Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Juvenile Detention Facility topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Will County committee sends River Valley upgrade plan to executive, debates per‑diem for out‑of‑county youth

3676709 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee voted to refer a recommendation to the county executive to study and pursue upgrades at the River Valley Juvenile Detention Center to meet Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts requirements. Members debated facility costs, per‑diem rates charged to other counties and occupancy impacts on Will County taxpayers.

Will County committee members voted to forward a recommendation to the county executive to explore upgrades and modifications to the River Valley Juvenile Detention Center so the facility meets requirements from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC), after staff presented cost, occupancy and revenue projections.

The question matters to county taxpayers and to how the detention center is marketed to neighboring counties. Committee members pressed staff on how bringing in out‑of‑county residents at a negotiated per‑diem affects Will County’s per‑resident costs and whether the county should raise the per‑diem charged to other counties.

Staff members presented fiscal year 2024 data showing an average daily population of 21 residents and an average cost of about $365 per resident per day for FY24. Staff said routine incremental costs for an added out‑of‑county youth are limited — food and similar variable expenses — and estimated food adds roughly $20–$25 per day. Staff also explained that some contracts (for example, the medical contract) are structured around occupancy bands; higher occupancy can lower per‑bed unit costs.

"Bringing more in reduces the cost that we pay for our own kids," said Chris (Staff member), summarizing how outside revenue can lower the county’s per‑resident cost. Chris also told the committee the building has 102 beds and that the state recognizes about 83 of those beds for staffing/contract purposes.

Board members pressed the math behind examples staff displayed: the presentation showed model scenarios in which adding three out‑of‑county residents and charging $200 per day would lower the per‑bed cost to about $336.58; charging $225 or $250 per day produced smaller reductions. Several members said they found the chart confusing at first but supported the conclusion that increased occupancy reduces per‑bed costs for Will County residents.

Board member Dan Vendestini said Will County taxpayers should not be unduly subsidizing other counties and urged charging a rate closer to the facility’s real cost. Other members said undercutting the market could drive away outside placements and reduce occupancy, which would raise per‑bed costs. Board member Trainier favored an initial per‑diem around $250 with a review within months, while another member said starting at $200 could help market the facility and increase placements.

Staff described potential revenue mechanisms under discussion with the AOIC, including requesting state‑funded positions (salary reimbursed by the state with county‑paid benefits) and the idea of mandatory beds purchased by other counties as a guaranteed revenue stream. Shannon (Staff member) said the body scanners were the most time‑sensitive upgrade and "would be something that could be done the quickest," while other items such as kitchen upgrades and architectural changes for visitation would require bids and more time.

"We are out of compliance. We've been out of compliance for well over a year, maybe longer," said Board member Jackie, urging action. The committee asked the county executive to gather proposals, cost estimates and bid materials needed to bring the facility into AOIC compliance and to attach those figures to the executive committee packet.

On a motion to refer the matter to the executive committee with direction to explore the modifications required for compliance and to return bids/proposals, the committee voted in favor. The motion was moved by Board member Jackie and seconded by Board member Ortiz; a roll call recorded votes in favor by Berkowitz, Butler, Ortiz, Ashley, Grenier and Dimpley. The motion carried.

The committee did not adopt a final per‑diem change at the meeting; members asked staff and the county executive to include current and proposed per‑diem options and detailed cost projections in the executive packet so the executive committee and full county board can consider both compliance costs and pricing strategy.

Background: staff said the facility’s average FY24 population was 21 residents; the facility has 102 beds (about 83 recognized for staffing/contract planning). Staff presented quotes that included two body scanners (price, shipping, installation, training and warranty) and a kitchen/steamer quote of approximately $24,000. Staff cautioned that capital projects would proceed through the county’s budget and procurement processes and that timing depends on bid cycles and executive/board approvals.