Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gps Monitoring Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget board flags $21,700 unpaid GPS vendor bill as program split leaves funding gaps
Summary
Allied Universal monitoring invoices totaling $21,699.90 (through December) were identified after court services split; board members agreed to locate funds in existing accounts and revise MOUs to clarify who pays monitoring contracts going forward.
Budget Board members reviewed invoices and contract questions on Jan. 2 after staff reported an outstanding balance to Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring Services of $21,699.90 for GPS monitoring through December. Staff provided a broader estimate of roughly $39,399.96 for anticipated charges through the end of the fiscal year.
The unpaid invoices emerged after court services functions were reorganized: responsibilities and contracts that once sat under a single court services umbrella split across different offices, producing multiple line items for the same vendor. Board members said the reorganization and rapid shift to new structures contributed to the oversight. “We went so fast we didn’t slow down and say, wait a second,” one participant said.
Staff identified two county accounts that can be applied to the vendor shortfall: an operating account with about $38,000 and an indigent fund account with about $59,177. Board members discussed whether the district attorney’s office should reimburse part of the bill (the DA had staff and benefits affected by the split) and whether to revise existing MOUs so that contracts and monitoring costs are explicitly assigned.
The board directed staff to: (1) calculate the precise shortfall for the current fiscal year, including benefit-cost differences for positions moved between entities; (2) determine what funds are available in the operating and indigent accounts; and (3) draft an amended MOU to clarify which office will pay monitoring contracts and other related costs going forward. Staff said the accounts currently identified together hold sufficient funds to cover the December bill and a portion of anticipated remainder-of-year costs; the board agreed to route the present payment from the identified funds while policy and governance works on a long-term arrangement.
Speakers also discussed program design: whether GPS monitoring should be treated as a pretrial service that the placing entity pays for, best practices around charging indigent defendants, and tradeoffs between centralizing versus siloing monitoring functions across county departments.
