Resident questions jail-district tax disclosures; board explains revenue separation and approves outside counsel retention

A Portal resident raised questions during the Oct. 21 call to the public about the jail district half-cent sales tax and inconsistent public statements about how those revenues have been spent.

Allison Morse said she requested records showing the total collected and itemized expenses tied to the sales-tax jail fund and reported seeing over $17 million collected but expense listings of less than $500,000. She asked why the public had been told the board “has not spent any of the jail tax fund” and named several contractors she said had been paid from jail-tax revenues: “Chin Planning, Phil Bordone, and Veneer Construction Management.” She also asked about a reported maintenance-of-effort (MOE) overrun of $1.1 million and why the sheriff’s department had apparent excess funds from the prior year.

Supervisor John Antonori responded that the board had not said it was spending nothing. He explained that revenue generated “solely from the half-cent sales tax” had been sequestered with the treasurer and that, since the current board took office, expenditures charged to planning and construction for the jail came from that sequestered sales-tax revenue. By contrast, he said, maintenance-of-effort expenditures have come from the county general fund. “The sales tax revenue has been sequestered as I’ve said with the treasurer,” Antonori said. “All of those [demands] are maintenance of effort, which is coming out of the general fund, not out of the sales tax.” He added that the board is advancing planning work in anticipation of a future vote on a jail tax renewal and that some emergency repairs (for example a fire-safety suppression/alarm system) were paid from the general fund.

Morse later spoke again during the meeting to register opposition to retaining outside counsel Joseph Canfield, noting that the county has already paid other outside attorneys this year for separate matters and expressing concern about cumulative taxpayer costs. The board voted 3-0 to retain Canfield (Snell & Wilmer LLP) to represent Cochise County defendants in Gruver v. Antinori et al.; staff said the suit had been dismissed before the meeting but that retention was necessary to authorize payment for services already rendered.

Board members and staff acknowledged public confusion and said that the distinction between sales-tax revenues sequestered for capital planning and MOE or general-fund obligations is technical and governed by Title 48 and county procurement rules. Antonori said the board’s approach was to continue planning work so the county could proceed promptly if voters approve a future jail construction measure.

Morse asked the chair to report how many people had submitted speaker forms opposing the outside counsel retention; the board observed the public comment period and the vote proceeded. The meeting record shows the county has committed funds to planning and construction-related professional services while paying other operational emergency costs from the general fund, and the board approved the attorney retention to enable payment for counsel who had already provided services.