Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
County reviews juvenile‑detention contract extensions; commissioners seek liability and cost details
Loading...
Summary
Juvenile court administrator George Moyer presented contract extensions through June 30, 2027, for regional detention services and discussed fee increases; commissioners asked for clearer per‑diem cost data and risk‑pool and legal review of hold‑harmless language before any approval.
George Moyer, juvenile court (speaker 6), told commissioners the county is recommending two contract extensions for detention services — longstanding agreements with neighboring counties that would extend terms through June 30, 2027 and increase the fee charged for detained youth.
"This new contract extension essentially increases the fee for our detention services as well as extend the contract to 06/30/2027," Moyer said, and noted letters of support from other counties’ juvenile‑court administrators and law‑enforcement officials were available for the board.
Commissioners pressed Moyer for operating‑cost data. Moyer said per‑youth operating costs vary with population levels and cited a rough calculation from last year, but transcript figures were inconsistent; the board asked staff to provide precise cost and average‑daily‑population data before taking any vote. A commissioner voiced concern that at a current charging rate of $250 per day the county may be subsidizing services for other jurisdictions while retaining full liability for events that occur in the county’s facility.
Moyer pointed to hold‑harmless language in the original 2005 interlocal agreement and said the contract includes mutual indemnification: "Both parties expressly agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other," he read from the document. Commissioners said that language may not protect the county from third‑party claims and asked legal and the county risk pool to review the liability exposure and insurance requirements.
Scott Jaccow (speaker 7), identified as representing Pacific County, urged flexibility: "I do not believe Kellett should be held liable for a youth that comes from 1 of our counties," and said Pacific County would be willing to negotiate hold‑harmless language or adjust per‑diem fees if needed.
Next steps: Commissioners requested follow‑up with legal counsel and the county risk pool to clarify liability and insurance coverage and asked staff to provide clearer per‑diem cost breakdowns prior to any vote. The contract extensions were placed on the agenda for the board meeting tomorrow for formal action.
