Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Finance And Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff's refusal to accept federal inmates complicates funding for McKinsey annex expansion
Summary
County staff told commissioners the sheriff indicated he could not accept federal inmates due to new state law requirements, exposing an expected $450,000 annual revenue stream and forcing reassessment of the McKinsey annex timeline and funding assumptions.
County staff and commissioners told the court on Tuesday that a change in state law and the sheriff's interpretation of it means the county should not expect revenue from housing federal inmates in the near term — a development that undermines a portion of the financing plan for a planned jail annex.
During the revenue review staff noted the county had previously counted on federal-inmate housing income when sizing the McKinsey annex expansion. "The sheriff is of the opinion that he will not have any federal inmates in the jail for the foreseeable future," the judge reported, saying the sheriff cited new state law changes that heighten obligations for mental-health evaluation and holding times.
Impact on capital plans: staff estimated the county had been relying on about $450,000 of revenue related to federal inmate housing; commissioners said that shortfall requires revisiting the annex schedule and possibly pausing some construction spending. The McKinsey annex had been projected to open in early 2019 (Jan–Feb), and commissioners discussed delaying opening and reviewing committed CO spending if the federal-inmate revenue cannot be realized.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff to seek an advisory opinion from the county attorney to determine whether the sheriff's interpretation is a legal bar or an operational/policy choice and to bring back revised financial projections for the annex.
Provenance: initial housing/inmate discussion began at the revenue presentation (topicintro: SEG 419) and annex/expenditure implications were discussed through SEG 637 (topfinish: SEG 637).
