Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Sheriff, oversight committee review Columbia County jail levy, explain fund separation after lawsuit
Loading...
Summary
Sheriff Pixley told the JOCAC committee how the county interprets and spends jail levy revenue, described accounting changes made after litigation over mixed fund use and provided budget figures showing levy revenue covers part of payroll, food and medical costs.
Sheriff Pixley told the JOCAC oversight committee that the county’s jail levy was intended to fund jail operations and that the county altered internal accounting and auditing practices after a lawsuit alleged levy funds had been mixed with other revenues. "This is your guys' time to ask me questions," Pixley said as he opened the review and invited committee members to follow up on details.
A member reading the ballot explanatory language told the committee that earlier voter materials described "the operating funds will be used to provide constitutionally required care of inmates, including food, clothing, and health care, corrections deputies, as well as other corrections staff, in addition to facility maintenance." The committee discussed how that explanatory language and later county ordinances and administrative practices have been read by residents and oversight bodies.
Committee member Nancy said the wording had caused confusion: "that's where I think people are getting confused," she said, describing how voters and residents sometimes assume "operating funds" mean the entire jail budget rather than the portion raised by the levy. Pixley and staff explained the distinction: the county maintains a separate jail levy fund (money raised through the levy) and a jail operations fund (which receives federal reimbursements, marshals revenue and county contributions). Pixley said the county now aims to keep levy-funded spending clearly separable and to perform a separate audit of levy expenditures as part of a settlement resolving a claim that funds had been used for non‑levy items.
Officials discussed levy rates and household impact. The sheriff and staff said the levy rate has been presented as about 0.5797 per $1,000 of assessed value (about $57.97 annually for a property with $100,000 assessed value under the current rate) and that the levy brings in roughly $4,000,000 in annual revenue. Staff walked the committee through a budget spreadsheet showing payroll and medical/food costs the levy helps pay: $3,300,000 scheduled for payroll and about $2,200,000 scheduled for medical and food services in the example shown. The sheriff said those amounts show the levy alone does not fully cover jail operating expenses and that other revenue sources — marshal contracts, county general fund contributions and savings carried forward — are used to maintain operations.
On staffing and split positions, Pixley explained that some deputies perform both jail and patrol duties and are split across funds; for example, a civil deputy who works part time on jail transports and part time on patrol may be paid partly from the jail operations fund and partly from patrol general funds, while pure jail positions are charged to the jail levy or jail ops fund as appropriate. Pixley emphasized the county’s effort to separate positions and accounting so levy money funds only those items that can be shown to be jail operations.
Committee members also asked about vendor invoices and contract costs. Staff reviewed Trinity Service Group invoices for meals and flagged the ledger code that identifies a charge as a "jail levy" expense. Members raised privacy and redaction questions about invoice packets; staff proposed sending selected invoices electronically in advance and recommended the committee discuss how many invoices to review each quarter.
Medical services were discussed separately. Committee members confirmed the jail keeps certain medications on-site and that medical and pharmacy services are provided under contract (currently MedTrust). Staff said contract costs are expected to rise under upcoming renewals and that invoice and contract review will be needed to categorize pharmacy and non‑pharmacy costs correctly.
Votes at a glance: the committee voted by voice to approve the meeting agenda and to approve the January 5 minutes; the chair called for the ayes, no opposed were noted, and both motions passed.
The committee concluded by agreeing to encourage members to attend the county jail budget hearings in May and to schedule jail tours; the next regular meeting was noted as April 20. Pixley offered follow‑up meetings or one‑on‑one sessions to walk through documents with committee members.
Why it matters: the committee’s review clarifies how a voter‑approved levy is interpreted and spent, how the county now separates levy money after litigation, and what committee members can review to improve transparency for residents.
