Commissioners debate $1.4 million new services building as jail funding looms

The DeKalb County Board of Commissioners spent a lengthy public portion of its March 20 meeting weighing options to address an overcrowded and aging development and service facility, with estimates ranging from about $600,000 for a remodel to more than $1.4 million for a new building.

Chair opened the discussion with a summary of the problem, saying the existing building is narrow and would not relieve cramped offices, and called the new design more efficient with a center hallway. The new building quote, as presented on the floor plan, included site work, utility hookups and removal of the old structure and was reported at just over $1,400,000. The remodel option was estimated at roughly $600,000.

Several commissioners and the county council liaison urged caution. "The jail is still the number one project and is going to need to be addressed before any of this other stuff takes place," said Rick Ring, the county council liaison, arguing the jail's costs could grow if delayed. Another commissioner said the county should "save every penny" toward the jail and avoid adding new ongoing maintenance obligations from an additional building.

In response, the chair said the remodeling choice could require temporary relocation of offices and might not actually alleviate space and safety problems; the new-build proposal includes sewer, water and gas hookups and removal of the existing building, which the chair said was all included in the $1.4 million price. The chair also proposed paying for the new building from county funds rather than bonding to avoid future interest costs, noting the county earned more than $3.3 million in interest last year.

Commissioners debated procurement options. Proponents of a single-contractor, design-build (referred to in the meeting as a "bot" package) said it reduces disputes between architect and contractor; opponents expressed concern it could cost more and advocated a competitive bid process with independent oversight. Commissioners discussed adding an independent project overseer if a single-contractor approach were used.

Several speakers emphasized fiscal uncertainty while the state legislature considers changes to property-tax assessments and possible revenue shifts. One commissioner proposed delaying a final decision for a few weeks until the legislative picture is clearer; another warned a 30-day window applies to the current proposal and the county risks losing the current price if it waits.

The public and the county council liaison also urged the commissioners to brief the full county council and check city zoning rules (for example, whether gravel parking is permitted inside Auburn city limits) before finalizing plans.

The board did not adopt a final decision at the meeting; the chair said the item would be brought to the county council for input and the commissioners agreed to revisit the matter after an executive session and further outreach to city officials and contractors.