City council expresses concern about an Industrial Park jail | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

The issues the County and the City need to be considering are much larger than where the jail goes

    If the informal comments from Washington City Council members are taken to heart the County Commissioners need to recycle the decision made February 14 to build a new jail at the Industrial Park on U. S. 264 West. All who spoke expressed disfavor with building the jail in the Industrial Park and other added a concern about the decision being made without participation by the Council in the process. A reliable source told the Observer that there is also concern about Washington Police officers having to travel so far to the magistrates office if it is moved with the jail.

    Another source indicated that there will likely be discussions between the staffs of the city and county as the next move.

    Sheriff Alan Jordan was present for the Council's discussion, even though he was not present like other department heads were at the recent Commissioner's retreat when the architect hire by the county to study a new jail made their report and the decision was made to build a new jail in the Industrial Park.

    But Sheriff Jordan did express concern about leaving the jail at the present location. He was not clear whether by "present local" he meant in the basement of the Courthouse or whether he was opposing one of the options recommended by the architect to build the jail behind the Courthouse. He did refer to the threat from high water during storms, but apparently did not realize that the proposal by the architect addressed that concern. In fact the Courthouse location is proposed to be on pilings with a parking garage underneath a three story jail. Commissioner Hood Richardson also had a proposed option adjacent to the Courthouse and on pilings but Commission Chairman Jerry Langley refused to allow him to present it at the retreat.

    Sheriff Jordan repeatedly emphasized that his position was that something needs to be done immediately about the current facility. He emphasized the safety of the jail staff. No elected officials to our knowledge has contested the need for a new jail and none has suggested it remain in the "current location" if that means the basement of the Courthouse. Notably the Sheriff did not mention what he has said in the past that a new jail was needed because of overcrowding. A major issue in the architects' study is the size of the facility. The data present in the study, as we have reported, is invalid to determine the number of beds that will be needed. Jordan did not take a position on what size the jail needs to be.

    But the most glaring omission in the discussion was the separate issue of the jail vs. the Sheriff's Office. One of the proposals being considered for the Industrial Park includes a new Sheriff's Office in addition to the jail. Jordan did not comment on his position on moving the Sheriff's Office out of downtown although in the past he has appeared to support that idea.

    You can listen to the council's discussion and the Sheriff's comments in the video below:



    Commentary

    The discussions by both the Council and the Sheriff were very disappointing to us. While it is very appropriate for the council to address the issue of putting a jail or a jail and law enforcement center in the Industrial Park, it was disappointing that several council members seemed to be saying that the Industrial Park was the only issue the Council should address relative to this issue. Not so, in our opinion.

    The Council has just adopted a Long Range Plan for the City of Washington. To be sure whether the law enforcement function of county government is going to be in downtown or not is a major planning issue that the Council should address. There are really three facets to this issue. First is the jail. Second is the Sheriff's Office and thirdly the Courthouse and that issue can be subdivided into issues of where court will be held and thence whether the District Attorney's Office and Clerk of Court's Office will be where the courtrooms are. And then sound planning would need to examine what the private attorneys will do. If they gravitate outside the downtown area, that raises the question about the Register of Deeds' Office and ultimately the Tax Office. So the real overriding issue is what the long term nature of the county government complex will be and to be sure the City should not only be involved in those decisions but we believe an equal entity in such planning and decision-making along with the County Commission.

    And of course all that raises the fundamental question about who, when and how those decisions will be made. We would suggest that the worst way to do it is piecemeal...i.e., just consider the jail, or the jail and the sheriff's office and then some but not all of the courtrooms, and then...well, you get the point.

    Within minutes of making the precipitous decision to build the jail in the Industrial Park, the County Commission heard from several experts telling them they needed to develop a long range capital plan and that any particular project (i.e., jail) should be considered in the context of the other capital needs and plans. The finance expert told them clearly that the bonding agencies would insist on such a plan. So the issue is much larger than where to build the jail. Certainly the county and city should work cooperatively in that planning. Yes, the county's capital planning is very much the business of the city in what should be a synergistic partnership. It will be a tragic mistake to make the jail decision in isolation from the other capital planning.

    We would suggest that the County Commission is going at this thing backward. They should first decide what the long range plans are for the county government complex and then determine where each piece fits into that plan, the jail and the Sheriff's Office included. And we would suggest that the fact that they have paid architects to design not only a jail but an option in which the Sheriff's Department is included is a glaring example of getting the cart before the horse in terms of planning. Even the plan offered by Hood Richardson is ill-conceived without knowing what the county government complex will look like over the next fifty years. And again, surely the city has a vested interest in that.

    And it was equally disappointing to hear the Sheriff talk mostly about the only issue that has already been settled (the need to replace the current facility) without addressing the other pertinent law enforcement issues. He may not be an architect, but for him to suggest that is not his responsibility would be like the school superintendent saying he should not help design or determine the location of a school. We need leadership from the Sheriff. He needs to address the issues of location, size (including the contract housing or outsourcing of inmates) and the functional design nature of both the jail and the Sheriff's Office as well as what he sees being involved in transportation with a remote site. That is his responsibility.

    The issue of safety has been settled. And if he indeed wants to see something happen sooner rather than later he should step forward and explain what his professional judgment is on all of the issues. That will be critical in the determination of the financing of any facility simply because paying for it is something the people are going to have to support, one way or another. The people deserve to hear from the Sheriff on all the issues, not the least of which is what the outcome related to the Sheriff's Office will be.

    The County Commission should get to work immediately on a long range capital plan. Let's hope the City Council will exercise its planning responsibility and the Sheriff will provide us professional law enforcement leadership as the community debates these issues. The people deserve no less.