031593RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING: March 15, 1993
The Randolph County Board of Commissioners met in special session at 6:30
p.m. on March 15, 1993 in the Commissioners Meeting Room, 725 McDowell Road,
Asheboro, NC. Commissioners Frye, Kemp, Langley, Petty and Comer were present.
The purpose of the meeting was to receive a report of findings and
recommendations from the Jail Advisory Committee.
Wade Powell, Chairman of the Jail Advisory Committee, presented the
following findings and recommendations from the Committee:
Finding #1:
The multi -consultant approach has not produced a satisfactory plan which meets
federal and state guidelines and remains affordable. The current design exceeds
these guidelines, which makes the cost of the facility unreasonable.
Recommendation #1:
O'Brien/Atkins Architects, currently engaged by the County, should be retained
to perform all required services for constructing the facility.
Finding #2:
Housing units in the program were more than 20% over state requirements. Some
day rooms exceeded requirements by more than 400%. Cells in some units were
larger than required for single cells. Construction Control Corporation
reported that 40% of all cells built must be single cells, but state jail
standards state that a governing body shall decide what combination of
confinement units it will include in its jail. By building 168 cells large
enough .for double bunking, we could, if necessary, increase the capacity beyond
the projected need. The County will need 240 beds by the year 2010.
Recommendation #2:
The Carter -Goble program should be modified to meet the
exceeding state requirements. The O'Brien/Atkins plans
to these program changes.
County's needs without
should be reconfigured
Finding #3:
The jail and law enforcement facility could be built on the Courthouse site.
However, this would severely limit the land for expansion of both buildings and
parking. The existing jail and Sheriff's offices could be used by other
departments. Accessibility and transportation for law enforcement would be
greater at the McDowell Road site. A direct supervision facility is
recommended. Based on initial construction and land acquisition -costs and on
operational costs over an 18 -year period, a facility on the McDowell Road site
would cost $5,339,692 less than a comparable facility at the Courthouse.
Recommendation #3:
The facility should be built in 3 phases. The master plan and a complete set of
working construction documents would include all 3 phases. Site preparation
would be completed with all utilities and support items in phase 1. The
core/support facilities would be configured for all 5 housing units and would
support 320 inmates.
Phase 1: Complete 3 housing units of 32 cells each and construct all cells for
double bunking. Reduce jail administrative and law enforcement section by 3,500
square feet.
Phase 2: Construct 4;th housing unit (32 cells).
Phase -3: Construct 5th housing unit (32 cells). If there is a need for
additional facilities earlier than projected, phases 2 and 3 could be built
together, which would also reduce contract and administrative fees.
Recommendation #4:
The County should set aside 3/4 of one cent per $100 valuation in a sinking fund
for 5 years , and this would be enough to build the additional housing unit for
phase 2 without borrowing money. An additional 4 years would be needed to
generate the funds for phase 3.
Recommendation #5:
The jail and law enforcement facility should be constructed on the McDowell Road
site.
Recommendation #6
A budget of $6,940,000 for phase 1 should be given to the architect to construct
the jail and law enforcement facility on the McDowell Road site.
Mr. Powell explained that some components of the architectural program were
scaled back but that nothing was cut out. Prisoners Legal Services and the
State must review and approve any plans before construction could begin.
General discussion ensued regarding the Committee's report. The following
points were made:
If each cell had an extra 35 square feet, they could be double -bunked where
needed, which gives more flexibility. Maximum security cells would only need an
additional 15 square feet.
The current jail has been over capacity regularly for 3-4 years.
The Committee's plan creates substantial savings in the core area.
° The last state .jail standards before 1990 were issued in 1968. They are not
likely to change again for many years.
° The bottom line for recommending the McDowell site is the Committee's opinion
that a downtown jail would absolutely guarantee both the jail and the courts
would have to be relocated out of town later at astronomical costs..
The courthouse is a greater landmark to downtown than the jail and its future
there needs to be protected.
° Security for a downtown jail is a real problem.
° Ongoing maintenance cost for a parking deck was not included in the cost
estimates for a downtown jail.
° The Committee requested input from the munic,ipali-ties during this study but
received very little response.
° We need to sell this idea to the community to get a positive response. The
most frequently heard comment was to build the jail for the minimum amount
possible within state guidelines.
° The County did not do a thorough job of preparing the public for the bond
referendum, but some previous leaders of the opposition have now completely
turned around.
° The underlying intent of the state jail standards is for the safety and well
being of the officers working in these facilities.
The Board agreed to study the report and to meet with the Jail Advisory
Committee for a work session at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 30, 1993, in the
Commissioners Meeting Room.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.