County and juvenile center staff agree contract is outdated; counties to review replacement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Commissioners and county staff discussed juvenile detention operations, confirmed the interlocal agreement dates to the 1990s and noted statutes cited in that agreement have changed; staff said they will work with partner counties and counsel to update the agreement and clarify transport and custody procedures.
During a July 24 study session, Dickinson County commissioners and county staff discussed operational and contractual issues involving the regional juvenile detention center. Angela (juvenile center representative) and Sheriff Davis joined a phone call with county staff to clarify current practices and the status of the interlocal agreement.
Sean (county staff) reported the county’s agreement with the juvenile detention center dates to the 1990s — he cited 1994 in the meeting record — and said statutory references in that document are out of date because juvenile statutes have been revised since the agreement was drafted. Commissioners directed staff to update the contract language and indicated the rewrite should involve the partner counties that use the facility.
Staff and the juvenile center also clarified operational practice regarding custody and transport. County staff said juveniles arrested locally are booked by the county, but when the juvenile is placed at the regional detention center the county typically records the juvenile as housed at the center; detention‑center staff explained the county is the legal custodian while the juvenile is housed at the center and the transporting agency remains responsible for transportation to the placement. Angela said the county will continue to track days in county custody (including when juveniles are housed at the regional center) and that the county’s budget reporting currently shows detention days (including electronic monitoring) as a days‑based line item; staff said they can provide commissioners with the number of juveniles and days on request.
Commissioner Ron asked how often the interlocal agreement is revisited; staff said the agreement has not been updated to reflect current statutes and recommended drafting a new agreement for the board and partner counties to review. County staff said an attorney can prepare a revision for multi‑county consideration and that a multi‑county conversation would be appropriate because one county (identified in the discussion as Geary County) now owns the detention building; staff said they would present a plan for updating the agreement at a future meeting.