Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the User Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses Change.org petition and local user‑fee policy for community corrections
Summary
Corey brought a Change.org petition with roughly 60 visible signatures questioning the fairness of community‑corrections fees. The board reviewed the program’s sliding‑fee policy, a CIP option for people near a $300 threshold, and legal context noting courts treat placement as a privilege subject to fees.
Corey told the board he had reviewed an online petition that raised questions about the fairness of community‑corrections user fees; he said about 60 signatures were visible on the petition. He described the program’s fee approach as a sliding scale and noted a CIP option for participants “at or near the $300 threshold” that can ease fee obligations while staff help manage balances.
Judge Myers emphasized the program’s role as an alternative to incarceration and told the board he frames placement as such when sentencing: “You can either do your time in incarceration or you can do community corrections, but there’s a fee that goes with that,” he said. Another participant pointed to appellate decisions, saying placement in community corrections is considered a privilege and courts have upheld user‑fee requirements.
Corey outlined operational costs—building maintenance, training, equipment and administrative expenses—that user fees help cover. Board members asked for further information about the indigency policy and whether other counties use capped fees, gross vs. net pay calculations, and benchmarking. No formal policy change was made; staff offered to gather comparative data and clarify the indigency process.
