Residents urge repairs, not a $30M jail; commission debates plan to regain certification

MEIGS COUNTY — Dozens of residents pressed Meigs County commissioners on whether to rebuild the county jail or repair the existing facility to regain certification from the Tennessee Corrections Institute, raising concerns about costs, transparency and potential tax increases.

At public comment, speakers repeatedly asked the commission to delay any move toward a new, 130‑bed facility estimated in discussion at about $30,000,000 and instead to pursue a stepped plan of repairs. “I am not opposed to that jail being approved,” one commenter said, “but we cannot afford a $30,000,000 plus new jail facility.”

Adam Dzewicz, who identified himself as a five‑year resident and Navy veteran, urged an independent cost‑benefit study that compares building anew versus rehabilitating the current jail. “A thorough independent study comparing the cost of building a new jail versus rehabilitating and upgrading the existing facility” is needed, he said, adding that sharp property tax increases would be difficult for many residents to absorb.

Multiple residents and one presenter who said he ran cost figures told the commission that current per‑inmate costs run roughly $50 a day while state reimbursement would be about $40 a day; at the scale discussed — and after adding typical contingencies — the county would not profit from state placements and could face long‑term tax pressure. One speaker summarized the figures as making a large new jail unaffordable for a county of under 14,000 residents.

Several commenters asked for public access to the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI) plan of action cited during inspections. Martin (Marvin) Scott, a retired FBI official who said he has experience with jail policy and procedures, noted inspection and reinspection dates and asked whether the TCI plan that the director of operations referenced could be made public. TCI and its director of operations, William Kane, were repeatedly mentioned as the agencies determining whether measurable progress toward compliance is being made.

Commissioners and staff told the room that TCI will make recertification contingent on a demonstrable plan of action and continued forward progress. Commissioners described options presented in prior work: limited repairs at the existing site, repurposing or adding beds, or building a new facility at a separate site. Speakers warned that construction estimates can rise quickly with inflation and contingencies and urged the county to factor those risks into any decision.

During the meeting, a commissioner moved — and another seconded — a motion described as a plan to “go back at the existing site and prepare what was not prepared to stay certified,” meaning the county would prioritize repairs and a defined plan of action to meet TCI requirements rather than immediately proceed with a new 130‑bed facility. A roll‑call vote followed, with several individual responses recorded in the transcript (for example, “Kyle? No.”; “Harris? No.”; “Andrew Howard? Stayed.”; “Jeff Howard? Yes.”). The transcript does not include a complete, formal tally or a clear statement of the motion’s ultimate outcome.

Speakers repeatedly asked that any action be accompanied by clear, public cost breakdowns, alternatives considered, and long‑term financial impact analysis. Cindy Johnson, who identified herself as from the 4th District, told the commission she had checked with the county finance office and found “there is not a cost benefit analysis. There is not a budget justification, and there is not a tax impact analysis.”

Several residents also urged postponing major decisions until after the coming election so voters can weigh in on commissioners’ positions and the county can hold additional public meetings outlining options and costs.

Next steps discussed at the meeting included producing a clear plan of action that shows measurable milestones for TCI, making related documents available to the public, and further financial review. The transcript records the motion and partial roll call but does not show whether the motion passed, so the commission's formal next steps and any final vote results were not recorded in the provided transcript.