Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oklahoma County panel recommends funding most departments, puts CJA and benefits on watch list
Summary
At the EET meeting county staff presented estimated needs for court services, pretrial and other contracts; the panel recommended to Budget Board that department requests be funded with exceptions and that the Criminal Justice Authority, employee benefits, and a COLA be placed on a watch list for September review.
Oklahoma County budget staff and board members met on May 12, 2025, to review department estimated needs for fiscal 2025–26 and to set recommendations for the Budget Board. After presentations and spreadsheet updates, the panel voted to recommend funding departments’ requests with several exceptions and to create an initial watch list for items that will require follow-up.
Main decisions
The panel voted to recommend that the Budget Board fund the departments’ requests as presented with three principal exceptions: maintain the Criminal Justice Authority (CJA) at last year’s funded level, hold court services at the level reflected in the meeting document (the court-services entry shown in the packet), and reduce employee-benefits funding to the figure discussed in the meeting so that the county would begin the fiscal year with a modest ongoing reserve and a defined watch list of additional needs to consider later.
The motion also directed staff to include several items on the watch list to be considered in September: additional funding for the Criminal Justice Authority, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) calculation (discussed at 3.5 percent in staff scenarios), and additional employee benefits funding. The board approved the recommendation by voice vote.
What staff presented
Jessica, a county staff member, summarized estimated needs tied to court services and public-safety contracts. She told the board that GPS-monitoring costs historically have varied; encumbrances show about $26,099.96 spent to date for GPS monitoring and she estimated a $30,000 annual figure at present. She described options for handling GPS monitoring: include it in the DA’s pretrial contract (with the DA or its vendor, Allied Universal, collecting fees and remitting receipts) or continue to pay the vendor from a fee fund or general fund as appropriate.
Jessica also noted three contracts still being finalized and said several special-revenue funds have unencumbered balances that could be used to offset monitoring or contract costs. She gave a possible $76,597 figure across several special-revenue POs that might be available to offset some costs (staff said they would verify with the clerk’s office).
Spreadsheet and numbers discussion
County staff (Albert and others) made live adjustments to the request worksheet, adding columns for adopted flat budget and recalculating department differences. Board members discussed how much of the county’s available sources are one-time money and how much is ongoing revenue. Staff explained that, depending on the reserve and one-time money treatment, the county could fund requests and still begin the fiscal year with a modest ongoing reserve and about $7 million in one-time funds held separately.
Board members debated a simple across-the-board cut (for example, 1 percent) versus pulling out one-time items and trimming contract or nonessential requests. Several members said identifying one-time expenses (vehicles, software, capital items) would be straightforward and asked staff to flag those items for a follow-up review before the Budget Board meeting.
Concerns and next steps
Board members asked that unsettled contracts — notably pretrial services, the DA’s agreed services and the detention-center staffing level — be resolved or further negotiated before the Budget Board acts. Jessica said she will confirm final invoices/encumbrances and report any refunds or returns to the general fund. Staff also agreed to isolate obvious one-time requests and provide the board a short list for the Thursday Budget Board packet and for a planned September supplement if additional decisions are needed.
Action and vote
A board member moved the recommendation to the Budget Board reflecting the exceptions described above; another member seconded. The board voted by voice to approve the recommendation and authorized staff to present the adjusted worksheet and watch-list items at the Budget Board meeting.
Ending
Staff will send the revised worksheet for the Budget Board packet and will return to the EET or Budget Board in September with updates on the watch-list items, contract negotiations, and any changes to employee-benefits estimates.
