Caroline County commissioners press for public hearing, cost analysis as regional detention center talks continue

Caroline County commissioners said they will not move forward on a proposed regional detention center until they receive a revised agreement and more detailed cost and staffing analyses.

County deputy administrator Daniel (Danny) Fox and other county officials reported that a multi‑county negotiating session with Queen Anne’s and Kent counties produced no agreement on ownership of the facility. Commissioners were told the current position from Queen Anne’s County is that it will not transfer title to the land or any part of the building. Commissioners said that, because Queen Anne’s would retain title, Caroline and Kent would not be able to secure a proportional ownership stake that matched each county’s share of construction costs.

Why it matters: Commissioners said ownership, exit rights and how capital and operating costs are apportioned are central to any decision to join a regional facility. The county would be committing to years of payments and potential renovations on a facility that, at present, would remain owned by Queen Anne’s County.

Key details and next steps - Commissioners said they are awaiting a redrafted agreement from Queen Anne’s County that removes provisions they regard as inconsistent with Caroline County funding the county’s proportional share of construction costs. - Proposed funding split discussed in the meeting: Queen Anne’s 45 percent, Caroline 30 percent, Kent 25 percent. Initial contributions were to be a flat per‑county amount tied to population, then rebased after a period to actual use (based on incarcerated person days) to determine each county’s final share of operating costs. - Commissioners asked county staff to obtain and present: a detailed cost‑savings analysis, projected construction and renovation costs, operating budget models, and an analysis of potential savings from shared vendor contracts (for example food and medical services). - Commissioners requested confirmation of whether Caroline County employees assigned to the detention center could be absorbed into the new staffing structure and asked staff to seek the cost to move county detention employees into the state retirement “CORS” system (the transcript referred to state retirement coverage for those employees and said state participation may require an additional county contribution). - Commissioners asked that, after a revised agreement is available, the county schedule a public hearing and publish the fiscal analyses for public review before any formal vote.

What commissioners said about risks and savings County officials told the commission that the largest potential savings would come from moving third‑party medical and food contracts in‑house under a larger shared operation. The three county detention budgets now total roughly $17.3 million, with medical services one of the largest line items (Caroline’s 2025 line item for medical was described in the meeting as about $1.2 million of a roughly $5.9 million detention budget). The county was told the consolidated facility would staff roughly 110–115 employees, a number similar to current staffing across the three existing facilities; therefore, net savings would likely depend on reductions in third‑party vendor costs rather than reductions in salary costs.

Unresolved items The group discussed a roughly recalled construction cost figure (participants referenced an estimate of about $60 million, described in the meeting as a recollection rather than a confirmed contract price). Commissioners also said they need clarity on the extent of renovations required at the existing Caroline facility if the county retains its local jail capacity, insurance cost allocation and whether Queen Anne’s County oversight board recommendations could effectively bind Queen Anne’s when Queen Anne’s is the owner and would sign vendor contracts.

Staff direction and outcome No formal vote was taken. County staff were directed to: (1) obtain the redrafted agreement when issued, (2) provide a detailed fiscal and staffing analysis including scenarios for construction, renovation and operating costs, (3) obtain a state estimate on the costs to bring county staff into the state retirement system if required, and (4) schedule a public hearing after the redraft and analysis are complete.

Ending note Commissioners repeatedly stressed they are not prepared to vote to join the regional center without full fiscal transparency and public input and said they expect the next step to be receipt of the revised agreement and more detailed modeling.