Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pretrial Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pretrial services contracts seek about $1.58 million; flat budget would leave $322,083 short
Summary
Oklahoma County staff told the Budget Evaluation Team that three pretrial services contract proposals exceed the general‑fund flat budget for pretrial services by roughly $322,083 and discussed where GPS monitoring and other services should be budgeted.
Oklahoma County staff told the Budget Evaluation Team that three pretrial services contract proposals exceed the general‑fund flat budget for pretrial services by roughly $322,083 and discussed where GPS monitoring and other services should be budgeted.
Staff reported that the county’s flat general‑fund allocation for pretrial services (not including participant fees) was $1,260,903. Proposed contract amounts presented to the committee — including the lead provider’s contract, a district attorney allocation and an IT/NexSys fee — total about $1,582,009.86, leaving a shortfall of roughly $322,083.39 under a flat funding approach. Committee members identified line items previously funded as one‑time that may not be available as offsets in future years and discussed whether GPS monitoring costs should be funded from contract dollars or the pretrial services line item.
Christy and other budget staff stressed the need to know the exact contract requests before making a recommendation; staff said the procurement team (Mr. Foster) was still finalizing contract amounts. Committee members also noted that some functions previously absorbed by the county (in‑kind staff support) can mask the true program cost; one example was a referenced in‑kind staff contribution of roughly $145,000 if a partner agency absorbs positions instead of the county directly funding them.
Staff said the county has been processing GPS vendor invoices (Kathy Taylor referenced) and that GPS billing to the county is presently small but ongoing; members cautioned the program can produce unpredictable, ongoing expenses if participant volume rises. Several members urged reviewing and, if necessary, adjusting the flat budget, and to weigh in on contract approvals that would increase the county general‑fund obligation beyond the flat allocation.
No contract approval occurred at the meeting. Staff said they would verify the contracts and return the detailed numbers to the Budget Evaluation Team for a follow‑up agenda item and recommended action to the budget board.
