Sussex County commissioners on Aug. 20 tabled a resolution that would advance the statutory steps toward selling the Keogh Dwyer building, a county jail facility, after multiple public commentators and prosecutor's office employees urged the board to retain or repurpose the property.

The motion to table was approved by roll call: Deputy Director Space — yes; Director Carney — yes; Commissioner DeGroot — yes; Commissioner Henderson — no; Commissioner Hayden — absent. The tabling stops the board from immediately scheduling the next statutory steps on a sale.

Why it matters: The Keogh Dwyer building is county-owned real estate that residents and county staff argued could be reused for offices, low-income housing or homeless services. County staff also told the board that repairs and temporary costs have continued while the building sat empty, and prosecutors and detectives described long-standing problems in their current offices that they say affect workspace safety and operations.

During the public-comment portion of the meeting, Ken Collins of Andover Township urged commissioners not to sell the Keogh Dwyer building, saying the facility “presents the perfect opportunity for housing the homeless and putting the services our homeless citizens require in a place where they are readily available.” Collins also urged that any proceeds from a sale be returned to taxpayers.

Sahil Kops, acting Sussex County prosecutor, told the board that any decision about the jail should include a plan “regarding relocating the prosecutor's office” and asked commissioners to ensure relocation needs are considered if the jail is sold. Diane Rude, a detective sergeant who identified herself as representing PBA 138 (the prosecutors' unit), said she and colleagues had worked “in the basement at 1921 High Street” for years and urged the board: “Please do not sell the Keo O'Dwyer Correctional Facility. Please rehab it.”

Commissioners and staff also presented photos and a walk-through description of the prosecutor's office facilities: cramped cubicles, basement workstations, dehumidifiers and non-ADA-compliant stair access. A county official said prior remediation had occurred but that more permanent solutions have been discussed for years.

Commissioner DeGroot said he opposed selling the jail and moved to table the resolution; he also said the engineering report the board was being asked to release had been provided to the commissioners on the Friday before the meeting and that many board members were seeing it for the first time. The report referenced by the board is dated 04/29/2025 and was described during the meeting as an engineering evaluation and an appendix to the packet the commissioners received.

At the meeting the board discussed repair estimates and earlier costs: a county official said that maintaining the vacant jail had cost about $169,000 for five corrections officers over a prior period and that an earlier estimate to renovate the building as a functioning jail had been $60,000,000 (priced about five years earlier and likely higher today). The engineering synopsis on the table, as described by a commissioner, did not include dollar amounts.

Next steps: Commissioners noted the statute referenced in public comments requires a public hearing within 90 days before a proposed sale of county property; the board said the tabling preserves time to release the engineering report to the public and to hold additional hearings. The board did not adopt a sale at this meeting; the motion before the board was tabled.

Speakers quoted and cited in this article are those who appeared during the agenda item on proposed sale of the jail and public comment.

Ending: The board left the item open for further review and to release the referenced report publicly; if the board resumes the sale process it will follow the statutory public-hearing steps noted during the meeting.