Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ballard County delays decision on jail expansion after architectural study; officials flag contract-rate squeeze
Summary
County leaders reviewed an architectural study for a possible jail expansion and discussed rising costs of housing inmates for other counties. No formal action was taken; officials noted a bill to pay the study fee and said they may invite the architecture firm to a future meeting.
Ballard County Fiscal Court members discussed an architectural study that examines options for the county jail, including a larger facility and a possible Secure Alternative Program (SAP) configuration, but took no formal action.
The study, presented during the court’s regular meeting, outlines a range of construction scenarios and estimated costs. Eric, who presented the report as part of the jail administration update, said the study shows “a lot of wiggle room, a lot of unknowns for the future depending on pay rates or from the state” and that proposed construction numbers in the report were higher than earlier expectations.
Court members focused discussion on two fiscal pressures. First, medical and food-cost increases for inmates have reduced or eliminated the margin the county previously earned from housing inmates from other counties. Eric said the county currently charges other counties about $26 per inmate; he suggested a target nearer $43 to regain some margin but cautioned that changes could prompt counties to send inmates elsewhere.
Second, the study’s construction estimates exceed earlier informal planning figures. One court member said a $14 million addition “is not feasible” on the county’s budget without state support. Eric and others noted Department of Corrections (DOC) custody standards will affect design and that building under SAP or pursuing federal contracts could change bed counts and revenue assumptions.
Court discussion also addressed near-term steps: a bill to pay a $20,000 study fee appears in the packet, and a court member suggested inviting the architecture firm to a meeting. Eric said no action had been taken as of the meeting’s close.
The court did not vote to authorize construction, change policy on intercounty housing, or adopt the study; members said they have an eight- to ten-year planning window to make decisions.
Court members said they will continue reviewing the study and may schedule a follow-up meeting with the architects to clarify cost estimates, custody requirements and potential contract terms with neighboring counties.
