Portage County probation seeks short-term funds, weighs vendor options for bond-offender testing
Loading...
Summary
Hank Gibson of Portage County Adult Probation urged commissioners to fund a one-year bridge for bond-offender drug testing after the prior provider stopped service; he presented three vendor options, warned opioid-grant money is restricted, and proposed charging bond clients $12.50 per test if county covers operations.
Hank Gibson, with the Portage County Adult Probation Department, told the Board of Commissioners on Jan. 12 he had been asked by judges to find a replacement for a vendor that provided drug testing for bond offenders. Gibson presented three proposals — from Access Point, Town Hall 2 and Max — and urged the board to consider a temporary funding solution while courts and judges settle long-term arrangements.
Gibson said the prior provider stopped service mid-December and that change left probation responsible for testing large numbers of bond clients who currently pay nothing for the service. "If we're gonna test them ... we're charging $12.50 for that," Gibson said, describing a user-fee approach to offset costs. He said his department currently uses a 10-panel test while specialized dockets require a 13-panel panel and that using a 13-panel protocol would be more expensive.
Gibson flagged restrictions on opioid-grant funds, noting opioid dollars must be spent on opioid‑related services and may not cover the full cost of a broader testing program. He described internal capacity and staffing challenges: probation observes tests to guard against tampering, operates limited testing bathrooms, and currently covers several staff positions from supervision-fee funds (the 11-21 fund). "We are paying seven people out of that fund," he said, and cautioned that relying on those funds long term could exhaust the balance if salaries and benefits continue to be paid from it.
Commissioners asked for a concrete proposal and cost estimate. One commissioner suggested a one-year county-funded extension while judges pursue a longer-term solution and directed staff to work with Gibson and court leadership on a written proposal that details the vendor selected, projected counts and budgetary impact.
The board did not take a final funding vote at the meeting; commissioners signaled willingness to consider a one-year bridge but requested written cost estimates, clarification of what opioid‑grant dollars can cover, and confirmation of the courts' monitoring responsibilities.
What's next: Gibson will prepare a written proposal with vendor recommendation, staffing implications and precise costs for the commissioners and county administrator to review before any funding decision.
