Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs consultant to model two jail scenarios after decades of planning; staff to return with operational and staffing analysis
Summary
After a multi‑decade review of jail needs, the Board of Commissioners directed staff to finish a second‑phase study and operational modeling for two expandable options (a roughly 400‑bed option and a roughly 500‑bed option, each with an expandable core); commissioners emphasized designing an expandable core to avoid future capacity shortfalls.
The Union County Board of Commissioners on Thursday directed county staff and consultants to complete the next phase of a jail study, asking for operational modeling and staffing cost estimates for two design options: a roughly 400‑bed option and a roughly 500‑bed option, each paired with a 600‑bed “core” design that can be expanded later.
County Manager Brian Matthews reviewed a decades‑long timeline of planning dating to the early 1990s, when a court consent order and earlier studies first drove discussions about jail replacement and expansion. Matthews walked the board through multiple prior studies and bond votes, noting prior design work and the effect of inflation on cost estimates. He told commissioners that recent staff estimates put a 400‑bed option with a 600‑bed expandable core in the low‑hundreds of millions and a larger build materially higher. “If the board were to consider a 400‑bed inmate facility with a 600‑bed core in 2026, that would be a little over roughly $110 million,” Matthews said during the presentation; later staff figures presented other cost ranges for larger options.
Commissioners debated scale and timing during the meeting. Some members urged a conservative build‑out to avoid under‑building and having to expand again soon; others urged modeling multiple options before selecting a financing approach. Commissioner Helms moved to request the consultant complete work on the staff‑recommended option; a friendly amendment was accepted to request the same operational and staffing modeling for the smaller option as well. The amended motion passed by voice vote.
Sheriff’s Office representatives described current capacity issues and said that if a new facility were open today it would house roughly the county’s current population without farmed‑out inmates; the sheriff and staff also said portions of the existing office/jail complex have structural problems and flooding constraints that limit reuse. Board members discussed the old facility’s structural settlement, floodplain portions behind the site, and the high cost of repairing the existing building.
Matthews told commissioners the action was not a commitment to build; it authorizes completion of a second‑phase study that will include operational modeling, staffing estimates and updated capital cost scenarios. He recommended the county plan for an expandable core so future bed additions can be added without repeating past constraints.
Why it matters: The county has operated an aging jail and long‑standing capacity challenges. The board’s direction to complete modeling for two expandable options sets the technical basis for future funding decisions and could lead to a bond referendum or other financing choices in coming budget cycles.
