Lewiston inmates far outpace city's share of county jail costs

Staff graphic

About half of all Androscoggin County residents confined in the county jail reside in Lewiston. Yet, Lewiston taxpayers pay less than one-third of the county's jail costs, according to a Sun Journal analysis.

The reason is more crime in the city and a state-mandated funding formula for county services that some people believe favors Lewiston taxpayers when it comes to jail funding.

"The rest of the county is subsidizing Lewiston," Greene Town Manager Charles Noonan said. He said the time has come for the city to pay a fee for its use of the jail, to balance costs and services, much as the county's small towns have been asked to pay fees for their use of the county's dispatching service to answer emergency calls and talk to local police, paramedics and firefighters.

"Fair is fair," Noonan said.

The Sun Journal recently examined records on every person who entered the Androscoggin County Jail for the past two years. The newspaper logged the residencies of all 8,894 inmates booked at the Auburn jail between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2012. Of those, 2,090 resided outside Androscoggin County. The remaining 6,804 were categorized by town of residence.

The analysis showed  that 22 residents from the county's smallest town, Wales, were booked at the jail in 2012. Its share of the jail costs under the current formula, $58,736, figured to be more than $2,600 per inmate.

The county's most populated community, Lewiston, received a comparative deal. With 1,655 residents jailed — 49.9 percent of the Androscoggin County people incarcerated — Lewiston paid 28.9 percent of the jail costs, about $748 per inmate.

Of the county's 14 towns, only Lewiston and two others — Auburn and Livermore Falls — paid lower percentages of jail costs than their shares of inmates. But the two other towns' disparities were far smaller. Auburn paid 24.6 percent of the jail levy and was home to 25.2 percent of the county's inmates. Livermore Falls paid 1.99 percent of the levy and had 2.4 percent of the inmates. (See graph for more details.)

"We're not shocked by the numbers," said Phil Nadeau, Lewiston's deputy city administrator. "We'd be shocked if it were the same number as our assessment."

It's part of being one of the few cities in a rural area, he said.

Nadeau guessed that many of the Lewiston residents who are jailed had relocated to the city because of the walkability of the city and its available social services.

"A pretty good number of them were not born here," he said. "They are from away."

Crime follows the population, he said.

"It's a consequence of being the second-largest city in the state," Nadeau said. "It's just the way it is."

A slippery slope

Noonan — the Greene town manager — says such arguments fail.

For years, Lewiston and Auburn leaders have been calling loudly for fairness in the way the county spends taxpayer money. The key issue has been the cost of the county's dispatching services. The two cities run their own communications center, which answers emergency calls and dispatches police, fire and rescue services.

However, as part of the county tax levy, the two cities also pay more than half of the cost of the county's dispatch center, which allows the Sheriff's Department to talk with its deputies. The center also answers emergency calls for the county's other 12 towns. Small per-call fees were assessed for ambulance and fire calls. Three town police departments received dispatching services without paying additional fees.

Again and again, L-A representatives asked, "Why should we pay for a service that we do not receive?"

This past fall, the three-member Androscoggin County Commission finally settled on a plan that charged fees to the towns for the dispatch service and lowered the cities' shares. In 2013, Lewiston is expected to see a savings of $34,527; Auburn, $27,701.

By pushing the fairness issue, Lewiston began a slide down a slippery slope, Noonan said. Officials from the small towns began to wonder if they were paying into the county budget for services they weren't receiving.

"The slope doesn't stop halfway down," Noonan said. "It keeps going."

Noonan, whose town in 2012 paid 4 percent of the jail costs but accounted for only 2 percent of the bookings, according to the Sun Journal analysis, believes that county commissioners ought to create a fee for the jail to reflect who uses it.

"I'm sure they could figure it out," he said.

Re-examining services

A fee — or a bundle of fees — could be in the works.

Randall Greenwood, chairman of the County Commission and a resident of Wales, recently asked Androscoggin County department heads to begin examining who uses their services, including the Sheriff's Department, emergency management, deeds, probate and the District Attorney's Office.

"I'm trying to gather all this data so that I can show all the communities what services the county provides," Greenwood said. "When this is all done, I'm hoping we come out somewhere as a balance."

"Picking on one thing like dispatch and saying, 'We don't get our value for that,' might not work," he said. "You might get your value from something else the county provides."

Commissioner Beth Bell of Auburn agreed.

"I think it's wise to look at who uses the services and have a better understanding," she said. Financially, budgets at all levels of government are getting tighter.

Fees might even the scales, said Greenwood, who said he was surprised by the analysis showing high use of the jail by Lewiston residents.

"It only reinforces the argument that what's fair is fair," Greenwood said.

However, the commission chairman said he was unsure whether a jail fee — such as a charge for each booking at the jail — would be legal. Maine statute demands that counties supply jail services. And all 16 counties are funded the same way: by an assessment on each town and city based on the municipality's valuation.

Historically, that method has been challenged.

The last time was in the late 1980s, said Mark Westrum, chairman of the Maine Board of Corrections and the administrator of Two Bridges Regional Jail in Wiscasset. It failed under political pressure from cities.

The reality is that jailing people is the single largest piece of the budget in every Maine county, Westrum said.

In Androscoggin County, the total tax levy to the towns and cities for 2013 is $7.69 million. The jail operation costs local taxpayers $4.2 million.

"The bigger communities tend to, as much as they complain, get a pretty good deal for the amount of money they pay into county government," Westrum said. "The bigger communities won't tell you that."

'All things to all people'

The disparity is no surprise to Kurt Schaub, administrator of the town of Livermore.

"We've known about this, pretty much accepted it, for years," he said. "For the longest time, people didn't pay attention to these things because there wasn't a whole lot of pushing and shoving."

Budgets were passed and costs didn't climb too high, he said.

"Everything is under the microscope these days, so, of course people are going to look at this," he said. "We're clearly paying disproportionately based on where the inmates come from."

He added, "The average Livermore resident would say, 'We're being overcharged,' and they wouldn't be wrong, if that's the way you look at it. But you have to look at all of the services that the county provides."

He pointed out that another large piece of the county budget — rural patrol — favors the small towns. In 2013, the county is slated to spend about $1.3 million on the Sheriff's Department. Though the county's deputies and detectives often help the cities, most of their work is focused on the smaller communities.

"Is it an even trade-off? I'm not entirely certain of that," Schaub said. "The county is a form of group arrangement and you're going to find inequities. I don't think it's appropriate for communities, large or small, to make sure they get every dollar back out of a county arrangement that they put in."

Minot Selectman Stephen French also counseled moderation.

"I sat on those (dispatch) committees for the biggest part of eight years," he said. "It's frustrating. (The budget) isn't going to be all things to all people all of the time."

Part of the problem is an uncomfortable mix of rural and urban, he said.

"We're one of those counties with two big cities and 12 small communities," he said. "Good luck; that's all I can tell you."

End the nitpicking

As the county commissioner who represents Lewiston, Elaine Makas feels the pull from both sides, she said.

"I don't think that the Lewiston population is any worse than anybody else's," Makas said. "I think that what's happened has been that, over time, people have collected in Lewiston because they have limited resources. And it's exactly those people who are most likely to end up in jail."

She added, "There are some things that we share. I'm ready to put this whole thing to bed regarding dispatch (costs). Things are fairer."

Her hope is that the "nitpicking" is over, she said.

Nadeau, the Lewiston deputy administrator, believes many of the county's budget woes could be fixed if more people understood that a piece of their local property tax bills goes to pay county services.

Municipalities have no choice but to incorporate the expense in their bills.

"You want county government, then have the county start sending out tax bills," Nadeau said. "Have them start sitting down and having to face taxpayers who are going to go in and rip them a new one."

He has little patience for people who think Lewiston ought to owe more money for the county services it gets.

"I understand that they want to throw darts," he said. "But the fact is, if you want to go along with having a big city in your backyard, that is a consequence of what's going to happen."


What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



 's picture

Okay, well if that is the

Okay, well if that is the case that Lewiston should (if you want to get technical Auburn as well) "shoulder it's fair share" when it comes to jail cost can they take it out of what they pay for the Sheriff Dept. and dispatch center for the county? One in which L/A doesn't even use (dispatch center) and one they barely use (Sheriff Dept.). Everyone's budget is hurting, but once you start pointing fingers telling one to pull their "fair share" they will cut it from somewhere else (i.e.County Dispatch Center), in which the other towns in the county would have to then pick up the slack on.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Turner could have had quite the bagain....

I think of the years I worked at the Circle" in Turner. If we had half the people we threw out of that place arrested, Turner would have been getting quite the bargain. As it is, in all the years I worked there, I can only think of a very few instances we had to call in the police, we did however make good use of Turner Rescue from time to time.....

 's picture

What a bias article! Who does your research?

The author of this article seems to purposely be throwing numbers around in an attempt to confuse readers. He tells us research was done for two years (Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2012) then only counts the numbers for one year in his chart - a very eye catching chart that diverts attention from his article. Was this done because the numbers for both years didn't confirm his thesis that Lewiston is freeloading? Did he do this because 2012 was particularly bad for Lewiston?

Then, he mixes dispatching fees with jail admin costs. Are they the same? Does Lewiston's contribution for dispatching services ($520,000) do anything for Lewiston? Lewiston uses a combined dispatching service with Auburn so what do they get for their half million dollars? Does this amount work to offset their "deficit" with regard to the jail costs? What about Auburn?

Please rewrite the article without the bias. It may be that Lewiston (and Auburn) are getting a great deal on the backs of the smaller communities, but this article doesn't support that idea with any facts!


Two years of data was

Two years of data was examined to ensure their validity. The statistics in 2011 and 2012 were virtually the same. The story focused on 2012 numbers because they were the most recent.

 's picture

two years is not a trend

If the numbers were the same, that should be stated. To state you researched two years worth of data and then only use one year and just don't reference the second year again is not proper analysis.

Further, you haven't answered the question about including the dispatching fees with the jail admin fees. Does this even out the cost per prisoner? Do all prisoners cost the same? Does a prisoner who requires solitary detention cost the same as a weekend drunk driver? Are the prisoners all there for equal amounts of time? Did you compare the cost per prisoner per day?

This report is far too simplistic and seeks only to support the Sun Journal's premise that Lewiston and Auburn are taking advantage of the system.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think LA should be complaining about paying for dispatching services. We are part of Androscoggin County and as such should shoulder our fair share of the costs of county government. If the governments of the cities won't exempt taxpaying residents who don't use a particular service (many don't use the school system) why does the city government feel it should be able to exempt itself from paying county taxes just because it doesn't use the service?

If this article would have compared apples to apples, it would have been much more convincing. All in all, a poorly researched and documented article.

There it is again

Statements by the representatives from Lewiston, Elaine Makas and Phil Nadeau, are sticking out like a sore thumb. Don't blame Lewiston for the inequity, they say, our crime problem is the fault of all those welfare leeches who come to take advantage of us! Baloney! That's like the parents who say "MY jimmy would never do that! It's all the fault of those neighbor kids who come over to our house!" So so, because Lewiston's native sons and daughters would NEVER THINK of doing something to get themselves into jail, why on earth should the city pay its fair share for the proportion of residents in the county lockup? Once again Lewiston officials are embarassing their city with their veiled bigotry.

It is, in short, a red herring, Doesn't matter if those people are From Away or not. They have come to live in Lewiston, and they pay taxes in Maine (even those terrible welfare leeches pay taxes to the city, directly or indirectly). If they go to jail, they are Lewiston Residents in jail, and Lewiston should own up to its fair share, just as they insisted they do for the County dispatch services.

RONALD RIML's picture

Think of is this way.....

The rest of the Town's are paying to keep Lewiston's 'Model Citizens' in the Clink - rather than allow them the opportunity to make pillaging excursions into the countryside and compete with the 'Local Talent'

Not a bad deal after all........

Jason Theriault's picture

Oh Come on Disagreers....

It was funny.

Peter Denby's picture

pay per use system

Could a system be worked out whereby all towns get charged a fee at the beginning of the year and then charged against that fee for their towns' prisoner days. At the end of the year refunds or charges would be paid. There is a price structure currently in place for taking out of county prisoners. We need a pay per use system.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...