Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jefferson County weighs regionalizing juvenile services and closing local treatment function at 5c center
Summary
Commissioners discussed converting the 5c facility from a treatment center to detention-only and pursuing a regional arrangement with neighboring counties to consolidate juvenile services; officials said the move could save significant operating costs if all counties agree.
Jefferson County commissioners discussed plans to end treatment services at the 5c juvenile facility and pursue a regional agreement with neighboring jurisdictions to handle juveniles, a change officials said could substantially reduce county spending.
The board heard that 5c has already been shut down “as a treatment facility” and will remain open only for detention while county leaders negotiate a regional arrangement with three other counties (referred to in the meeting as ‘3 b’). The chair said several meetings have taken place with other commissioners and that the counties involved have signaled support for consolidation. The county budgeted about $530,000 for 5c this year; a commissioner said keeping the facility open in its current form could cost roughly $1.8 million.
Commissioners said the county has met with 3 b officials, that three Jefferson-area commissioners attended a recent intercounty meeting, and that one of the partner counties has appointed Shane Boyle—described in the meeting as a longtime Department of Juvenile Corrections employee—to lead juvenile services there. Officials said they are working on an agreement timeline and hope a transfer of services could occur “before the end of the year” if all participating counties sign on; if unanimous agreement is not reached, they expect the current arrangement would remain until next summer.
No formal action or vote to close the facility permanently was taken at the meeting. Commissioners emphasized the proposal is contingent on reaching agreement with partner counties and noted that a transfer would require coordination on staffing and budgets. One commissioner asked for follow-up on the effective date and emphasized the financial pressures of operating an underutilized treatment program with high per-person staffing costs.
Next steps the board outlined include continued negotiations with the partner counties, drafting an intergovernmental agreement, and returning to the board for any formal approvals or budget amendments required to implement a regional model.
