Faulkner County sees revenue spike after corrections payment; court advances two measures to full court

Faulkner County finance staff reported a mid-year increase in several funds during the court’s meeting, saying the county received a large payment tied to inmates housed for the Department of Corrections that produced a spike in county general revenue in April and May. Court members also advanced two measures—proposed order 25-17 and proposed ordinance 25-18—to the full court.

County finance staff (unnamed in the transcript) told the Quorum Court the county general fund balance for the period Jan. 1 through May 31, 2025, was $5,746,542.65, and the County Road fund holdings were reported as $8,432,271.00 (figures supplied in the meeting summary). The staff member said the county had received a large check tied to inmates housed for the Department of Corrections, reporting, “We finally got it in in May, plus about another half million dollars,” and that the payment largely explains a sharp increase in county general revenue for April and May.

The finance staff also reported other account balances and program funds discussed in the summary, including an American Rescue Plan Fund balance reported as $3,186,595.12 and an “ARP revenue replacement fund” balance reported as $6,912,113.76. The staff said sales-tax receipts for May were $1,264,343.57 and that year-to-date sales-tax revenue stood at $6,059,809.37, representing about 42% of a $14.3 million sales-tax projection. The staff noted, “We’re up 6% versus last year today on sales tax numbers,” while also observing a roughly flat one-year moving average over the preceding six months.

Court members pressed staff for details about the Department of Corrections billing cadence and why a large payment arrived now rather than earlier. One Quorum Court member said the delay was “concerning,” asked whether the sheriff’s office invoices monthly, and noted uncertainty about how much had been invoiced versus received. The finance staff said they did not control sheriff’s office billing and could not confirm invoicing frequency or a full breakdown of the receipt, and advised that the sheriff’s office would need to be asked for detailed billing information.

On business items, a Quorum Court member moved to consider proposed order 25-17 (a reimbursement item described in the meeting as related to juvenile reimbursement). Court members debated a clerical correction and an amendment to correct Section 2’s line item (one member referenced a $23,000 figure): the court approved an amendment to correct the item. After the amendment, a member moved to send 25-17 to the full court; the motion was approved with members responding “Aye.”

Later the court considered proposed ordinance 25-18, described in the meeting packet as an assessor stipend. The court voted to advance proposed ordinance 25-18 to the full court, with members responding “Aye.”

Votes at a glance

- Proposed order 25-17 (reimbursement related to juvenile item): Amendment to correct Section 2 approved; motion to advance 25-17 to full court approved (verbal “Aye”). - Proposed ordinance 25-18 (assessor stipend): Motion to advance to full court approved (verbal “Aye”).

The finance staff said they will not change the year’s revenue projections immediately based on the received payment and will “flush out” final year figures at year-end. Court members requested follow-up information from the sheriff’s office about invoicing and timing of payments; no formal directive or motion requiring that follow-up was recorded in the transcript.

The court did not record roll-call vote counts or named vote tallies in the meeting transcript for the motions recorded as passed; members responded verbally when asked for aye votes.