agreement.
[1:56:32] » So 11 you want to add 11 12 and 13 to
>> Okay. Yeah.
[1:56:35] » Is that what Am I
>> Can we add 11? Even if it wasn't Okay.
[1:56:38] Then yes, 11 through 13
on the consent agenda.
[1:56:42] » What's that called?
[1:56:47] » Consent agenda.
>> Thank you. Sorry.
[1:56:51] » Do I have a second?
[1:56:54] » Second.
[1:56:59] » So I have a motion by JP Lopez, seconded
by JP Rickard at to have items 11, 12,
[1:57:04] and 13 on the consent agenda for the
quorum court.
[1:57:07] Discussion?
[1:57:11] All those in favor, say I.
>> I.
[1:57:13] » All those opposed?
Okay, that passes. Item 14, citizen
[1:57:17] comment.
Three minutes per person and a total of
[1:57:21] 12 minutes. Any special citizen comment
tonight?
[1:57:25] Seeing none, thank you for coming
everybody. We're adjourned.