Commissioners debate scope, timing of $24M detention center plan after state gives 'soft' funding commitment

St. Mary's County commissioners on Feb. 27 debated the scope and timing of a proposed adult detention center project after staff said the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services had provided a soft commitment for roughly $6.2 million in state funds.

County staff described a multi-phase plan that combines an expansion and internal renovation of the current adult detention facility. The county already has prior approvals and initial funding for design and a portion of construction, staff said, and the state’s capital program shows anticipated funds for fiscal 2014 and 2015 as a “soft commitment.” Staff said the state advised the county that proceeding with bidding and initial expenditures would improve the county’s position for receiving the later portions of state funding.

Commissioners raised fiscal and policy concerns. Commissioner Daniel Morris and Commissioner Cynthia L. Jones urged the board to separate the most urgent security and intake improvements — such as a new sally port and intake/booking area — from broader expansion of bed capacity. They said focused work on intake and staff safety might be possible while pausing expansion that would increase long-term debt. Commissioner Jones said the county faces a debt-service “bump” in 2015 and that borrowing large sums in the current economic climate could saddle taxpayers with high future payments.

Other commissioners, including Chairman Jack Russell, said the county’s debt ratios remain well below policy limits and argued that leveraging available state funding now would reduce overall county costs and address multiple infrastructure needs inside the existing facility. County staff explained an option in the solicitation that would allow a contractor to construct the building shell and stop if subsequent state funding did not materialize; staff said the county could use its current funds to enclose the structure (roof, walls, windows) so that infrastructure improvements could be completed later if needed.

Commissioners asked staff to develop additional options and to set the detention‑center decision aside for further analysis. “Can we set this detention center aside for today? And let us think about what our options are,” one commissioner said. Staff agreed to return with alternative approaches rather than proceed to a firm decision at the session.

Why it matters: The facility addresses documented safety, security and infrastructure problems at the county jail while carrying significant budgetary and debt implications. State matching funds would reduce county outlays, but the county faces the risk that soft state commitments could be reduced if the state budget tightens.

Outlook: Staff will prepare alternative scenarios (phased scopes, incremental construction, cash-flow timing) and updated debt-service estimates so the board can weigh the trade-offs before deciding whether to proceed with the full expansion, a phased approach or limited renovations.