The Oklahoma County Budget Evaluation Team spent substantial time discussing a $21,600 payment tied to a memorandum of understanding between the county clerk's office and the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority and took no action, instead agreeing to investigate the accounting and budgeting process further.

A presenter placed the item on the agenda for discussion and said the payment was not captured in the clerk's estimate of needs for the fiscal year. Team members raised questions about whether the funds were already incorporated into the clerk's budget and whether routing the funds directly back to the clerk's office would create double-counting or set an undesirable precedent. One member noted the $21,600 amount "has been the same number that it's been since 2020."

Participants described the county's historical practice: invoices for services provided by county offices are often paid by external partners and deposited to the general fund; the county then budgets offices based on their estimated needs. Several members said if funds are included in an office's estimate of needs, the revenue is effectively part of the general fund allocation and should not be separately routed back to the office as an additional cash inflow without a corresponding offset to avoid inflating that office's budget.

No motion to transfer funds was made. The team agreed the item required more analysis and that staff should return with details about whether the $21,600 should be captured in next year's estimate of needs or treated differently, and whether similar MOUs (treasurer, MIS, employee benefits) should be handled consistently. The item was parked for post-fiscal-year follow-up and possible watch-list placement for the next budget season.

Why it matters: The discussion touches on how the county treats contract payments and reimbursements in the budgeting cycle and whether routing third-party payments into the general fund then back to operating offices creates unintended accounting or policy outcomes.