Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff tells Portage County committee a local juvenile detention center is no longer feasible; resolution planned
Summary
The sheriff told the Public Safety Committee that long-term declines in Portage County juvenile detention usage and high construction and operating costs make building a local 20‑bed juvenile detention center infeasible; he will introduce a resolution next month to halt further architectural work on that option.
The Portage County sheriff told the county Public Safety Committee that the county should not move forward with building a local juvenile detention center, citing falling local use and steep projected costs.
"I don't think it's feasible for Portage County anymore," the sheriff said, summarizing a review of average daily juvenile populations and projected operating expenses. He said the county's share of juveniles held in the regional detention center has fallen steadily since 2015 and that the county now serves far fewer juveniles on an average daily basis than in prior years.
The sheriff provided a rough estimate that constructing a 20‑bed juvenile detention facility would cost between $15 million and $20 million, not including additional equipment and medical contracts. He also said projected operating costs (wages and meals) for a local juvenile unit would be about $750,000 per year and would require adding roughly three staff positions. "That rough guesstimate came between 15 and $20,000,000 for the juvenile detention center," he said.
Committee members asked about alternatives and costs of contracting beds elsewhere. The sheriff said contracting space in Marathon County — a drive he described as about 24 minutes — has been priced under $100,000 on current contracts and that, at today's rates, contracting a bed could cost about $84,000 (context: the transcript does not specify the exact time period or per‑unit basis for that figure). Finance staff in attendance confirmed the sheriff's revenue numbers were net of offsets.
The sheriff said the committee, judges and other stakeholders visited the regional facility and that, based on usage patterns and the cost comparison, he and operations staff recommend not including a juvenile detention center in the county's next design phase. "We're going to bring a resolution that when this project moves forward and the design team continues after schematic design, that they would not be included," he said, describing a plan to stop further architectural design work specific to a juvenile detention center while leaving space in the overall building for a possible future addition.
He emphasized the recommendation is a financial and operational judgment: lower local juvenile counts, the high up‑front capital need, ongoing operating costs, and the existing option to contract regional beds. The sheriff said net revenue the county currently receives from hosting juveniles is approximately $250,000 (finance staff characterized that figure as a net value after offsets).
No formal vote on the resolution occurred at the meeting. The sheriff said he will introduce the resolution to the county board next month after presenting it to this committee.
The committee also discussed that land has been set aside for a future juvenile facility if the county's needs change, and that architectural plans for the larger building project can be designed to allow for a future addition without completing juvenile‑specific architectural work now.
The committee set its next meeting for Wednesday, Sept. 24 at 8 a.m.; the resolution is expected to appear before the county board after that committee review.
