Commissioners and staff debate central processing center costs as salary board approves staffing and wage adjustments

Commissioners and county staff spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing a proposed central processing center and related salary‑board actions tied to operations and staffing.

Commissioners and staff reviewed staffing adjustments approved by the salary board, including adding one full‑time telecommunicator, deleting multiple part‑time positions at the prison and district attorney’s office and adding a full‑time detective. The salary board also approved an hourly wage increase for central processing officers from $20.40 to $25.00 and removed a separate "director of central processing" title, replacing it with additional central processing officer positions. Several motions were made and approved by voice vote; specific movers and seconders were not recorded in the public audio.

Commissioners debated facility costs and locations for a permanent central processing center, including whether to site the project at the county prison or at a lower‑cost alternate location. County staff reported an unaccounted $68,000 identified in capital accounting that could affect the funding picture. Staff gave a baseline estimate of roughly $700,000 for the first floor of a new facility; adding a second floor or locating the project at the prison could substantially raise costs toward the $1,000,000 range, officials said. An architect’s preliminary estimate indicated additional structural work and prevailing‑wage costs would push the price higher if a future second floor or elevator were included.

A commissioner framed one personnel vote as an equity adjustment: "This particular vote is a vote in regards to fixing a wrong in somebody's salary to make them equal to an alike department within the County," the commissioner said, arguing the wage correction would align pay with comparable county roles. Commissioners and staff also discussed operational savings expected after construction, including consolidation of fingerprint machines (reducing maintenance fees) and improved workflow, and noted that central processing currently operates from a small closet‑like space at Boystown.

Staff said the county will continue to track revenues and expenses for central processing more closely going forward and that final decisions on site and scope will affect whether capital funds cover the project without county general fund contributions. Commissioners asked for cash‑flow tracking and more firm bids before proceeding; staff said they will present additional accounting and design information in future meetings.