Franklin County approves interim funding and extensions as juvenile services split is negotiated

Franklin County commissioners voted unanimously on March 25 to extend existing interlocal agreements with Benton County and to approve a budget transfer to enable Franklin to stand up its own juvenile court and probation operations while the two counties negotiate the split.

Public comment set the tone: Residents and court employees urged transparency and raised concerns about staffing and potential layoffs. ‘‘This split has not been handled in a coordinated or transparent way,’’ resident Hillilary Muai told the board, saying probation officers are critical mentors and that her husband is currently listed at No. 11 on a 12‑person layoff list.

Extension and settlement agreement: The board approved Resolution C2026‑124, an amended settlement and release agreement that extends the 2023 memorandum of understanding (funding for the joint juvenile justice center) and the 2024 MOU (which transferred detention administration to Benton County) through the end of May. County counsel Jeff Briggs said the extension allows time for the parties to negotiate termination or modification of the 2024 agreement, which requires mutual agreement and a modification of the local judicial administrative rule.

Budget transfer and proration: The board also passed Resolution 2026‑125 to transfer seed funding into a newly created Franklin County Juvenile Court operations budget so the court can stand up probation and court services locally. Finance analyst Rosa Gomez told the board that personnel costs prorated for the seven‑month startup would amount to $476,431; commissioners and judicial staff discussed prorating contracts and grants, and acknowledged that more detailed line items and grant‑apportionment work remain. The county previously set aside $700,000 to pay the existing interlocal contract with Benton County for the early months while the transition is negotiated.

Grants and offsets: Judicial staff and Judge Burroughs said many programs carry grant funding that can offset Franklin’s share but that some grants are partial and require county matches. Staff committed to unwinding and reassigning joint grants where possible; preliminary figures shown to commissioners suggested that pro‑rata grant credits could reduce Franklin’s requested local share by a material amount once finalized.

Next steps: Commissioners agreed that the adopted transfer provides initial funds to begin operations but directed staff and court administrators to return with detailed, line‑item budgets, grant allocations and staffing plans. The agreements now extended are temporary (through end‑of‑May); further budget amendments or transfers may be needed after grant division and final staffing decisions are completed.

Ending: The board took both votes unanimously; administrators and judges said they will provide additional budget detail and revenue allocations to reconcile final costs and identify any needed budget amendments.