New Luzerne County Commissioners take office on January 1, 2004. At the end of the year they suddenly decide there is an “emergency” when in fact they had been paying PA ChildCare on a per diem basis for almost two years. On what grounds can they claim an emergency when they already were contracting with PA ChildCare and other facilities throughout the state. They can’t claim there was a capacity issue because the bed census was not at 100% throughout the state or at PA ChildCare. One Commissioner admits bypassing the normal bidding process. Another Commissioner points out that this lease was costing Luzerne County more money than need be. According to officials at the Committee of Seventy (215-447-3600 Ext. 104) in Philadelphia such a tactic is absurd and should not be tolerated.
Vonderheid tries to cover his tracks by asking for the results of the audit being conducted by the State Department of Public Welfare when he already voted for the lease. Once you enter a lease it is very difficult to break. Vonderheid justifies the lease cost based on prices paid for the last three years. Again, if they are doing it for the last three years where was the emergency?
Vonderheid states if the audit comes back and is unfavorable to PA ChildCare he will do what is right for the taxpayers. What were his actions when he found out about the results of the audit? Nothing.
Further, at the same meeting support services for the PA ChildCare facility are authorized for only 30 or 120 day periods. How can you have an emergency for the main facility but not the services that support it?
12/31/2004
County declares emergency, OKs pact with juvenile care center
By James Conmy , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County Commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Todd Vonderheid declared a state-of-emergency Thursday to ratify four short-term contracts with service providers for a Pittston Township juvenile care center. The county will begin a 20-year, $58 million lease for the facility with Pennsylvania Child Care on Jan. 1. All contracts with service providers at the facility expire Dec. 31.
The most expensive deal was with Northwestern Human Services, which will oversee juveniles 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The firm will bill the county $193,000 monthly.
An emergency was declared to bypass normal advertising requirements for services, Vonderheid said.
Commissioner Stephen Urban did not support any of the contracts. He said declaring the emergency was unnecessary and proves Vonderheid and Skrepenak acted on the lease too quickly.
Urban continues to push for the county to construct a new facility. He said the cost to taxpayers would decrease by $90 per bed, per day.
"We're spending $4,000 a day more by leasing, rather than building," Urban said. "This was poor management on the part of the majority commissioners."
Vonderheid's letter to Estelle Richman, secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, asking to expedite an audit, which allegedly warns the lease is a bad deal for taxpayers, is too late, Urban said.
"He didn't do his due diligence on this," Urban said of Vonderheid. "His letter is nothing more than back tracking. He is asking questions that should have been asked before he signed the lease."
"The lease was based on rates approved for three straight years, by two different administrations," Vonderheid said.
If the state audit uncovers wrongdoing, the county could attempt to get out of the lease, Vonderheid said.
"I'll take whatever measures are necessary to ensure taxpayers are getting the best service for the lowest cost possible," he said. "My concern is the children and the taxpayers. Grandstanding isn't solving any of these issues."
Other contracts approved were for food service, custodial and maintenance service, and health insurance. They were all for 120 days, except the custodial and maintenance contract, which is for 30 days.
The cost of all three, when added to the Northwestern Human Services' expense, is less than $225,000 a month and in accordance with original estimates, Vonderheid said.
.....
The short-term contracts were executed to give commissioners time to review the state audit when it is completed, Vonderheid said. There also was no indication of problems with Pennsylvania Child Care before it was executed, he said.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Who Is Accountable?
Luzerne County Commissioners spend $446,500 of taxpayers money for design work on a new juvenile detention center. The design work was never used to build a new facility ultimately making the taxpayers needlessly pay for that design. Who is held accountable?
03/06/2003
County OKs design plans for new juvenile detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
The new Luzerne County Juvenile Detention Center moved another step closer to reality Wednesday when the county commissioners approved spending $446,500 for design services.
Contract was awarded to Strach Associates, Plains Township.
Luzerne County Engineer Jim Brozena asked the commissioners to approve the proposal.
Commissioner Steve Urban questioned whether Brozena sought competitive bids for the work.
Brozena said he was not required to seek bids because engineering and architectural design are professional services and do not require bidding under the County Code.
Urban asked Brozena why he chose Strach for the work and was told that Strach is a reputable local firm with more than 20 years' experience and that Strach had been consulting on this project from the outset.
When the issue was put to a vote, commissioners Tom Makowski and Urban voted in favor of awarding the design work to Strach. Commissioner Tom Pizano abstained, explaining that he voted against the bond issue that included funding for the juvenile detention center because it also included funding for a countywide property reassessment, a project that he opposes.
03/06/2003
County OKs design plans for new juvenile detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
The new Luzerne County Juvenile Detention Center moved another step closer to reality Wednesday when the county commissioners approved spending $446,500 for design services.
Contract was awarded to Strach Associates, Plains Township.
Luzerne County Engineer Jim Brozena asked the commissioners to approve the proposal.
Commissioner Steve Urban questioned whether Brozena sought competitive bids for the work.
Brozena said he was not required to seek bids because engineering and architectural design are professional services and do not require bidding under the County Code.
Urban asked Brozena why he chose Strach for the work and was told that Strach is a reputable local firm with more than 20 years' experience and that Strach had been consulting on this project from the outset.
When the issue was put to a vote, commissioners Tom Makowski and Urban voted in favor of awarding the design work to Strach. Commissioner Tom Pizano abstained, explaining that he voted against the bond issue that included funding for the juvenile detention center because it also included funding for a countywide property reassessment, a project that he opposes.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
No Emergency, Just Business As Usual
PA Childcare announces the opening of its juvenile detention facility and rents rooms to Luzerne County on a per diem basis at up to $268.00 per day. No emergency is declared to do this. Luzerne County Commissioners are staying the course of constructing their own facility by approving a $25 million bond issue.
The Luzerne County Engineer has picked an 88 acre site for the new facility. PA ChildCare knows it will have competition if this facility is allowed to be built, thus putting the viability of their venture in serious jeopardy.
If Zapalla felt he would have no trouble renting out the facility to other counties why did he go after a lease? The answer was over time he found out other counties weren’t that eager to pay the excessive charge. In addition he built a facility with much more capacity than needed. PA Child Care still had to staff and pay the fixed costs such as heat, light, insurance, etc. for floorspace that is not rented.
Look at the press release dated 7/16/2005 for income problems. “On the revenue side, the county estimated receiving $5.2 million from the facility in 2005. With $2.2 million billed through June and a more aggressive marketing campaign in place, the projections are on target, Diaz said.”
02/07/2003
New juvenile facility ready for business
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Pennsylvania Child Care, a new multi-million dollar juvenile detention and residential treatment center, opened Thursday in Pittston Township amid expectations that the facility will forge working relationships with many Pennsylvania county court systems, especially Luzerne's.
Luzerne County President Judge Michael Conahan, who was not present at Thursday's grand opening, commented later in the day that the county sends Northwestern from 140 to 160 juveniles annually for long-term residential treatment services.
He indicated the facility would be a welcome addition to the region and predicted that many surrounding counties would contract with the Pittston Township facility, located in the Grimes Industrial Park off Suscon Road in Pittston Township.
The complex also provides for a courtroom and judge's chambers for juvenile hearings and adjudications.
The facility is reported to cost $7.4 million; however, Zappala indicated that figure was too low when he spoke of having "eight figures" invested in the property.
He said there are other investment vehicles that could have produced "10-percent at no risk" but quickly added that he and Powell decided they wanted to invest in this project to help young people "turns their lives around."
The county commissioners Wednesday passed several motions creating contracts with seven different juvenile detention facilities in the state, including Pennsylvania Child Care. Commissioner Makowski stressed that the county has decided to build its own juvenile detention facility.
He and minority Commissioner Steve Urban joined to pass a $25 million bond issue, part of which is earmarked for a new juvenile detention center.
County Engineer Jim Brozena said the project is being targeted for construction on an 88-acre county tract behind the county's Valley Crest Nursing Home in Plains Township.
Projections call for the facility to be completed 18 to 30 months from groundbreaking.
With the county's old facility off limits due to court order and with a new county detention facility at least 18 months away, it appears that Pennsylvania Child Care will be the facility of choice for Luzerne County, at least for now.
Zappala said even if Luzerne County chose to use other facilities he would have "no trouble" filling the Pittston Township complex with juveniles from counties near and far.
Juvenile detention differs from residential treatment in that detention is short-term and provides a secure facility to detain juvenile offenders from the time they are charged until the time the court adjudicates their case, generally from several days to several weeks.
Detention is 100-percent reimbursable by the federal government and costs vary from $160 to $288 per day.
PCC charges $268 per day.
Luzerne County Commissioners vote to award contract for design work on new juvenile detention facility.
Nine million dollar construction cost financed at 5% per year should cost the County $14,017,481.66 over 20 years, not $58.1 million.
Mortgage Information
Loan amount $9,000,000.00
Term 20 years
Interest rate 4.800%
Monthly payment $58,406.17
Total payments $14,017,481.66
Total interest $5,017,481.66
The Luzerne County Engineer has picked an 88 acre site for the new facility. PA ChildCare knows it will have competition if this facility is allowed to be built, thus putting the viability of their venture in serious jeopardy.
If Zapalla felt he would have no trouble renting out the facility to other counties why did he go after a lease? The answer was over time he found out other counties weren’t that eager to pay the excessive charge. In addition he built a facility with much more capacity than needed. PA Child Care still had to staff and pay the fixed costs such as heat, light, insurance, etc. for floorspace that is not rented.
Look at the press release dated 7/16/2005 for income problems. “On the revenue side, the county estimated receiving $5.2 million from the facility in 2005. With $2.2 million billed through June and a more aggressive marketing campaign in place, the projections are on target, Diaz said.”
02/07/2003
New juvenile facility ready for business
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Pennsylvania Child Care, a new multi-million dollar juvenile detention and residential treatment center, opened Thursday in Pittston Township amid expectations that the facility will forge working relationships with many Pennsylvania county court systems, especially Luzerne's.
Luzerne County President Judge Michael Conahan, who was not present at Thursday's grand opening, commented later in the day that the county sends Northwestern from 140 to 160 juveniles annually for long-term residential treatment services.
He indicated the facility would be a welcome addition to the region and predicted that many surrounding counties would contract with the Pittston Township facility, located in the Grimes Industrial Park off Suscon Road in Pittston Township.
The complex also provides for a courtroom and judge's chambers for juvenile hearings and adjudications.
The facility is reported to cost $7.4 million; however, Zappala indicated that figure was too low when he spoke of having "eight figures" invested in the property.
He said there are other investment vehicles that could have produced "10-percent at no risk" but quickly added that he and Powell decided they wanted to invest in this project to help young people "turns their lives around."
The county commissioners Wednesday passed several motions creating contracts with seven different juvenile detention facilities in the state, including Pennsylvania Child Care. Commissioner Makowski stressed that the county has decided to build its own juvenile detention facility.
He and minority Commissioner Steve Urban joined to pass a $25 million bond issue, part of which is earmarked for a new juvenile detention center.
County Engineer Jim Brozena said the project is being targeted for construction on an 88-acre county tract behind the county's Valley Crest Nursing Home in Plains Township.
Projections call for the facility to be completed 18 to 30 months from groundbreaking.
With the county's old facility off limits due to court order and with a new county detention facility at least 18 months away, it appears that Pennsylvania Child Care will be the facility of choice for Luzerne County, at least for now.
Zappala said even if Luzerne County chose to use other facilities he would have "no trouble" filling the Pittston Township complex with juveniles from counties near and far.
Juvenile detention differs from residential treatment in that detention is short-term and provides a secure facility to detain juvenile offenders from the time they are charged until the time the court adjudicates their case, generally from several days to several weeks.
Detention is 100-percent reimbursable by the federal government and costs vary from $160 to $288 per day.
PCC charges $268 per day.
Luzerne County Commissioners vote to award contract for design work on new juvenile detention facility.
Nine million dollar construction cost financed at 5% per year should cost the County $14,017,481.66 over 20 years, not $58.1 million.
Mortgage Information
Loan amount $9,000,000.00
Term 20 years
Interest rate 4.800%
Monthly payment $58,406.17
Total payments $14,017,481.66
Total interest $5,017,481.66
Monday, February 2, 2009
Detention Center Facility Is Closed, Scheme Starts
Luzerne County Commissioners decided to close its juvenile detention facility despite the fact it passes State Inspection due to an order by Judge Conahan forbidding sending youths there. It is a known fact the Judge Conahan is friends with owners of Pa ChildCare, a new juvenile detention center built by Robert Powell and Gregory Zappala.
Luzerne County Commissioner Makowski is very clear that they are going to build a new facility because it would cost the taxpayers less money overall when considering the cost of acquisition and maintaining the facility. Scuttlebutt already knew a lease was forthcoming despite the fact that Commissioner Makowski is adamant that the county will build a facility. Luzerne County only needs 24 to 30 beds but a facility with 48 beds that will eventually go on to be 60 beds is constructed. Why the extra beds??
The accused devised a scheme to overcharge other counties for detention of their juveniles to cover Luzerne County’s costs for detention due to the loss of TANF funds cited by the Juvenile Dentention Centers Association of Pennsylvania. Daily rate calculations make it very difficult to compare apples to apples for elected officials. They are at the mercy of exisiting facilities to house their juveniles at whatever rate is available due to the finite amount of bed space available in proximity to their counties, regionally, or statewide.
12/12/2002
County close to renting juvenile detention facilities
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
After Jan. 1, Luzerne County officials will likely close the old juvenile detention facility on North River Street in Wilkes-Barre and start using facilities outside the area...for a while.
But it is also likely that when the juvenile detention facility being built in Pittston Township opens sometime next year, the county will begin leasing some or all of the 48-bed complex, according to informed sources.
Little by little, the controversial issue of where the county will end up detaining juvenile offenders before they are sentenced by the court, is unfolding.
The latest clue as to what's really happening came Wednesday when majority commissioners Tom Makowski and Tom Pizano passed the 2003 budget that included 47 job cuts, including the 14 child care workers who labor at the existing detention center.
President Judge Michael Conahan earlier informed the commissioners that he won't allow the existing facility to be used after Jan. 1 because the courts have complained for years that the facility is substandard and even infested with roaches.
However, the state Department of Public Welfare recently inspected the building and renewed its operating license after concluding it met minimum standards.
Meanwhile, Makowski has been adamant that he wants to build a new county facility rather than repair the old one or lease from Pennsylvania Child Care, the firm that is building the Pittston Township facility.
PCC has come under scrutiny because one of its investors is Hazleton attorney Robert Powell, a former county solicitor and a financial supporter of both Makowski and Pizano. Pizano has remained undecided on the issue, at least publicly.
But, when PCC gets up and running later this year, informed courthouse sources say they can't see how the county will be able to justify sending juveniles far afield when a local facility is available at less cost.
Sources close to the commissioners and the courts predict that the Pittston Township facility will wind up being leased by the county before the end of 2003.
Some court officials, who asked not to be quoted, predict the county may be able to lease the entire facility and then sub-lease unused beds to other counties to cut costs.
Luzerne County needs from 24 to 30 beds. PCC will have 48 available beds.
All pre-sentencing detention costs are paid by state and federal funds and don't cost the county anything.
"Residential" expenses, incurred if a judge sentences a juvenile to a treatment center, are charged to the county.
Luzerne County Commissioner Makowski is very clear that they are going to build a new facility because it would cost the taxpayers less money overall when considering the cost of acquisition and maintaining the facility. Scuttlebutt already knew a lease was forthcoming despite the fact that Commissioner Makowski is adamant that the county will build a facility. Luzerne County only needs 24 to 30 beds but a facility with 48 beds that will eventually go on to be 60 beds is constructed. Why the extra beds??
The accused devised a scheme to overcharge other counties for detention of their juveniles to cover Luzerne County’s costs for detention due to the loss of TANF funds cited by the Juvenile Dentention Centers Association of Pennsylvania. Daily rate calculations make it very difficult to compare apples to apples for elected officials. They are at the mercy of exisiting facilities to house their juveniles at whatever rate is available due to the finite amount of bed space available in proximity to their counties, regionally, or statewide.
12/12/2002
County close to renting juvenile detention facilities
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
After Jan. 1, Luzerne County officials will likely close the old juvenile detention facility on North River Street in Wilkes-Barre and start using facilities outside the area...for a while.
But it is also likely that when the juvenile detention facility being built in Pittston Township opens sometime next year, the county will begin leasing some or all of the 48-bed complex, according to informed sources.
Little by little, the controversial issue of where the county will end up detaining juvenile offenders before they are sentenced by the court, is unfolding.
The latest clue as to what's really happening came Wednesday when majority commissioners Tom Makowski and Tom Pizano passed the 2003 budget that included 47 job cuts, including the 14 child care workers who labor at the existing detention center.
President Judge Michael Conahan earlier informed the commissioners that he won't allow the existing facility to be used after Jan. 1 because the courts have complained for years that the facility is substandard and even infested with roaches.
However, the state Department of Public Welfare recently inspected the building and renewed its operating license after concluding it met minimum standards.
Meanwhile, Makowski has been adamant that he wants to build a new county facility rather than repair the old one or lease from Pennsylvania Child Care, the firm that is building the Pittston Township facility.
PCC has come under scrutiny because one of its investors is Hazleton attorney Robert Powell, a former county solicitor and a financial supporter of both Makowski and Pizano. Pizano has remained undecided on the issue, at least publicly.
But, when PCC gets up and running later this year, informed courthouse sources say they can't see how the county will be able to justify sending juveniles far afield when a local facility is available at less cost.
Sources close to the commissioners and the courts predict that the Pittston Township facility will wind up being leased by the county before the end of 2003.
Some court officials, who asked not to be quoted, predict the county may be able to lease the entire facility and then sub-lease unused beds to other counties to cut costs.
Luzerne County needs from 24 to 30 beds. PCC will have 48 available beds.
All pre-sentencing detention costs are paid by state and federal funds and don't cost the county anything.
"Residential" expenses, incurred if a judge sentences a juvenile to a treatment center, are charged to the county.
Options Available To Luzerne County
The County explores the possibility of lease/purchasing Pa ChildCare’s facility despite prior statements. In discussions Commissioner Makowski is trying to get a deal that would be closer to what the County would spend on its own if it constructed a facility. Makowski knows it is still cheaper to build than agree to a $1.2 million yearly lease for 30 years.
[04/18/2002
County closer to making move on detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County officials may be moving closer to a resolution on the issue of acquiring a new juvenile detention facility.
Luzerne County Commissioner Tom Makowski said Tuesday "discussions" have been under way between county representatives and representatives of Pennsylvania Child Care LLC, a privately owned company building a 48-bed juvenile detention facility in the Vogelbacher Industrial Park, Pittston Township.
However, Makowski stressed the talks are geared toward determining if there is an acceptable way of working out a "lease-purchase" arrangement with the company.
"I've always been against leasing. National studies have consistently found that counties should own their juvenile detention facilities rather than lease," he said.
Makowski acknowledged the holdup in moving forward with replacing the current antiquated facility has been a philosophical difference between him and fellow majority commissioner Tom Pizano.
"It's been reported that Tom (Pizano) favors leasing, while I favor building and owning, and that's a fair assessment," he conceded. But Makowski said the current talks might hold the key to coming to a consensus.
"I still don't like leasing, but if we could work out an agreement to lease for only a short time and then buy, I might be interested in that," he said.
Last year, Pennsylvania Child Care communicated with the county that it would lease the facility at a cost of $1.2 million over 30 years. Minority Commissioner Steve Urban howled at that proposal, complaining it would cost the county far too much.
Makowski said he agrees with Urban on that point but also notes he believes PCC "didn't do their homework" when developing a lease proposal. "I think they were way off," he commented.
Luzerne County Engineer James Brozena studied the issue and more than a year ago told the commissioners it would cost the county about $9 million to build its own 32-bed facility.
Makowski said the county would have to float another bond to fund the project and that means a $9 million facility would wind up costing $17 to 18 million after computing interest charges.
"If we can get somewhere in that ball park in discussions with PCC over a lease purchase agreement, I think we would have the basis for trying to resolve this problem," Makowski projected.
He said Brozena has been meeting with Bob Mericle, a person he identified as the "developer" of the project.
Mericle, however, said he is only the builder and has "zero ownership interest."
He agreed with Makowski's assessment of the current dialogue.
"I understand that talks are under way to try to reach some sort of agreement," he commented.
Mericle said the company has "several owners," but he declined to identify them.
Makowski said he's not aware of who owns the facility, adding he's "not concerned with that."
Meanwhile, Brozena said he is proceeding with work aimed at identifying potential sites where the county could build its own juvenile facility if that becomes the most viable option.]
When Skrepenak and Vonderheid took the helm they ignored and threw out all the good thinking on the lease at the time.
[04/18/2002
County closer to making move on detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County officials may be moving closer to a resolution on the issue of acquiring a new juvenile detention facility.
Luzerne County Commissioner Tom Makowski said Tuesday "discussions" have been under way between county representatives and representatives of Pennsylvania Child Care LLC, a privately owned company building a 48-bed juvenile detention facility in the Vogelbacher Industrial Park, Pittston Township.
However, Makowski stressed the talks are geared toward determining if there is an acceptable way of working out a "lease-purchase" arrangement with the company.
"I've always been against leasing. National studies have consistently found that counties should own their juvenile detention facilities rather than lease," he said.
Makowski acknowledged the holdup in moving forward with replacing the current antiquated facility has been a philosophical difference between him and fellow majority commissioner Tom Pizano.
"It's been reported that Tom (Pizano) favors leasing, while I favor building and owning, and that's a fair assessment," he conceded. But Makowski said the current talks might hold the key to coming to a consensus.
"I still don't like leasing, but if we could work out an agreement to lease for only a short time and then buy, I might be interested in that," he said.
Last year, Pennsylvania Child Care communicated with the county that it would lease the facility at a cost of $1.2 million over 30 years. Minority Commissioner Steve Urban howled at that proposal, complaining it would cost the county far too much.
Makowski said he agrees with Urban on that point but also notes he believes PCC "didn't do their homework" when developing a lease proposal. "I think they were way off," he commented.
Luzerne County Engineer James Brozena studied the issue and more than a year ago told the commissioners it would cost the county about $9 million to build its own 32-bed facility.
Makowski said the county would have to float another bond to fund the project and that means a $9 million facility would wind up costing $17 to 18 million after computing interest charges.
"If we can get somewhere in that ball park in discussions with PCC over a lease purchase agreement, I think we would have the basis for trying to resolve this problem," Makowski projected.
He said Brozena has been meeting with Bob Mericle, a person he identified as the "developer" of the project.
Mericle, however, said he is only the builder and has "zero ownership interest."
He agreed with Makowski's assessment of the current dialogue.
"I understand that talks are under way to try to reach some sort of agreement," he commented.
Mericle said the company has "several owners," but he declined to identify them.
Makowski said he's not aware of who owns the facility, adding he's "not concerned with that."
Meanwhile, Brozena said he is proceeding with work aimed at identifying potential sites where the county could build its own juvenile facility if that becomes the most viable option.]
When Skrepenak and Vonderheid took the helm they ignored and threw out all the good thinking on the lease at the time.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Due Dilgence Performed by One Set of Luzerne County Commissioners
Luzerne County officials perform due diligence to determine the best and most economical way to address their detention center problem. They travel to Colorado to attend a seminar designed to aid officials to find funding for juvenile detention facilities. Commissioner Makowski makes it clear that he believes the best deal for the taxpayers is to build a juvenile detention center, not lease it.
08/22/2001
County officials in Colorado trying to find ways to fund detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County officials traveled to Colorado this week where they attended a U.S. Justice Department seminar designed to aid officials find funding for juvenile detention facilities.
Luzerne County Commissioner Tom Makowski, county Engineer James Brozena and juvenile detention center director Sandra Brulo traveled to the Denver area for the session hosted by the federal government. The officials are not expected to return until the end of the week, according to sources.
James Torbik, chief county clerk, confirmed that the three officials are in Denver to explore ways and means to fund a new juvenile detention facility.
"That project is a top priority of the majority commissioners and they intend to honor a commitment to resolve what direction this project will take before the end of the year," Torbik said.
The current facility, on North River Street, has been declining to the point that Judge Joseph Augello insisted that county officials do something, and soon, to correct the deplorable conditions of the facility.
Parents repeatedly complain that the place is rife with insects and that the kitchen isn't large enough to provide proper meal preparation for inmates.
In Augello's last annual report, he had this to say about the facility: "... the juvenile detention center remains in deplorable condition. While the court staffs the detention center, it is the responsibility of Luzerne County to maintain the facility and comply with strict code specifications. Minimal compliance and bandage and baling wire repairs are no longer acceptable. We expect the county will expeditiously rectify this disgraceful situation."
Makowski promised to respond to the issue this year.
"The issue has always been where will we find the money to solve the problem. Hopefully, this seminar will provide some answers," Torbik commented.
The commissioners long ago hinted they felt it would be cost prohibitive to repair or remodel the existing structure. Makowski said it is more likely that the county would build its own facility or lease from a private company.
"The commissioners are exploring all options," Torbik said.
It has been estimated that it would cost the county $4 million to $5 million to build a new facility and about $2.5 million to fix the old one.
09/26/2001
Makowski says county will build, not lease, juvenile detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Putting an end to speculation that Luzerne County might soon lease a new juvenile detention center in Pittston Township, Luzerne County Commissioner Chairman Tom Makowski said Tuesday that the county would build its own facility.
"It was an option that we did consider," Makowski said regarding the Pennsylvania Child Care LLC 48-bed project in the Vogelbacher Industrial Park. "We've considered a lot of things," he added.
"However, we're convinced that the best way to go is to build our own facility and we'll do that," he asserted. Makowski hinted that a site has been selected for the project but he said to reveal that now would be "premature."
"We'll be making an announcement soon," he promised.
The current county juvenile detention center on North River Street, Wilkes-Barre, is more than 60 years old and in deplorable condition.
Engineers and architects have calculated that it would cost about $2.5 million to repair it while a new facility would cost between $4 and $5 million.
The PCC facility in Pittston Township was offered to Luzerne County under a 30-year lease for $1.2 million a year plus the costs of staffing, operation and maintenance.
The fact that PCC is forging ahead without a commitment from Luzerne County led some to conclude there must be some kind of "back room deal" whereby the county had secretly agreed to lease the facility. But Makowski's statement that the county will go forward with its own new facility seems to invalidate whatever suspicions were erroneously aroused.
"Theirs (PCC) will be a combination treatment and residential facility," Makowski reflected.
"We may be able to use their treatment services on a contract basis, but we're not interested in their residential services," he stated.
Makowski said the project could be viable if the firm was able to provide juvenile residential services to other surrounding counties.
The commissioner reminded that he, county Engineer Jim Brozena and Juvenile Detention Center director Sandra Brulo journeyed to Colorado a few weeks ago to attend a U.S. Justice Department seminar that focused on the dos and don'ts of building juvenile detention facilities.
Makowski said the sessions were "very valuable" because they reviewed the mistakes made by other areas around the nation. The commissioner likened the seminar to being given a "road map that shows you where the potholes are so you can avoid damaging your car." The sessions included segments on financing, construction, operation and maintenance.
08/22/2001
County officials in Colorado trying to find ways to fund detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County officials traveled to Colorado this week where they attended a U.S. Justice Department seminar designed to aid officials find funding for juvenile detention facilities.
Luzerne County Commissioner Tom Makowski, county Engineer James Brozena and juvenile detention center director Sandra Brulo traveled to the Denver area for the session hosted by the federal government. The officials are not expected to return until the end of the week, according to sources.
James Torbik, chief county clerk, confirmed that the three officials are in Denver to explore ways and means to fund a new juvenile detention facility.
"That project is a top priority of the majority commissioners and they intend to honor a commitment to resolve what direction this project will take before the end of the year," Torbik said.
The current facility, on North River Street, has been declining to the point that Judge Joseph Augello insisted that county officials do something, and soon, to correct the deplorable conditions of the facility.
Parents repeatedly complain that the place is rife with insects and that the kitchen isn't large enough to provide proper meal preparation for inmates.
In Augello's last annual report, he had this to say about the facility: "... the juvenile detention center remains in deplorable condition. While the court staffs the detention center, it is the responsibility of Luzerne County to maintain the facility and comply with strict code specifications. Minimal compliance and bandage and baling wire repairs are no longer acceptable. We expect the county will expeditiously rectify this disgraceful situation."
Makowski promised to respond to the issue this year.
"The issue has always been where will we find the money to solve the problem. Hopefully, this seminar will provide some answers," Torbik commented.
The commissioners long ago hinted they felt it would be cost prohibitive to repair or remodel the existing structure. Makowski said it is more likely that the county would build its own facility or lease from a private company.
"The commissioners are exploring all options," Torbik said.
It has been estimated that it would cost the county $4 million to $5 million to build a new facility and about $2.5 million to fix the old one.
09/26/2001
Makowski says county will build, not lease, juvenile detention center
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Putting an end to speculation that Luzerne County might soon lease a new juvenile detention center in Pittston Township, Luzerne County Commissioner Chairman Tom Makowski said Tuesday that the county would build its own facility.
"It was an option that we did consider," Makowski said regarding the Pennsylvania Child Care LLC 48-bed project in the Vogelbacher Industrial Park. "We've considered a lot of things," he added.
"However, we're convinced that the best way to go is to build our own facility and we'll do that," he asserted. Makowski hinted that a site has been selected for the project but he said to reveal that now would be "premature."
"We'll be making an announcement soon," he promised.
The current county juvenile detention center on North River Street, Wilkes-Barre, is more than 60 years old and in deplorable condition.
Engineers and architects have calculated that it would cost about $2.5 million to repair it while a new facility would cost between $4 and $5 million.
The PCC facility in Pittston Township was offered to Luzerne County under a 30-year lease for $1.2 million a year plus the costs of staffing, operation and maintenance.
The fact that PCC is forging ahead without a commitment from Luzerne County led some to conclude there must be some kind of "back room deal" whereby the county had secretly agreed to lease the facility. But Makowski's statement that the county will go forward with its own new facility seems to invalidate whatever suspicions were erroneously aroused.
"Theirs (PCC) will be a combination treatment and residential facility," Makowski reflected.
"We may be able to use their treatment services on a contract basis, but we're not interested in their residential services," he stated.
Makowski said the project could be viable if the firm was able to provide juvenile residential services to other surrounding counties.
The commissioner reminded that he, county Engineer Jim Brozena and Juvenile Detention Center director Sandra Brulo journeyed to Colorado a few weeks ago to attend a U.S. Justice Department seminar that focused on the dos and don'ts of building juvenile detention facilities.
Makowski said the sessions were "very valuable" because they reviewed the mistakes made by other areas around the nation. The commissioner likened the seminar to being given a "road map that shows you where the potholes are so you can avoid damaging your car." The sessions included segments on financing, construction, operation and maintenance.
Mortgage And Financial Information That Was Ignored
Mortgage Information
Loan amount $10,000,000.00
Term 20 years
Interest rate 10.000%
Monthly payment $96,502.16
Total payments $23,160,521.88
Total interest $13,160,521.88
Up to the point where Skrepenak and Vonderheid took office Luzerne County’s Makowski and Urban were committed to building its own facility because, in the end, it costs the taxpayers less money. It should be noted that the former juvenile detention center lasted for 60 years.
If we extrapolate the current lease for 20 years and multiply it by 3 Luzerne County will have paid $174 million and still not own a projected $9 million investment to the County for its own facility according to its own engineers.
This lease is not about cost; it is about a scheme to overcharge other counties and the taxpayers in those counties and Luzerne to cover Luzerne County detention lease costs which go to Pa ChildCare. There has to be a conflict of interest when the county is the payor and the vendor. But it does not stop there.
According to statements by county officials and Judges there is no net cost to taxpayers of these counties because the state and federal government reimburse the counties for their costs. So the ultimate burden is by the taxpayer, but not as a county resident. It results as being a resident of Pennsylvania and the United States.
On 11/20/2002 the judges are written in an article to state [Conahan and Ciavarella took pains to stress that juvenile detention doesn't cost the county anything because those costs are 100-percent reimbursable by state and federal funds.”
”Only residential costs affect county tax dollars, with state and federal funds picking up about 65-percent of the charges and county funds paying the remaining 35-percent.
Ciavarella noted that if the county would enter into a lease-buy agreement with Pennsylvania Child Care, it could benefit from leasing excess beds to other counties.]
Ciavarella's comment is way out line with Judicial Canon 5. B (3) Judges should not give investment advice and C. Financial Activities (1) Judges should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on their impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of their judicial duties, exploit their judicial position, or involve them in frequent transactions wtih lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which they serve. Juveniles would be going to the facility at their discretion. Both judges are advocating a business deal with PCC.
If you were to take the estimated $9 million price tag for a new county facility and plug that figure into a mortgage calculator you will get the following result:
Mortgage Information
Loan amount $9,000,000.00
Term 20 years
Interest rate 4.800%
Monthly payment $58,406.17
Total payments $14,017,481.66
Total interest $5,017,481.66
It is hard to understand why Sam Diaz, as finance and budget director, did not speak about the disparity between county financing and the total amount of the lease. The county is spending over $44 million more than it would cost for it to finance and construct its own facility.
The $58.1 million lease gives Zapalla and Powell more borrowing capacity overall in the general financing market since it funds the debt service created by the construction of the facility on the part of their company.
You must also look at what it would have cost Luzerne County to build its own facility which was the original game plan. At a projected cost of $9 million and assuming an interest rate on funds to finance the project of 4.8% for twenty years (the length of the lease) the cost to the county would have been $14,017,481.66 not $58.1 million. In fact the $58.1 million figure is not a definite one. It is the minimum that will be charged to Luzerne County by Pa ChildCare during the term of the lease. A 4.8% interest rate was quoted by one of the Commissioners.
To understand the problem for Luzerne County concerning detention costs one must look at the position statement from the Juvenile Detention Centers Association of Pennsylvania that details the possible fund shortfalls to counties.
• Pennsylvania has 22 secure detention centers that serve the 67 counties.
• The bed capacity for detention centers range from as few as eight to as many as 130 with a total capacity of 870 beds throughout Pennsylvania.
• Detention centers in Pennsylvania operate primarily as county based entities with the exception of 4 facilities: two are operated by private providers and two are county-owned but administratively operated by private providers.
• Administrative oversight differs among facilities in that it is provided by the Juvenile Court Judge, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Children & Youth Administrator, or a board of managers.
• All juvenile detention centers are licensed annually by the Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth & Families. Licensing is based on Title 55 PA Code Chapter 3800.
• Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act 42 authorizes the use of pre- and post-adjudication detention.
• Detention centers only hold youth charged with or adjudicated of a felony or misdemeanor. A minor charged with a summary offense cannot be placed in detention.
• For FY 06-07 there will be approximately 21,000 admissions to detention.
Historical Issue:
Juvenile detention has experienced severe fiscal concerns. Act 148 sets forth the rate of reimbursements for Pennsylvania’s array of dependent and delinquent services, including juvenile detention services. Act 148 certified levels for each county are determined through the complicated needs-based budgeting process. Act 148 established the responsibility for payment for detention services at 50 percent county and 50 percent state.
Current problem/concern:
Although the total amount (both county and state share) for juvenile detention has increased from $83.38 million for FY 05-06 to $86.39 million for FY 06-07 (a 3.6% increase), counties are confronted by the loss of TANF and TANF transition funds to fund juvenile detention services. This means that to maintain the same service levels -- about 21,000 admissions -- counties will be responsible for 50% of the costs for this service equaling $43.1 million, about a four-fold increase in county dollars due to the loss of TANF. Counties need an additional $35 million to compensate for the loss of TANF funds.
The Solution:
To pursue long term funding options, which would include increasing the ACT 148 reimbursement rate of juvenile detention services or developing a dedicated funding stream for these critical services, knowing that counties will be bearing a much greater share (ultimately taxpayers) for juvenile detention funding.
The question that needs to be asked is why Luzerne County didn’t bat an eye at raising the daily rate in its leased facility from $268.00 per day to $320.00 per day in one year.
The audit of Pa ChildCare indicated that they weren’t following Act 148 procedures in determining reimbursement. Luzerne County officials who voted in favor of the lease do not seem to be concerned with that problem. The Commissioners approved a revised contract raising the daily rate from $268.00 to $320.00.
The line items in Luzerne Counties budget will reflect the decreased cost of detention to Luzerne County as a result of the increased monies received from other counties housing juveniles at the facility. The state and federal taxpayers are needlessly funding an overpriced scheme. In November 2004 the following is written: [Skrepenak and Vonderheid insist the county's annual juvenile placement budget will decrease by a minimum of $500,000 because of the lease.] This statement justifies my conclusion about there being a scheme to have taxpayers support the overcharge.
I realize that the daily rate is hard to put a number on. It is that exact problem that I believe Pa ChildCare took advantage of in this issue. If PCC didn’t have the connections in the court system to create the environment where the existing facility could not be used even though the licensing authority approved it for use and Commissioners who would approve an excessive lease on a contrived emergency basis it was taking an excessive risk. It appears owners of PCC used their political donations to gain favors including excessive amount contracts.
In an attempt to justify the excessive lease it appears Luzerne County court cooperated in sending more juveniles to PA ChildCare for income purposes, not rehabilitation. This situation occurs at a time where juvenile issues stress more services aimed at addressing the problem outside of detention. "From 200 juveniles a year placed, we went to 450 a year after we started placing in Pa. Child Care's JD center," Flood said.
Loan amount $10,000,000.00
Term 20 years
Interest rate 10.000%
Monthly payment $96,502.16
Total payments $23,160,521.88
Total interest $13,160,521.88
Up to the point where Skrepenak and Vonderheid took office Luzerne County’s Makowski and Urban were committed to building its own facility because, in the end, it costs the taxpayers less money. It should be noted that the former juvenile detention center lasted for 60 years.
If we extrapolate the current lease for 20 years and multiply it by 3 Luzerne County will have paid $174 million and still not own a projected $9 million investment to the County for its own facility according to its own engineers.
This lease is not about cost; it is about a scheme to overcharge other counties and the taxpayers in those counties and Luzerne to cover Luzerne County detention lease costs which go to Pa ChildCare. There has to be a conflict of interest when the county is the payor and the vendor. But it does not stop there.
According to statements by county officials and Judges there is no net cost to taxpayers of these counties because the state and federal government reimburse the counties for their costs. So the ultimate burden is by the taxpayer, but not as a county resident. It results as being a resident of Pennsylvania and the United States.
On 11/20/2002 the judges are written in an article to state [Conahan and Ciavarella took pains to stress that juvenile detention doesn't cost the county anything because those costs are 100-percent reimbursable by state and federal funds.”
”Only residential costs affect county tax dollars, with state and federal funds picking up about 65-percent of the charges and county funds paying the remaining 35-percent.
Ciavarella noted that if the county would enter into a lease-buy agreement with Pennsylvania Child Care, it could benefit from leasing excess beds to other counties.]
Ciavarella's comment is way out line with Judicial Canon 5. B (3) Judges should not give investment advice and C. Financial Activities (1) Judges should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on their impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of their judicial duties, exploit their judicial position, or involve them in frequent transactions wtih lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which they serve. Juveniles would be going to the facility at their discretion. Both judges are advocating a business deal with PCC.
If you were to take the estimated $9 million price tag for a new county facility and plug that figure into a mortgage calculator you will get the following result:
Mortgage Information
Loan amount $9,000,000.00
Term 20 years
Interest rate 4.800%
Monthly payment $58,406.17
Total payments $14,017,481.66
Total interest $5,017,481.66
It is hard to understand why Sam Diaz, as finance and budget director, did not speak about the disparity between county financing and the total amount of the lease. The county is spending over $44 million more than it would cost for it to finance and construct its own facility.
The $58.1 million lease gives Zapalla and Powell more borrowing capacity overall in the general financing market since it funds the debt service created by the construction of the facility on the part of their company.
You must also look at what it would have cost Luzerne County to build its own facility which was the original game plan. At a projected cost of $9 million and assuming an interest rate on funds to finance the project of 4.8% for twenty years (the length of the lease) the cost to the county would have been $14,017,481.66 not $58.1 million. In fact the $58.1 million figure is not a definite one. It is the minimum that will be charged to Luzerne County by Pa ChildCare during the term of the lease. A 4.8% interest rate was quoted by one of the Commissioners.
To understand the problem for Luzerne County concerning detention costs one must look at the position statement from the Juvenile Detention Centers Association of Pennsylvania that details the possible fund shortfalls to counties.
• Pennsylvania has 22 secure detention centers that serve the 67 counties.
• The bed capacity for detention centers range from as few as eight to as many as 130 with a total capacity of 870 beds throughout Pennsylvania.
• Detention centers in Pennsylvania operate primarily as county based entities with the exception of 4 facilities: two are operated by private providers and two are county-owned but administratively operated by private providers.
• Administrative oversight differs among facilities in that it is provided by the Juvenile Court Judge, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Children & Youth Administrator, or a board of managers.
• All juvenile detention centers are licensed annually by the Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth & Families. Licensing is based on Title 55 PA Code Chapter 3800.
• Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act 42 authorizes the use of pre- and post-adjudication detention.
• Detention centers only hold youth charged with or adjudicated of a felony or misdemeanor. A minor charged with a summary offense cannot be placed in detention.
• For FY 06-07 there will be approximately 21,000 admissions to detention.
Historical Issue:
Juvenile detention has experienced severe fiscal concerns. Act 148 sets forth the rate of reimbursements for Pennsylvania’s array of dependent and delinquent services, including juvenile detention services. Act 148 certified levels for each county are determined through the complicated needs-based budgeting process. Act 148 established the responsibility for payment for detention services at 50 percent county and 50 percent state.
Current problem/concern:
Although the total amount (both county and state share) for juvenile detention has increased from $83.38 million for FY 05-06 to $86.39 million for FY 06-07 (a 3.6% increase), counties are confronted by the loss of TANF and TANF transition funds to fund juvenile detention services. This means that to maintain the same service levels -- about 21,000 admissions -- counties will be responsible for 50% of the costs for this service equaling $43.1 million, about a four-fold increase in county dollars due to the loss of TANF. Counties need an additional $35 million to compensate for the loss of TANF funds.
The Solution:
To pursue long term funding options, which would include increasing the ACT 148 reimbursement rate of juvenile detention services or developing a dedicated funding stream for these critical services, knowing that counties will be bearing a much greater share (ultimately taxpayers) for juvenile detention funding.
The question that needs to be asked is why Luzerne County didn’t bat an eye at raising the daily rate in its leased facility from $268.00 per day to $320.00 per day in one year.
The audit of Pa ChildCare indicated that they weren’t following Act 148 procedures in determining reimbursement. Luzerne County officials who voted in favor of the lease do not seem to be concerned with that problem. The Commissioners approved a revised contract raising the daily rate from $268.00 to $320.00.
The line items in Luzerne Counties budget will reflect the decreased cost of detention to Luzerne County as a result of the increased monies received from other counties housing juveniles at the facility. The state and federal taxpayers are needlessly funding an overpriced scheme. In November 2004 the following is written: [Skrepenak and Vonderheid insist the county's annual juvenile placement budget will decrease by a minimum of $500,000 because of the lease.] This statement justifies my conclusion about there being a scheme to have taxpayers support the overcharge.
I realize that the daily rate is hard to put a number on. It is that exact problem that I believe Pa ChildCare took advantage of in this issue. If PCC didn’t have the connections in the court system to create the environment where the existing facility could not be used even though the licensing authority approved it for use and Commissioners who would approve an excessive lease on a contrived emergency basis it was taking an excessive risk. It appears owners of PCC used their political donations to gain favors including excessive amount contracts.
In an attempt to justify the excessive lease it appears Luzerne County court cooperated in sending more juveniles to PA ChildCare for income purposes, not rehabilitation. This situation occurs at a time where juvenile issues stress more services aimed at addressing the problem outside of detention. "From 200 juveniles a year placed, we went to 450 a year after we started placing in Pa. Child Care's JD center," Flood said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
