Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rice County community corrections details fees, grants and $109,000 in statute‑of‑limitations write‑offs under consideration
Summary
Community Corrections staff told commissioners that supervision fees are structured by offense level, state and grant funding offset some monitoring costs, and $109,000 in older fees became uncollectible in 2025; staff will ask the board next week to dismiss those statute‑of‑limitations debts.
An official introduced as Angela, representing Rice County Community Corrections, briefed the board on supervision fees, collection practices and grant support for monitoring costs, and said the department will present a request next week to dismiss about $109,000 in fees that reached the statute of limitations in 2025.
Angela explained that supervision fees are set annually by the board and tied to offense level and length of supervision (misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony). Certain services — for example, electronic home monitoring and psychosexual evaluations — can generate additional costs; the department uses three primary grants (REAM for remote electronic alcohol monitoring, a Second Chance grant, and a treatment court enhancement grant) to offset some client costs. The county receives approximately $12,000 per year through REAM for alcohol‑monitoring assistance, Angela said.
She compared costs: electronic alcohol monitoring runs about $13–$16 per day versus an estimated $175 per day to incarcerate someone in the Rice County Jail. The department’s policy is to use grant funds to cover monitoring costs for indigent clients up to grant limits (REAM covers up to 60 days in many cases), then bill the client if the grant funds are exhausted.
Angela described the fee collection process: clients typically have one year to pay before the case goes to revenue recapture, and the office offers payment agreements and community‑service conversion options. The department recently revised its revenue recapture processes after a 2023 audit and staff turnover; those changes led to a higher collection rate in early 2026 (Angela cited $62,000 collected so far, about 80% of the department’s annual expected recapture by that point in the year).
She reported that statute‑of‑limitations expirations for 2025 total about $109,000. These are fees that were assessed in 2019 and became uncollectible because the statute of limitations elapsed; the pandemic and administrative audit work contributed to the timing. Angela offered to bring the board a breakdown next week showing which portion of the $109,000 are supervision fees versus electronic monitoring reimbursements.
Commissioners asked about the statewide funding shortfall for community corrections (Angela cited estimates of $10–$12 million underfunding statewide) and how changes to fees and the 2023 legislation on waivers (sunsetting and later extension to 08/01/2029) might affect local budgets. Angela said the county did not lose funding in the last biennium but that expanded waivers and sunsetting could create local financial pressure moving forward; she offered to provide a detailed breakdown at the next meeting.
