Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to fund Baker Tilly study after split vote on youth detention center options
Summary
After extended debate about reopening or rehabilitating the county youth detention facility, the council voted against moving forward with a maximum $18,600 Baker Tilly financial study; members cited need for more time to review documents and regional cost-sharing uncertainty.
The Henry County Council debated whether to hire Baker Tilly to produce a financial analysis for reopening or rehabilitating the county youth detention facility (referred to in discussion as a Henry County youth center, not "YOC"). After extended discussion about costs, regional participation and timeline constraints, the council voted and the motion to proceed with a Baker Tilly study at a maximum cost of $18,600 failed by roll call.
Supporters of commissioning the study said a third-party financial analysis is essential to understand renovation costs, operating expenses and revenue potential if the county seeks to operate a facility regionally or under a third-party operator such as Abraxas. Meeting presenters said previous estimates for rehabilitation ranged from approximately $1.5 million to $2 million; staff also warned that proposals from outside providers could include per-bed-per-night rates in the several hundreds of dollars and that one estimate from a private operator was quoted in the meeting as about $900 per bed per day in a prior comparison.
Opponents and some council members said they had received documents too close to the meeting to review them fully and expressed concern about committing to a study without seeing corrected materials. Others also flagged the financial risk of operating or contracting for a facility and noted regional partners would likely want detailed numbers before committing to any cost-sharing. During the meeting, a presenter warned the county could face operating deficits for some time; Johnson County's historical numbers were cited to illustrate that operating revenues and costs can diverge significantly.
The motion to table the study until the next council meeting failed on a roll call. A subsequent motion to proceed with the Baker Tilly engagement also failed on roll call (final count on the motion to proceed with the Baker Tilly study: 3 in favor, 4 opposed). Council members discussed the need to coordinate with surrounding counties and the urgency raised by stakeholders because some potential one-time funding sources (including ARPA-style funds discussed in meetings) must be allocated on a timeline the presenters characterized as tight.
Presenters said Baker Tilly proposed a six-week engagement that would evaluate several peer facilities and provide projected operating costs and revenue models. Council members asked that the item be re-noticed for the next meeting to allow more time for review; no study contract was executed at the meeting.
