Sheriff seeks to reallocate underspent project funds for detective vehicle; county attorney moves to amend agenda for emergency executive session

Sheriff Munoz asked the Board of Bannock County Commissioners to consider reallocating money left over from a recently completed project to purchase a detective/narcotics vehicle so the department could reduce its 2026 vehicle budget request.

Munoz said the original project had an allocated budget of "300,052" (as noted on the agenda) and that the project came in under budget; he did not provide a precise amount of leftover funds during the discussion and staff later characterized the exact leftover sum as "not specified" in the record provided to the board. Munoz said he was looking for a cost-effective vehicle option such as a one- or two-year lease-return vehicle already equipped with lights and that he estimated the purchase range for such vehicles at about the mid-$20,000s to $30,000.

Munoz said he had discussed options with the captain and the detective who would use the vehicle and that the department prefers acquiring a used lease-return vehicle rather than financing a brand-new car. He told commissioners the purchase would use reserve funds that would otherwise roll into next year’s budget and said doing this now could “put these guys ahead a little bit and reduce the ask for next year's budget.”

Commissioners raised several questions, including whether the generator project referenced on the agenda was complete and whether the board should ensure that project does not go over budget before reallocating funds. There was also confusion among commissioners about whether the funds referenced were ARPA dollars; Munoz and staff clarified during the meeting that the funds under discussion are Medicaid-related, not ARPA.

County legal counsel advised the board that, because the sheriff’s matter involved an emergency that arose that day, the commission could amend the agenda to take the item up under the statutory exception invoked in the meeting and enter executive session to discuss law-enforcement records. Counsel cited statutory language during the meeting as "74 2 0 4 sub 4 sub c" and "74 2 0 6 sub 1 sub d." The county attorney then said, "With that, I'll make that motion of those numbers," moving to amend the agenda to add the item and go into executive session. The transcript does not record a second or a roll-call vote on the motion.

Because the motion was made on the record but no vote is recorded in the portion of the transcript provided, there is no formal outcome recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to return with more precise figures on the leftover project funds and vehicle pricing; the board considered but had not recorded a final vote on amending the agenda or on reallocating funds in the excerpt provided.