Supervisors table mental-health MOU/28E language after legal concerns; staff to seek clarifications before July

Benton County supervisors voted to table consideration of a memorandum of understanding and an associated 28E intergovernmental agreement for one week so county legal staff can work with the region's attorney to clarify termination language and other vague terms.

County counsel told the board that paragraph 12 of the proposed 28E restricts termination and amendments to action by the governing board and offers no clear withdrawal path for participating counties. "So from a legal's perspective ... how if we don't wanna be a part of it anymore, how can we get out?" counsel asked, recommending revisions before signing.

Board members and staff discussed practical implications for a county employee, referred to as Sarah, who would be temporarily offset to a regional employer-of-record arrangement. Staff described that for the coming year the county could offset payroll and receive reimbursement from DAP for employment expenses, and that benefits such as IPERS would remain. "It would just be payroll and benefits," one staff member said when summarizing what the county would continue to provide if the arrangement proceeds.

Supervisors also discussed logistics including vehicle title changes, insurance and office space for regional staff; staff said vehicles would likely require title changes and insurance and that some equipment and desks could remain in county custody. The board heard that Johnson County and other counties had rewritten or withdrawn from similar 28E language and was urged to consult Johnson County's assistant or regional counsel for suggested language.

After discussion, a motion to table the item for one week so the county attorney could negotiate clarifications with the region's attorney passed on a roll-call vote recorded as Tippett, aye; Seaman, aye; Rules, aye. Several supervisors emphasized they remain supportive of keeping employees whole while seeking contractual clarity, but the board refused to sign the proposed 28E without clearer termination and service provisions.

Staff were directed to circulate revised language, consult the region's counsel and other counties' suggested edits, and report back at the next meeting. The board also requested written clarification of funding flow (monthly upfront reimbursements versus back-end reimbursement) and a timeline for issuing an RFP for employer-of-record services.