Detention center administrator: shortfall narrowed to about $5.3M but payroll could be at risk by May 1

The Oklahoma County Budget/Finance body heard a financial and operational update in February on the county detention center, where the administrator said the projected shortfall has been reduced from $5.8 million to about $5.3 million and described contract renegotiations and other cost‑cutting steps. The administrator (identified in the transcript as Tim) told the board the jail had renegotiated a contract with Heritage that will likely save $50,000–$75,000 a year and that eliminating a DA contract removed about $220,000 from the earlier projection.

Why it matters: Board members pressed for precise, itemized figures and historical revenue data because the administrator said cash on hand covers payroll only through May 1. Several members warned that without further funding or additional savings, the facility could face interruptions in payments or services.

The administrator said, "We have been able to reduce the, 5.8 that was originally requested down to about 5.3, a little over 5.3. Saved us almost half $1,000,000." He described other savings and revenue efforts, including renegotiating the Heritage contract and an inventory review that placed older commissary items for sale.

Board members repeatedly asked for precise dollar amounts and supporting documents. One asked whether the $5.3 million figure includes pay increases approved late last year; the administrator said it does but could not provide the exact additional amount off the top of his head and agreed to deliver the detailed numbers before the board’s next meeting.

The meeting record shows the detention center implemented pay increases for detention officers (discussed as moving some wages from $41 to $47) that the administrator said were approved in December and first paid in the February pay period. The administrator said the initial raise affected about 50 corporals and sergeants; a later payroll change form referenced roughly 101 additional pay increases. He told the board he would "itemize" and provide a list of each person who received a pay increase.

On revenue streams, the administrator said jail revenue tied to outside contracts (notably the Oklahoma City contract) fluctuates with inmate bookings. Board members asked for a historical accounting of contract revenue and booking counts by agency for FY2020–FY2023 to better understand trends. The administrator said the jail has lost population ("we've dropped 3, 400 folks") and that revenue streams decline accordingly, but that staff are pursuing other revenue options.

The presentation included two concrete experiments in revenue generation. The administrator said the jail briefly piloted medical‑grade nicotine pouches and made about $7,500 a month before stopping the trial because inmates misused the product; he also said staff planned to visit Tulsa County to review a vaping program there. He said, "We actually talked about that, gosh, probably 4 or 5 months ago ... that was 1 that was identified." The administrator cautioned that any such program carries operational risks.

Board members also probed changes in how the trust’s budget and FTE counts were established after the jail moved from the sheriff’s office to a separate trust. Trustees kept the budget at an initial baseline number for FTEs (referenced in the discussion as 320, originally derived from 400 sheriff FTEs) even though actual staffing frequently ran lower. One member summarized the historical difference: when the sheriff ran the jail, lapsing dollars could be rolled and used by the county; as a separate trust, lapse dollars do not return to the county’s budget process.

Legal and medical responsibilities were also raised. During a statutory discussion, a board member cited "Oklahoma 19‑746" and asked whether the county was liable for inmates’ preexisting medical conditions; the administrator said he had researched the issue and would forward the relevant Supreme Court decision and legal guidance to the board.

The board asked for specific follow‑up materials the administrator agreed to provide before the next meeting: (1) an exact, itemized account of the $5.3 million projection (including how much of that total reflects implemented or pending raises); (2) a list of consulting contracts with 'not to exceed' amounts and year‑to‑date expenditures; (3) the DA contract cancellation details and confirmation of realized savings; (4) historical revenues and booking counts for major contracts (including Oklahoma City) for FY2020–FY2023; and (5) a roster or payroll list indicating who received the recent raises.

A few board members reiterated the trust’s earlier formal request to explore a jail sales tax as a structural revenue option; several said even with a sales tax it would not solve the immediate May 1 funding risk. The chair moved the meeting to item 2 (the watch‑list discussion) after the operational update. No formal funding motion or appropriation vote was taken at this meeting.

The board scheduled a follow‑up regular meeting for the next week and the administrator said he would deliver the requested documents before then. The meeting adjourned on a voice vote.