Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commissioners approve next step for comprehensive jail study, set deadlines for RFQ draft review
Loading...
Summary
The Shelby County Board of Commissioners voted to authorize a further engineering and facility study of the county jail and directed the administration to deliver a draft RFQ to the ad hoc committee for review; the move includes a June mid-month deadline for the draft and an ad hoc review period to inform an RFQ expected later this summer.
A majority of the Shelby County Board of Commissioners voted to advance a formal study of the county jail, directing the administration to prepare a draft request for qualifications (RFQ) and return it to the jail ad hoc committee for review before the RFQ is issued.
The measure, introduced as Item 14 and sponsored by Vice Chair David C. Bradford Jr. and Chairwoman Chantay K. Avant, passed after amendments that add specific timeline language. Vice Chair Bradford said the administration would supply a draft RFQ by a mid-June date and that the ad hoc would provide comments before any public solicitation is issued.
Commissioner Wright, who offered a friendly amendment clarifying the study should include mechanical, electrical and structural assessments, said the CTAS needs assessment previously provided did not include those technical engineering elements and that this step was a necessary follow-up. "This seeks to do the further study of the physical plant of the jail, of those structural engineering, mechanical, and electrical components of the existing jail," Wright said.
Public and elected officials debated scope and timing. Commissioner Thornton pressed for clarity about whether the RFQ would lock in a vendor or a too‑narrow scope and asked how location analysis would be handled. Director Cliff Norville of Public Works explained the RFQ would seek a consultant team to survey the existing facility, evaluate reuse versus replacement, and study operational processes. "We are only looking at a study to generate as much information for the commission to make a decision of how you would like to proceed," Norville said.
Administrative staff and the ad hoc emphasized the process will include a consultant‑review committee and that the RFQ would be advertised publicly. Commissioners expressed concern about timing across terms: several members urged setting dates so work is not lost when a new commission and administration begin.
The motion as amended requires the administration to provide a draft RFQ to the ad hoc committee for review (the commission recorded the amendment and an accompanying schedule to return comments). Commissioners also discussed estimated study costs: past comparisons and a rough benchmark from other counties were mentioned during debate but the final RFQ will request qualifications rather than price; fees will be negotiated with the selected team and returned to the commission for approval.
The commission recorded the motion as passed with nine ayes and one abstention on the final tally. The next procedural step is administration delivery of the draft RFQ to the ad hoc committee and then the ad hoc's review before the RFQ is posted for consultant responses.
