Budget team debates moving pretrial GPS fees into general fund, keeping indigent fund available

The Budget Evaluation Team of Oklahoma County met in a special session March 4, 2025, and discussed whether pretrial services contracts and memoranda of understanding should be funded from the county general fund instead of a special revenue account and how to handle small GPS service fees currently recorded in fund 12-60.

The discussion focused on two practical questions: whether MOU/contract payments for pretrial services should be paid from general government beginning July 1, and whether fees collected from people on GPS monitoring that are currently booked to fund 12-60 or an indigent fund may be transferred or used to subsidize those contract costs. "I had always envisioned that starting July 1, there's not estimated needs for these 3. 12.60 is a special revenue," one member said, arguing contracts could be paid from the general fund and any small fees would then be posted as miscellaneous revenue.

Members reported that the amount currently collected in fees is small: a deposit of about $1,400 was noted as recently posted. Participants also reviewed the county—s prior practice of using an indigent fund to cover GPS monitoring fees for people found indigent by the courts. One member said that the indigent fund was seeded about a decade ago at roughly $50,000 and that the county had transferred general fund dollars into that account in prior years: "Our fiscal year 22-23, 23-24 general fund put $76,000 in each year," a participant said.

Legal and accounting limits were raised repeatedly. A staff member recited a statutory citation described in the meeting as "Title 22, Section 991," which the group said establishes a community-service program paid by individuals ordered by the courts. Members also flagged that some special revenue accounts historically are restricted and that transferring restricted fees into the general fund could be prohibited unless statute or policy allows it. "I made the assumption that there has to be a statutory allowance for us to charge a fee for something, and I just assumed it would be restricted," another participant said.

Participants discussed practical approaches. Several preferred to pay contractor MOUs from the general fund and to treat any small GPS fees as miscellaneous revenue that could then be used by the county for the program if allowable. Others urged caution: even if the county consolidates contract payments into the general fund, the county may still need a dedicated indigent fund to pay GPS monitoring for people the courts find indigent. The group noted that current contracts require following best practices and accreditation standards, and members raised concerns that meeting those standards increases program cost without producing identifiable liability reduction.

No formal vote or policy change was taken at the meeting. Staff committed to researching whether fees booked to special revenue accounts (fund 12-60) can be legally transferred or used to subsidize general fund contracts, and to provide clearer estimates of the fees being collected. The discussion was scheduled to continue as part of the FY2025-26 budget work: members agreed to defer final decisions until the budget process produced the dollar amounts needed for contracts and indigent support.

Ending: The Budget Evaluation Team left the account structure and funding approach open and asked county finance and clerk—s staff to follow up with legal and accounting guidance ahead of the fiscal-year budget cycle.