Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Center Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BET reopens detention-center payment item, asks whether invoicing and MOU authority exist
Summary
Board members reopened item 2 to question whether a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other contracting authority exists to allow the detention center/jail trust to invoice the county; staff said past practice may have proceeded without formal MOU and recommended legal or DA review before encumbering funds.
After reopening item 2, several board members raised logistical and legal questions about who can invoice the county for detention-related services and whether a memorandum of understanding or contract is required before payments can be encumbered. One board member asked directly whether "we need to set up an MOU with the VOCC to invoice the money out of general government," and other members discussed the mechanics of purchase orders and invoices.
Staff and finance personnel described the likely mechanics—creating a PO in Convey and receiving invoices both from the detention center (for transportation) and from the decision center for their share—and said they would need direction about how the commissioners' offices want to handle invoicing. A speaker noted historical practice of making roughly 12 payments per year to a detention-related entity but said the transcript shows ambiguity about whether a formal MOU or contract underlies those longstanding payments.
Speakers also discussed whether approved funds could be invoiced back to July 1 pending budget-board approval, whether an indenture authorizes county payments to the jail trust, and which office would be responsible for processing invoices. One participant said the October–June portion "would be reduced by the 88,000 overnight, which is $800,000 difference," but the transcript phrasing is unclear on how those figures are calculated; the board asked staff to confirm documentation (MOU/contract/indenture) and to coordinate with the DA or general counsel if needed before final action.
No formal resolution or vote altering payments was taken; the board recommended confirming contractual authority and accounting mechanics before the budget board meeting.
