Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff: Renegotiated federal inmate contract raises daily rate to $117 and could add substantial revenue
Summary
Sheriff Dean told the Lawrence County Commission the county’s federal inmate housing contract will increase housing pay from $70 to $117 per inmate per day (effective Feb. 1) and raise guard/transport fees to $35.92 per hour; he said the change could add more than half a million dollars in recent-period receipts and relieve pressure on debt service.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff Dean reported to the Lawrence County Commission that a renegotiated federal inmate housing contract will raise the county’s housing rate from $70 to $117 per inmate per day, effective Feb. 1, and increase the guard and transport rate from $26 to $35.92 per hour.
“I’m happy to report … our revenue from housing and dealing with federal inmates for 2025 came in at approximately $1,139,698.81,” Sheriff Dean said, adding that the jail averaged an EDP (average daily population) of about 59 inmates from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31 and that receipts for that span totaled roughly $500,710. He described the negotiated increase as “incredibly impactful” for Lawrence County and said it could substantially increase annual revenue for debt‑service relief and operations.
Dean said the new arrangement also lowers the occupancy level the county needs to meet its business model: “Now we could meet our business model at roughly 24 inmates per month,” he said, noting the county can renegotiate the contract every three years.
The sheriff credited several staffing additions — a case manager and part‑time medical personnel — with helping secure the renegotiation and singled out a county staff member for drafting the application that supported the outcome. Commissioners praised the office for meeting expectations during the facility startup and asked follow‑up questions about contract length, occupancy assumptions and operating costs.
No formal vote or new county policy was taken during the report; the item was presented as an informational update to the commission.

