Parma committee discusses raising jail "pay-to-stay" fees; ordinance returned to public safety committee

Parma City Council and its public safety committee reviewed Ordinance 9-25, a proposed change to Parma Codified Ordinances sections 6.98.07 and 6.98.08 that would update how the city charges for the cost of confining convicted, sentenced inmates and for housing inmates on behalf of other jurisdictions. Discussion took place in committee and during council business; council ultimately referred the measure back to the public safety committee for additional review.

The administration told the committee it recalculated the city jail’s cost of confinement using total operating cost divided by total inmate days and reported an actual cost of $288 per inmate day; the current ordinance rate cited in committee is $40 per inmate day and has not been updated since 1997. The administration said the proposed change is intended to better align charged rates with operating cost while not “making money on the backs of inmates.” The presentation said the revised charges would be phased and revisited within months.

Committee members asked several practical questions. Councilman Kuzma asked what the county currently charges; the administration did not provide a county per‑diem figure during the session. Council members pressed whether the city had received feedback from other cities the change would affect; the administration said initial feedback indicated partner municipalities view a $1.50 (transcript unclear) rate as a “deal,” but the record did not include a formal, written response from outside jurisdictions.

Several procedural and scope clarifications were recorded: the proposed charge applies only to convicted and sentenced inmates, not to pretrial detainees; inmates must opt into the local “pay‑to‑stay” arrangement and may elect to serve time in the county at no charge if they decline; and historically the city has engaged collection companies to recover fees and reported no significant collection problems. Council members also asked whether state law still requires the city to pay certain prisoner medical bills; the administration said it would research whether that statutory obligation has changed and would report back to the committee.

After questions and discussion the council voted to refer Ordinance 9-25 back to the public safety committee for further consideration and suggested staff return with clarified numbers, a schedule for future adjustments, and findings on any state statutory obligations related to inmate medical costs.

Next steps: the administration said it expects to return with refined legislation in roughly 7–10 months for additional council consideration.