Committees - Regular Meeting

During this period of time, we kept OCFS advised of all the struggles that we saw going on. Don't forget the building was closed in January and February. By the end of March, things were falling apart within the building where we saw this contractor could not meet the demands with the staffing level as much as we tried to support them. OCFS didn't meet with them, but our conversations with OCFS, they are very clear why they are the oversight and they have regulation. This is a county responsibility. The county has to solve this problem. So they let us know that this is our responsibility. deci

The state actually reimburses us for those youth, and then that county has to pay back the state.

I'm sorry that I didn't understand that part.

So what's going to happen is that while it costs us more to operate the facility as the county, year prior it would have cost the county approximately 1.2 million dollars in the end prior to this year this sheet if we move forward operating it, it'll cost us about $2.4 million. So it'll be $1.2 million to the county additional. However, given the cost of what's currently going on with the vendor, we don't actually know where we're going to end up with them running. They're substantially over budget on overtime. We had to bring in an outside contractor as well at another 1.6. So while we knew w

I think that private vendors have a difficult time seeing the safety and security that's necessary to keep the youth programming safely. I think to protect the county liability-wise, I think they'd look at things somewhat differently than we as a county look at things. And so we struggled with that from even the vendor prior to Children's Village who was having issues, and then we thought Children's Village would be the solution. Initially, it seemed like it was going well. These issues escalated there as well. And now we're seeing the same thing with the third contractor.