[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.

Finance and Budget Meeting 5/12/2026

Transcript