Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Corrections Capital topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Release of $2.6 million for St. Augustine jail tied to federal funding request; committee asks staff to check whether request was submitted

2694938 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Committee members were told a $2.6 million bonded appropriation from last year's capital bill for booking expansion at St. Augustine Correctional Facility is subject to a trigger: the secretary of human services must notify that a federal funding request was submitted. Staff will verify whether the request was filed to allow release of the funds.

The committee heard that $2.6 million in bonded funds from last year's capital bill for a booking expansion at the St. Augustine Correctional Facility may be eligible for release only after a notification that a federal funding request was submitted.

Scott Moore of the Joint Fiscal Office and John Gray of Legislative Council explained that last year's appropriation includes a statutory trigger: the commissioner or secretary must notify the finance commissioner that a request for federal funds (for example, from the U.S. Marshals or other federal partners) was submitted. If that notification has been provided, last year's $2.6 million becomes available and can be used in conjunction with $1.0 million proposed in the current draft for roof work and booking construction.

Committee members asked staff to check whether the secretary of human services submitted the required federal funding request and to report back: if the request was submitted, the prior appropriation could be released and used together with this year's money for roofing and booking work; if not, the $2.6 million would remain on hold. Will (staff) said he would look into whether the notice has been submitted.

Members also accepted Legislative Council's point that adding a "notwithstanding" subsection could tighten the language, but that the empirical fact — whether the request has been filed — would determine whether that tightening is necessary. The committee did not vote; staff will verify the federal-request status and reflect findings in the next draft.