Architect presents multi‑story jail plan for Barnett property; commissioners hear $25.35 million estimate and parking, staffing concerns

County commissioners on Wednesday heard a detailed presentation from architect Jim Lykard on a proposed jail and sheriff’s office at the Barnett property, including preliminary layout options, parking counts and a high‑level cost estimate.

Lykard, the project architect, told the commission the scheme under review places the sheriff’s administrative and detention functions on the ground floor with courtrooms and clerks’ offices stacked above. “The key to this is that it does not require any adjoining property,” Lykard said, adding that the plan allows staged construction and alternates that could add inmate capacity later.

The presentation gave counts and estimates intended to guide schematic design. Lykard said the current footprint yields roughly 97 on‑site parking spaces serving the building and associated courts, and that adding about 41 spaces at the existing sheriff’s site would raise the total into the 130s depending on site adjustments. He described the current design as providing about 43 finished inmate beds in the three‑quarter “pie” footprint, with room to expand to about 104 beds by building additional slices of that footprint.

Lykard offered a ballpark construction estimate to the commission: “If we do the whole thing, we’re estimating $25.35,” he said. He further cautioned the figure was a preliminary number subject to change once schematic design, soil borings and schedule are set; later in the discussion he suggested that a more conservative full‑build estimate could fall in the low‑to‑mid‑30s (millions). Lykard also said the firm’s standard design fee is 7 percent of construction cost and that 5 percent had been negotiated on other jobs, but emphasized the need for detailed site work and surveys before a firm price could be produced.

Commissioners and participants pressed the group on several tradeoffs. Lykard said going vertical changes mechanical, electrical and elevator requirements — and therefore operating and maintenance costs — because systems that sit on a one‑story roof must be handled differently in a multi‑story building. “The big cost for you over 30 years is going to be staffing cost in the jail,” Lykard said. “That’s going to be over 80 percent of what you will actually spend over 30 years.” He argued that efficient layout to reduce staff needs could justify the vertical approach.

Speakers discussed phasing options. Commissioners asked whether the commission could build the ground floor now and add courts later; Lykard warned that delaying vertical expansion for many years can create structural and code problems and that leaving floors shelled but unfinished can be done but raises some future‑cost risks. He said alternates or “slices” of the housing module could be bid separately so the county could add beds later if funding and bid results permit.

Sheriff Russell and other officials described operational constraints at the existing jail and existing use of state inmate contracts. In the meeting Sheriff Russell reported the jail typically houses about 15 state inmates under contract and that state inmates previously generated revenue for the county; he described capacity pressures at the current facility.

The commission did not take a formal vote on design or funding at the work session. Commissioners discussed next steps: Lykard recommended moving into schematic design and paying for surveys and soil borings to get firm costs; several commissioners said they would seek formal site approval and a motion at the next regular meeting. The chair indicated he expected to bring a formal motion at the next meeting to authorize the schematic work if commissioners wished to proceed.

The discussion highlighted parking and site‑preparation uncertainty, the tradeoffs among staffing costs, mechanical systems and future expansion options, and the near‑term need for schematic drawings and geotechnical work before accurate cost estimates can be produced.