Detention center expansion stays in CIP amid funding uncertainty; commissioners debate shell‑in option, staffing and use of fund balance

County staff advised the Board of County Commissioners that the adult detention center expansion (ADC phases 1 and 2) remains viable under the current plan but carries cash‑flow risk because the governor’s budget did not include the entire state grant for the second half of phase 1 in the county’s fiscal year now under discussion.

Miss Erickson told the board that state staff indicated a likely future funding slot in FY2014/FY2015, and that the county could bid the work so the contractor is aware of a phased schedule. She also said that, using funds already approved, the county could “shell in” the addition (foundation, slab, exterior walls, roof and openings) for just under $11 million and wait for subsequent grant money to complete interior systems. "We could shell in the building for just under $11,000,000 which is well within the range of the money that we already have approved," she told commissioners.

Why it matters: The ADC project is a major capital and operating commitment with public‑safety, budgetary and community implications. Commissioners debated whether to proceed and how to pay — by bonds, PAYGO/fund balance or a combination — and whether to scale or defer the project.

Key points staff presented: - The governor’s budget shows state jail capital project dollars in later years, which staff said aligns with the ADC schedule but is not an absolute guarantee. - In a worst‑case scenario (state funding delayed), the county could deliver a shelled structure that is weather‑tight and secure until interior funding arrives. - Separately, the county identified roughly $3 million of near‑term needs (HVAC, locks and related upgrades) that could be done without the full expansion but would not create the expanded bed capacity.

Commissioner debate focused on need versus timing and the long‑term operating cost implications. Several commissioners said they support keeping the project in the CIP and proceeding with the planned phasing, provided the county uses existing funds where feasible and avoids excessive new long‑term borrowing. Others favored delaying construction or limiting scope to reduce future operating costs. Sheriff Cameron emphasized operational needs and staff training timelines, noting inmate‑to‑staff ratios and the time required to recruit and train correctional staff.

On staffing, the board discussed an operating request tied to ADC opening. Staff said the sheriff’s office estimates a range of additional staff (13–20 correctional officers) would be needed when the facility comes on line; the board left staffing decisions for later in the operating budget process and directed staff to return with options. At one point the board agreed to defer inclusion of 15 requested positions in the FY2013 operating budget pending further review of timing and funding.

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff to prepare options for using PAYGO/fund balance versus bond financing, to quantify the cost of targeted HVAC/lock work (a county‑only option, estimated previously at about $3 million), and to return with a clear cash‑flow plan that shows the effects of shelling in versus waiting for state funds. The board said it will revisit fund‑balance options at the March 19 budget session and finalize budget adoption later in March.