Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jail Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants say Hood County jail expansion could cost less to operate long term than keeping status quo
Summary
Consultant Eide Bailey presented a 20‑year forecast showing operating the current approach would cost about $251 million through 2047 versus $178 million under a 161‑cell expansion; including bond debt service the expansion scenario was projected to be about $42 million cheaper through 2047. County leaders asked for more detail and spreadsheets will be posted online.
Brent Mason, senior manager at Eide Bailey, told the Hood County Commissioners Court on July 11 that the firm’s financial model compared two scenarios: maintaining current operations and adding a 161‑cell expansion that assumes a successful bond election in November 2025. Mason said the county’s historical average inmate population has been about 233–234, while the facility’s usable capacity is about 178 beds under Jail Standards Commission rules, leaving roughly 56 inmates housed out of county and creating growing out‑of‑county housing costs.
Mason said the team used five years of county financial records and interviews with the sheriff’s office to develop assumptions that he described as conservative and reasonable. Key assumptions included 3% annual growth for salaries and out‑of‑county contract daily rates, 2.5% for operating supplies, and an approximate net inmate population increase of five people per year, levelized over 20 years. The presentation used a planning timeline that places the election in November 2025, bond issuance in 2026, construction in 2027–28 and an opening of the expanded facility in 2029.
On the headline numbers, Mason said the model projects $251,000,000 to operate the jail under the status‑quo scenario through 2047 and $178,000,000 under the expansion scenario — a roughly $70,000,000 difference in operational costs. He added that when debt service on bonds to build the expansion is included, the expansion option is still projected to be about $42,000,000 less expensive through 2047 in their projection. Mason cautioned that long‑range figures are estimates and “those numbers on that page will not be right” to the dollar, but said the comparison is intended to inform a reasoned conversation.
The sheriff praised the analysis as bringing “a lot of stuff to light” and asked that the architects be available to discuss the roughly $24,000,000 construction estimate, which the consultant and court echoed as the current ballpark for building the addition. Mason also noted non‑operational benefits: greater local control and reduced jailer travel time, and he showed a hypothetical example in which renting out a small number of beds could generate incremental revenue (for example, 10 beds at $100 per day would produce about $365,000 in a year), although he said that was for discussion rather than a recommendation.
County officials and the consultant agreed to post the full spreadsheets and supporting documents online and to make staff and consultants available to answer technical questions. The court did not take formal action at the workshop; commissioners asked staff to continue refining numbers before calling an election.
The court’s next scheduled deliberations on the subject are the follow‑up workshops the consultants outlined; the consultant team committed to providing more detailed, project‑level spreadsheets and cost impacts before the court sets any final bond language.
