Commissioners give us a Kabuki dance on building a new "jail" | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    At their October meeting, Chairman Jerry Langley brought up the issue of a new jail again. He did so by commenting that "everybody agrees there is a need for a new jail...the part we do not agree on is the location." He then announced that it had been ruled out that the jail might be built on county-owned land in the defunct Southside Industrial Park and that it would be built north of the river, where sewer and water are available. That really narrows down the possibilities when sewer is included as a requirement.

    Hood Richardson argued, as he has for years, that the jail should be built close to the courthouse to facilitate movement of prisoners between the jail and the courtroom. The problem with that seems to be that space would not allow for an expansive facility. Langley announced in the meeting that the site needs to be five acres.

    Al Klemm announced that he would "only support a law enforcement facility that includes a jail, new Sheriff's office and 911 dispatch center."

    There was then a discussion about appointing a committee to study the location of the facility. But the County Manager pointed out that they should decide what type facility to build before deciding on a location.

    But as you watch the videos below you might keep in mind that the "real" issue here is whether to build a new jail or whether to build a complex and what that complex would contain. Klemm has already decided. He favors a jail, a Sheriff's Office and an emergency dispatch center. Original plans included the idea of "training facilities", including a gym which Richardson refers to as a "weight room." Klemm does not say if he has already decided on whether the facility should include such training facilities as a weight room.

    Thus, there are hidden agendas and pre-conceived notions operating here. We would suggest that some are using the critical need for a jail as a way to piggy-back expanding the Sheriff's facilities, and we suspect that is much of what is behind the "location" issue. So let the games begin.

    Commentary

    Once again we see this board floundering in a critical planning process with what we would call disingenuous leadership. Jerry Langley knows the issue is not "location." Location may be the symbol but it is the tail with which he proposes to wag the dog. The issue is whether to build a new jail or whether to build something more than a jail, and if so, exactly what to build.

    We suspect that the idea of a committee was a smokescreen also. One could speculate that it was just possible that some ad hoc group could be tailored to produce the recommendation some parties desire. That too is disingenuous.

    Having a committee is fine, as is having a "consultant" as Klemm mentions. But both are getting the cart before the horse. The County Manager was exactly correct when he suggested the Board of Commissioners need to determine the scope of the project before it appoints a committee or hires a consultant to propose the specifics of the project.

    We would even suggest that the real issue here is not the scope of the facility as much as it is the cost. The real issue is what can the county afford at this time and what will the people vote for in terms of a bond issue. And added to that question is: What are the other needs the county will have over then next 30 years (the likely term of any bonds).

    Considering the boondoggle this board made of the $33 million school bond issue, which went $6.4 million over budget and wasted millions of dollars on facilities that were overbuilt and built in the wrong place--all voted on (by 5-2) by the same members of this existing board, we don't think they come to this table with clean hands nor pure hearts. Again, Klemm has decided on the outcome before the preliminary facts are even known, much as he and McRoy did on the hospital issue.

    It is the duty and responsibility of the Board of Commissioners to determine how much money the county can afford to spend on any capital project. Then the experts should draft alternatives that might be achieved within that amount of money. Once the options are known, and the estimated costs determined, then is the time for deciding on the scope of the project. A "committee" is fine at that point.

    We have just witnessed "how not to build a police station" with the Washington City Council. They decided on a site first only to have that blow up in their face. Then they went through (correctly) a site selection process considering multiple alternatives and designed a structure only to find out they could not finance what they were considering. They have spent thousands of dollars for plans that now collect dust. And they have lost several years in the process.

    They too did not consider coordinating their planning with the county. Now the county is not talking to the city about synergies that might be achieved by joint facilities.

    It is going to be a tough task to get the people to vote on a bond issue to build a jail, but they will do so if and when they see a solid plan. The way the county has begun this process does not bode well for developing a solid plan that can be sold to the people.

    Chairman Langley obviously has an agenda, he is not putting on the table, in trying to frame the issue as simply one of location. And Al Klemm too has an obvious agenda as witnessed by his having already decided what should be built before he knows the costs or the amount of debt that can be financed. We find that astounding. But he at least is consistent in deciding first and then considering the facts.

    And we suspect Hood Richardson also has an agenda. He has apparently already decided some of the things a new facility should not contain, such as a gym and we suspect he is not excited about the lack of fiscal oversight five of the other commissioners exercised over the school board's facility spending or the Sheriff's department spending and policies.

    There's a lot going on here other than the location.

    But we would urge them to get the planning process started. If they do it right they will determine how much they can finance and how to structure that financing in relation to other needs the county may have in the next few years and then they might have experts determine the options that will meet the needs in varying configurations, including alternative locations. By then it will be the summer of 2012 and this should become the major issue in the November 2012 election for commissioners. Once that election is over the "new" board should review all the plans and then begin to make some decisions.

    But above all, what is needed is a planning process that has credibility. That will be essential in getting public support to spend this kind of money. And a credible planning process is much more than just throwing the issue out on the table as Mr. Langley did Monday night. They would best seek a meeting with the City as the next step and then get some good advice about how to build a process that the people will accept is better than they did on the school bond. Or a new jail will be a long time coming.

    Whatever we do should be done so as to avoid what happened on the school bond.

    Given all that as background, here are the videos of the jail discussion: