Probation director warns reduced service-fee revenue will require county support

Stacy, probation and court services director, told the Lee County finance committee Wednesday that the department is weathering changes from state rules that limit what probation service fees may pay for and asked the committee to move a small set of items into county general to comply with new guidance. The change matters because “those are the fees that keep our office running,” Stacy said, referring to probation service fees that fund much of the department’s operations. She told the committee the office collects fees, fines and grant revenue and uses most of it for department operations but that the Illinois Supreme Court and Administrative Office guidance has tightened what those fees can cover. The director said the department has 10 full‑time employees and typically two to three part‑time contractual workers. She said most line staff positions are reimbursed at 100% from the state, with the exception of one salary‑subsidy position that receives $12,000 a year and one county‑funded secretary post. “All of ours are grant and aid reimbursed at a 100%,” Stacy said. Why it matters: the department’s revenue from probation service fees has fallen from a historic $85,000–$90,000 range to roughly $65,000–$70,000 this year, the director said. At the same time the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) is specifying that certain client costs may not be paid from fee accounts, shifting those responsibilities to county general funds. What the department asked for: Stacy asked for three modest transfers totaling about $13,000 to move phone and cellular costs, office supplies, and some furniture and equipment from fee accounts to county general while she phases other items in over time. She said she has a limited grace period before other items must be moved. Caseload and operations: Stacy said probation runs a pretrial caseload of roughly 250 people and that the state Safety Act has increased pretrial workload slightly while leaving post‑trial caseloads about the same. She described heavy daily work to prepare pretrial bond reports, noting “it’s a rush in my office” from morning until court at 1 p.m. Collections and program costs: Stacy described the collection process as handled through the state’s attorney’s office and said the Safety Act has reduced the practical benefit of arresting people on warrants because some are released. She also described grant funding that has helped conserve fee balances; federal grants in recent years have allowed the department to hold larger fund balances than fees alone would permit. Committee response and next steps: Finance staff and committee members pressed on fund balances, reimbursement timing and how the AOIC change affected allowable expenses. The committee did not take a binding vote on the transfers at this meeting; the director said she would return with updated budget detail when AOIC reimbursement letters and final figures are available. Ending: The director closed by emphasizing continuity of services. “In my office, we’ve been able to maintain the staff that we have and do what we need to do every day,” Stacy said, while urging the committee to watch fee revenue and reimbursements in coming months.