Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates probation, community corrections budgets; agrees to short‑term reallocation of roughly $30,000 for IT
Summary
Councilors reviewed Probation and Community Corrections budgets, discussed grant uncertainties and high drug‑screening costs, and by consensus agreed to a one‑time reallocation of about $30,000 from community corrections project income to county general wage lines to address an IT/software maintenance shortfall.
DeKalb County Council members reviewed the probation and community corrections budgets, pressing staff on how grant changes and rising contract costs will affect county funding needs.
The council heard from Michael, identified in the meeting as the probation representative, who said most officer pay is fixed by state salary schedules and that some apparent increases in the department’s budget reflect grant funding covering positions the county would otherwise have to carry. Michael said grant awards had come in at levels staff anticipated, which allowed the department to advertise full wages while county general charges would be reduced accordingly.
Michelle, from the community corrections department, told the council the residential work facility had an 81 percent success rate in 2024 and that 13 people transitioned out of the program last year. She said project income (user fees, class fees, drug‑screen collections and other participant fees) funds parts of the department’s operations, and she reported a high collection rate (95 percent in the prior year) and new collection activity through a state tax‑refund interception system (TREX/TREX‑style program) that has started returning funds to the department.
Council members pressed staff on the rising cost of drug screens and the liability and testimony commitments that make certain testing vendors more expensive. Staff said drug‑screening vendors must be able to provide court‑ready testimony and that testing panels expand as new substances appear, increasing costs. Councilors also discussed opioid‑settlement money and noted that the state has limited which activities opioid funds will pay for; drug screening was not included in ongoing opioid fund support after the first year, staff said.
A narrower, immediate budget issue emerged around a $30,000 software‑maintenance/IT expense that had been budgeted in community corrections’ project income. Susan (county staff) recommended a short‑term approach to keep the department’s payroll lines whole while moving the IT/software expense back to IT or the county general IT budget. The option discussed was to shift about $30,000 from community corrections’ project income into a county general wage account now and allow the department to transfer funds next year as grant and project income realities become clearer. Several council members indicated support and agreed by consensus to that approach during the meeting.
No formal recorded roll‑call vote was taken on the IT/software reallocation in the transcript; council members discussed the long‑term implications of filling gaps that state grants are phasing out and cautioned that the county may face repeated requests to backfill grants that shrink in future years.
Next steps and staff direction: staff will implement the short‑term reallocation approach to cover the IT/software maintenance shortfall (amount discussed at approximately $30,000), monitor grant changes closely, and report back on grant‑funding status and any required additional appropriations later in the fiscal year.
