Advertisement

Hernando commissioners question sheriff's accounting of federal inmate dollars

 
Sheriff Al Nienhuis and the county fought over his department’s budget last year.
Sheriff Al Nienhuis and the county fought over his department’s budget last year.
Published June 21, 2017

BROOKSVILLE — As Hernando County Sheriff Al Nienhuis and his staff presented his proposed 2017-18 budget earlier this month, county Commissioner Steve Champion threw out an unexpected question.

And the answer that Nienhuis gave has some commissioners wondering about the sheriff's long-standing assertion that his budget is transparent.

Champion wanted to know about federal inmate dollars, money the federal government pays the sheriff to house U.S. Marshals Service inmates at the Hernando County Detention Center, a practice that has been going on since June 2014.

There was no mention of that revenue anywhere in the sheriff's proposed budget, raising questions about how he accounts for the money and how it affects budgeting decisions made for his office by the County Commission.

Nienhuis said the numbers were in his audit, noting that if there were more cooperation with the county he would be happy to talk in more detail about the fund and his ideas on how to spend the money.

The discomfort between the two governmental bodies could be at the crux of the problem.

Nienhuis said he wants the federal inmate money to pay for improvements and staff needed because of the federal prisoners, but also talked about general capital needs at the jail.

Turning to his comptroller, Terri McClanahan, he asked how much was in the inmate fund. She said about $1.3 million.

Champion said he just wanted transparency. And he wanted to know, if the county got in a bind, whether Nienhuis could shift money from the jail to pay for general law enforcement needs. Nienhuis, who is just coming off a fight with the county over his budget last year, said reluctantly that he could shift money, but for various reasons would rather not.

The inmate fund has Commission Chairman Wayne Dukes concerned.

"How do you project a budget for a department unless you're being totally transparent?'' he asked.

Other commissioners also raised questions about the completeness of the information and the sheriff's budgeting procedures, especially in light of past battles over his spending.

In an interview this week with the Tampa Bay Times, sheriff's officials said they were frustrated last year when county officials would not meet to talk with them about the budget. They could have talked to them about the fund at that time, but had no opportunity.

"The communication was terrible,'' McClanahan said. "We've never had such a bad budget year.''

The numbers reflect that the federal inmate revenue could be a big boost to the sheriff's budget, but they also raise questions.

While the inmate revenue at the end of the last fiscal year, in September 2016, was indeed $1.3 million, which was the amount McClanahan shared with commissioners, the fund has since grown to $2.2 million, according to information the Sheriff's Office provided as part of a response to a public records request by the Times.

Past budget proposals to the County Commission did mention the inmate funds, but underestimated the total. Two years ago, the budget noted that an agreement had been reached between the county and the federal agency and that expected revenue of $100,000 would be generated. For that year, the Sheriff's Office provided a payback to the county at the end of the year, required by law, of $136,960.19.

Keep up with Tampa Bay’s top headlines

Subscribe to our free DayStarter newsletter

We’ll deliver the latest news and information you need to know every morning.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

But other numbers provided by the Sheriff's Office indicate that during the 2014-15 budget year, the jail generated 5,380 federal inmate days which, at the per-diem rate of $63 a day, would have generated $338,940.

In the next year's proposed budget, a revenue figure of $200,000 was projected and called "the most revenue ever.'' In the 2015-16 fiscal year, sheriff's records indicate 24,444 inmate days, which would generate revenue of $1,539,972. No returned revenue to the county was recorded that year, according to the Sheriff's Office response to records requests.

This year to date, the inmate figure stands at 8,004, which would generate $504,252.

A current snapshot of the sheriff's 2016-17 budget shows total revenue in the fund at $834,106.71.

According to McClanahan, the sheriff doesn't immediately get the full amount that the per diem generates because there is a lag time in collecting.

She also explained that the current budget proposal does not include anticipated revenue, because last year the sheriff's auditor recommended that the money from federal inmates be placed in a special revenue fund.

Sheriff's spokeswoman Denise Moloney said, "It is not included in our proposed book to the county since we do not request the funding from them.''

Other sheriffs in Florida list the money in the general category of sheriff's fees charged for services in their budget documents, including proposals by Broward, Charlotte and Hillsborough counties reviewed by the Times. Such fees for services must be returned to the county, according to state statutes.

McClanahan said she didn't know what other counties did, but the Sheriff's Office is meeting the auditor's recommendations to segregate the inmate money.

Sheriff's officials also said that the county knows about the fund.

County budget manager Pam Lee said she knew there was a fund. What she didn't know was how much was in it and why, when the sheriff is supposed to turn unspent money back to the county each year, no dollars from the inmate fund were coming back.

McClanahan said that isn't necessary.

"That is fact,'' she said. "It does not have to be turned over if it's special revenue.''

The sheriff's senior administrative officer, Brian Moyer, said the rules are spelled out in the inter-local agreement the sheriff has with the county.

"We're confident in saying that we're following the advice of our auditor and we followed what we believe the agreement calls for, the agreement with those very people," Moyer said. "If they're unhappy with the agreement, then we're ready to undertake negotiations to change it.''

Added McClanahan: "If communications would have been better, it would have been discussed. We couldn't even get with them.''

Contact Barbara Behrendt at bbehrendt@tampabay.com or (352) 848-1434.