Barry County approves $42,000 jail feasibility proposal amid public criticism of process

The Barry County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 11 approved a professional services proposal for a county jail feasibility study, authorizing up to $42,000 to be paid from the county’s building rehabilitation fund and empowering the county administrator to sign the agreement.

The study authorization appeared in the board’s consent agenda and passed on a roll-call vote with all commissioners present voting in favor. The item description on the consent agenda said the funds would be used to sign a professional services agreement related to a county jail; the agenda listed the contractor name as “Abnam Rockey” (name shown on meeting materials, not independently verified).

The action drew public criticism during the meeting’s limited public-comment period, when a resident alleged the board had effectively committed to a contractor before public discussion and accused commissioners of circumventing the Open Meetings Act. “I was lied to before this meeting,” the resident said during remarks, asserting the feasibility study and related contracting had been decided outside an open meeting.

Commissioners responded on the record. Commissioner Toonison said the board needed to start somewhere and described the feasibility study as a practical first step to determine “the right location, size of the jail that we actually need, and obviously cost.” Commissioner Campbell described a recent tour of the county jail as “an eye-opening experience” and said the facility “is horrible” and in need of attention. Commissioner Bassett echoed the need for action after touring the jail.

County Administrator Eric Apzuzka and other board members explained the scope of the contract as advisory. In remarks defending the process, a commissioner said the contract was for advisory services and “not for architectural services,” and that staff would decide on architects or other vendors later in the process.

The resident also raised concerns about past decisions—citing the sale of a county mental-health building—and questioned whether the county had pursued alternatives or open competitive bids for the jail work. The board did not remove the jail feasibility item from the consent agenda for separate discussion; the consent agenda motion, which bundled several items including the jail proposal, was approved by roll call.

The board did not provide additional details in the meeting about the scope of work, timeline, or deliverables for the feasibility study, and the contractor name shown in meeting materials was not clarified on the record during the meeting.

Votes on the consent agenda and the jail proposal were unanimous in favor among commissioners recorded on the roll call. The board’s discussion signaled that the feasibility study will inform subsequent decisions about site selection, sizing and potential costs, and that any further procurement for design or construction would be considered later.