Commissioners review Barnett property plan for new jail; courts would require additional Holder strip or alternative site

County commissioners on Feb. 6 heard project consultants lay out options for a new county jail and courtroom complex centered on the Barnett property and discussed whether the county should seek a roughly 90‑foot strip of adjacent Holder land to accommodate courts and parking.

The presentation, led by Jim Langford, the project architect/consultant, summarized two years of site review and program development and said the Barnett parcel can hold “that 40 something bed” jail the county previously programmed but that courtroom space and most of the parking needs are site‑specific and would likely depend on acquiring the Holder strip or finding other land or design approaches.

Langford said the project has completed the program phase and that most future design work will be site‑specific: "So the short of it is is we can get that 40 something bed to sheriff's office with his support on that site, we believe." He and members of the design team described a layout that separates public and secure circulation for court transfers and showed diagrammatic parking plans that assume the county can secure adjacent parcels.

Why this matters: Commissioners and members of the public stressed that the county needs safer and more suitable facilities for court processing, inmate housing and emergency‑services operations; design and siting choices affect construction cost, long‑term staffing costs and the ability to expand. Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff to confirm the county's current property lines and to pursue clear options before producing schematic designs and cost estimates.

What designers told commissioners - Program and capacity: Langford said the written program (site‑generic work) is mostly complete and that the Barnett parcel can accommodate an initial facility of roughly 40–45 beds. The planned housing layout is designed to be expandable; completing additional modules could raise capacity substantially. - Site dependence: Langford emphasized that beyond the program document, nearly every design decision becomes site‑specific: building footprint, circulation, secure vehicle routes and parking. - Courts and parking: The design team showed a configuration that would accommodate two courtrooms and clerks if the county can secure the Holder 90‑foot strip adjacent to Barnett. Without that land, the team said the courts would be difficult to fit on Barnett and parking would likely require using other county lots across the street or constructing more expensive elevated parking or multilevel solutions. - Operations and safety: The team showed secure corridors that would allow inmates to move from housing to court without mixing with the public, and they recommended keeping some vehicle/impound/maintenance functions on nearby county property if available.

Costs and phasing Langford and the consultants discussed a phased approach and gave high‑level cost ranges while cautioning that detailed estimates require confirmed sites and schematic design. The design team suggested the project could be phased so the county builds a functioning detention facility first and adds courts later if necessary. Commissioners and staff repeatedly cautioned that building only part of the envisioned complex now could increase future costs.

Legal and siting constraints The county attorney (online) told the meeting that a special service district or similar arrangement could address questions about whether a criminal justice center must sit inside the county seat's urban service boundary: "I think you could probably do it under respect some form of a special services district," the county attorney said. Commissioners discussed zoning, parking‑ratio rules and how existing deed lines should be verified by surveyors before moving forward.

Public and elected officials' concerns Commissioners and residents pressed alternatives including building on county‑owned property on Prince Street (higher ground and outside the floodplain) and combining EMS/rescue with other county facilities. Several speakers warned that transporting detainees long distances raises security risks and that the county must weigh construction costs against long‑term staffing and operational costs.

Next steps The design team agreed to return to the commission at the next workshop with a revised concept that reflects the commission's direction; Langford and staff asked the commission to authorize follow‑up work to confirm property boundaries with surveyors and to pursue whether the Holder family would sell or otherwise allow acquisition of the 90‑foot strip. No formal motion or vote was recorded at the meeting.

Ending note: Commissioners did not take any formal action at the Feb. 6 session; staff and the consultants will bring a refined schematic and land‑title verification back to the commission at a follow‑up work session.