Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Probation director outlines modest raises and cites $46,465 daily cost-avoidance from supervision
Loading...
Summary
Linda Baker, probation director, asked for small salary increases for eight staff, highlighted longevity and educational incentives, and presented a calculation showing probation supervision can avoid large incarceration costs — estimating a public cost-avoidance figure based on 800 clients supervised annually.
Linda Baker, identified to the commission as representing the county probation service, presented a packet focused largely on employee-related line items and a calculation of cost avoidance from probation supervision.
Baker said the office supervises about 800 misdemeanor clients per year and that the operational budget for 2024–25 was $450,160.07 with $182,029.68 collected in probation fees. Using a cited daily jail cost of $59 per person, she calculated that supervising 800 clients rather than incarcerating them produces an annual taxpayer cost-avoidance figure; Baker presented a spreadsheet and said the salary increases she requested were modest — a 1.9% low-case package and a 2.9% higher-case package — and that the additional personnel spending she sought would help bring starting salaries closer to the district target discussed by the schools.
Baker also outlined longevity pay adjustments, educational incentive increases (CTAS/COCTP) and a $2,000 requested increase related to certification incentives. Commissioners asked whether a college degree and state certification were required for probation officers; Baker said a bachelor’s degree is required and that some local certifications (COCTP) are available to county employees but that state probation/parole certification is administered by a state agency and not directly accessible to county staff. She said training budgets are limited and that conference attendance and motel/training costs are significant barriers.
Baker answered multiple clarifying questions about specific line items in the packet, explained that some payroll-related costs (social security, retirement contributions) were calculated separately, and requested commissioners’ consideration of a $7,100 salary increase request on the low end and up to $9,800 if additional funds can be found to cover longevity and incentives.
