Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Detention Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mason County court staff seek urgent funds to replace juvenile-detention door locks, add female dorm bunks
Summary
Chief security court administrator Patty Maguire asked the commissioners to authorize repairs and limited upgrades at the county juvenile detention facility after a critical door-lock failure; staff said emergency repairs cost $2,000 and a full system replacement was estimated at $12,900 and asked the county to cover dorm conversion and bunks.
Patty Maguire, chief security court administrator, told the Mason County Board of Commissioners that the county’s juvenile-detention facility has had a sudden failure of its electronic door-lock system and needs immediate repairs and limited upgrades. Maguire said contractor emergency work cost $2,000 and that “it’s gonna cost $12,900 to replace it.”
Maguire said the county can use real estate excise tax (REET) funds for the lock work and described a second set of expenses tied to a recent conversion of a former intervention room into a female dormitory. She said facilities staff completed most of the dorm work and that conversion-related costs totaled $6,500. Maguire also requested four new bunks at a quoted cost of $4,900; she said the bunks cannot be refunded even if other dorm costs can be reimbursed.
Why it matters: commissioners and court staff said the repairs affect safety and operations at the temporary juvenile facility and could coincide with higher occupant counts this summer. Maguire said the dorm conversion responds to a rising female population and the county must be “prepared for that.” Commissioners expressed support for placing funding on the next agenda so repairs and the dorm changes can proceed.
Supporting details: Maguire described the door problem as a progressive failure, related to the age of the system and lack of replacement parts; she told the board an emergency contractor “did emergency repairs” but the contractor warned those fixes were temporary. Commissioners asked about alternatives and timing; one commissioner said they would “definitely be voting for it if you put it on the agenda right now.”
Next steps: County staff were directed to prepare an agenda item and funding request summarizing sources and amounts for the commission to act on in a regular meeting.
Ending: Maguire and commissioners agreed to return the funding request to a future agenda; no formal vote was taken at the session.
