Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation And Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Probation director warns of grant cuts and asks council to add missing drug-testing salary line
Summary
The probation office told council a $21,000 grant cut will reduce funding available for drug testing; staff also noted a part‑time drug‑testing observation officer is paid from a nonreverting account and the salary was not present in the budget estimate and must be added.
Susan (probation director) told the council a key grant that funded drug‑testing work was reduced by about $21,000 and that she will likely need to reallocate budget lines or request adjustments to cover testing costs next year.
Susan said her office relies on grants for roughly $334,444 in revenue this year and that the reduction will affect the drug‑testing budget. She also noted she keeps a part‑time assistant on payroll (Esther) and that a separate part‑time drug‑testing observation officer (Butch) is paid from a nonreverting drug‑testing fund (4923) rather than the general budget; the staff confirmed that the salary ordinance existed but the line item had not been reflected on the budget estimate worksheet shared with council and needed to be added.
Staff and council clarified that the drug‑testing observation officer works Wednesdays and Thursdays (around eight hours weekly) and that the county receives some reimbursement for EMA salaries from the EMPG grant (discussed in other agenda items), though probation grant funding is separate. No formal action was taken; staff said they would add the missing salary line to the budget and return with revised totals and any required salary ordinances.
Why it matters: Probation drug‑testing and behavioral health grants support court supervision and public safety; reductions require alternative funding or service changes.
