(a) It is the intent of the general assembly to allow interlocal agreements where two (2) or more counties jointly operate a jail. The general assembly finds that regional jails would allow counties to save funds and lower their liability risks. (b) Nothing in this chapter or any other provision of general law shall be construed to prevent two (2) or more counties from entering into an interlocal agreement for the joint operation of a jail to serve the counties so agreeing. (c) An interlocal agreement may specify that: (1) One (1) county actually operates the facility, but all participating counties equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities; (2) Adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making; or (3) Each participating county operates its own facility for pretrial inmates, but joins with other counties for post-conviction incarcerations. Acts 1999, ch. 190, § 3; 2005, ch. 187, § 1. (a) It is the intent of the general assembly to allow interlocal agreements where two (2) or more counties jointly operate a jail. The general assembly finds that regional jails would allow counties to save funds and lower their liability risks. (b) Nothing in this chapter or any other provision of general law shall be construed to prevent two (2) or more counties from entering into an interlocal agreement for the joint operation of a jail to serve the counties so agreeing. (c) An interlocal agreement may specify that: (1) One (1) county actually operates the facility, but all participating counties equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities; (2) Adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making; or (3) Each participating county operates its own facility for pretrial inmates, but joins with other counties for post-conviction incarcerations. Acts 1999, ch. 190, § 3; 2005, ch. 187, § 1. (a) It is the intent of the general assembly to allow interlocal agreements where two (2) or more counties jointly operate a jail. The general assembly finds that regional jails would allow counties to save funds and lower their liability risks. (b) Nothing in this chapter or any other provision of general law shall be construed to prevent two (2) or more counties from entering into an interlocal agreement for the joint operation of a jail to serve the counties so agreeing. (c) An interlocal agreement may specify that: (1) One (1) county actually operates the facility, but all participating counties equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities; (2) Adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making; or (3) Each participating county operates its own facility for pretrial inmates, but joins with other counties for post-conviction incarcerations. Acts 1999, ch. 190, § 3; 2005, ch. 187, § 1. (a) It is the intent of the general assembly to allow interlocal agreements where two (2) or more counties jointly operate a jail. The general assembly finds that regional jails would allow counties to save funds and lower their liability risks. (b) Nothing in this chapter or any other provision of general law shall be construed to prevent two (2) or more counties from entering into an interlocal agreement for the joint operation of a jail to serve the counties so agreeing. (c) An interlocal agreement may specify that: (1) One (1) county actually operates the facility, but all participating counties equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities; (2) Adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making; or (3) Each participating county operates its own facility for pretrial inmates, but joins with other counties for post-conviction incarcerations. (1) One (1) county actually operates the facility, but all participating counties equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities; (2) Adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making; or (3) Each participating county operates its own facility for pretrial inmates, but joins with other counties for post-conviction incarcerations. Acts 1999, ch. 190, § 3; 2005, ch. 187, § 1.
‹ Prev All Tennessee sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.