Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Fund Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses staff to reconcile $779,559 court-fund reimbursement MOU and move $250,000 for courthouse projects to capital
Summary
BET discussed discrepancies in court fund reimbursement receipts versus MOU amounts, identified a shortfall of about $107,002 in receipts last year, and directed staff to group related revenue lines and consider moving the $250,000 courthouse maintenance allocation to county capital as a revolving fund.
BET held an extended discussion of court fund revenues tied to an MOU between the county and the district courts that allocates courthouse maintenance and juvenile facility reimbursements. The board found the revenue reporting on its budget pages split the MOU dollars across several lines and not summarized, which obscured whether the county actually received the full $779,559 MOU amount for FY24–25.
Staff reported actual receipts for the prior year in segmented codes: a $422,342 payment and other amounts (for example, a $246,892 component and around $107,002 that staff said appears to be missing when compared to the MOU). A staff member said the comparison showed the county was about $107,002.17 short of the MOU amount for the prior year.
Members discussed that the MOU earmarked $250,000 for capital projects (carpet, drapes, flooring) and the remainder to reimburse regular courthouse and juvenile maintenance costs (the “5.29/5.59” and similar line items). There appeared to be inconsistency in how the revenue was coded and presented (lines 11, 22 and 25 were called out); the board directed staff to group the three court-related revenue lines together so the total equals the $779,559 MOU total and to correct formulas that were subtracting the wrong columns in the spreadsheet.
Board direction and outcome: the board asked staff to (1) verify deposit records and check copies to reconcile why the full MOU amount was not visible on the revenue page, (2) reach out to the court’s contact (Renee) to confirm invoicing and payment practice, (3) present the MOU and checks that were deposited, and (4) change future budgeting so the $250,000 for capital projects is placed into county capital as a revolving or dedicated capital receipt instead of routing it through general fund and repeated transfers. Staff said it is feasible to start that change in the next fiscal year and to bring the corrected revenue presentation to the next BET meeting.
Ending: the BET made no budget appropriation change at the meeting but voted to have staff fix the revenue presentation and to prepare the recommended accounting change (moving the capital portion to county capital) for the next budget-board action.
