Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Facility Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee deadlocks on joint study to offer old county jail to Kansas City
Summary
A proposed 30-day joint study to explore using the existing Jackson County Detention Center as a temporary jail for Kansas City resulted in a tie in committee and no recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Detention Facility Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Jackson County Justice and Law Enforcement Committee did not reach a recommendation on Resolution 22038, a proposal to begin a 30-day joint study with the city of Kansas City on whether the county—s existing detention center could be used as a temporary municipal jail after the county moves into its new detention center in January 2026.
Legislator Megan Smith, sponsor of the resolution, said the measure is an invitation to the city to consider the county facility as a potential temporary option while the city evaluates its own plan. “This is really just extending a hand to the city saying we—re open to this possibility,” Smith said. She told the committee she had heard from the prosecutor that the new jail might be at capacity when the county transitions to it, and suggested the study could identify a need to keep part of the existing facility in operation for municipal or short-term county stays.
Smith said the city is also soliciting bids for an alternative temporary solution that she understands could cost about $30 million. She said the resolution was not a commitment to lease or operate the facility but an offer to cooperate if the city chooses to evaluate the option. Committee members asked whether the sheriff—s office had been consulted; Smith said she had not yet contacted the sheriff and intended the resolution to start discussion.
Committee members moved and seconded adoption, but the final roll call produced a tie and the committee recorded no recommendation. During debate, one legislator questioned whether 30 days was sufficient for a study; Smith said the time frame was chosen so the study could run concurrently with the city—s own evaluation.
Ending: Because the committee recorded no recommendation, the proposal will not proceed from committee with a positive recommendation; further action would require additional committee motion or referral by the legislature.
