On the Quarter-Billion Dollar Justice Center
Folks know I believe in transparency, and putting what we know on the table. This past week, Council was presented in joint session with the Board of Commissioners the siteplan and conceptual design for the Justice Center. With over 1000 pages bound before us, it was a lot to digest in an overview. But I think it didn’t take a deep read to see what was before us in the documents - a call in 2009 for a 478-bed corrections center that was once a $47m dollar problem has somehow ballooned to a quarter of a billion dollars and then some to come. This is incredibly costly, exceeds the Council’s approved bond tolerance, and also seems to set aside stakeholder input for a facility that is much larger than where we left off in the fall of 2024.
We must get right with our community values and the ACLU, and have a constitutional justice center. But what does that mean now in times of economic volatility? And are the Council’s requirements, consent decree, and the community’s expectations being met?
As I review the documents, I’m looking for how our values are funded in parts of the plan:
I don’t see wraparound services. There are set-asides for mental health secure facilities, but no non-law enforcement diversion or prevention programs the community members have requested. Some may not want to be near the facility, but other opportunities exist nearby. Prevention can save costs and keep people out of the justice system. And work release - a concept bandied about since the days of Warren Henegar - seems to have fallen away.
For those thinking cutting services reduces costs, that’s not reflected in the current plan. The new plan mostly replaces the current facility with more courts and space. The only significant change is the division of beds between mental health and general population in the jail.
I see elevators in a building moved out of town to avoid them.
I see over 700 parking spots—like a Walmart’s worth of concrete that could cause stormwater runoff and relies too much on single-mode transportation.
I raised concerns about the site plan’s disregard for our 2012 Comprehensive and Phase II urbanizing plans, which would increase density around this new county seat - which is where the courthouse is. Towns grow around their county seat—ours did for 207 years. The new courthouse site is surrounded by a large parking lot instead of a town square and the walkability it brings. I’m am simply not in favor of downzoning this area.
I voiced concerns about including a potential child care center on-site, especially if we modify the current zoning. This is a separate project with its own considerations of parents and safety - not an add-on. I appreciate Chief Deputy Parker for validating my concerns about co-location.
I see reports of core samples hitting limestone 7-10 feet down, and plans for a tunnel through it. Based on past projects, a million-dollar tunnel isn’t feasible.
I see 500 beds instead of the 400 the previous council approved, and we’re over the bond at this point. With inflation and tariffs, this project will only get more expensive.
In my project management background, we’d call this next step of the process “scope alignment.” We need to get the scope of work right, then define “the definition of done.” Stakeholder engagement is hard work. We aren’t there yet.
Since the power of the purse is with the council, we will need to rein in costs. My colleagues are starting to ask similar questions - the cost per citizen, the costs of operating a much larger facility and so on. Come to Council on March 11. We need to hear from you on this.
Read the Reports:
