GREENFIELD — Almost a week after the Hancock County Council proposed putting an $8.5 million temporary jail facility on a piece of county-owned farmland, the county’s executive board decided against the plan and took steps to build the facility next to the current jail in downtown Greenfield.
The Hancock County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday voted 3-0 to begin negotiations with Seymour, Missouri-based All Detainment Solutions to build a $5.2 million temporary jail comprised of 16 modified semitrailers adjacent to the county jail at 123 E. Main St. and not at any other location in the county.
The commissioners have already approved using a $5 million property tax bond to fund the project. It’s now up to the council to proceed or go in another direction at their Oct. 10 monthly meeting.
The decision is in conflict with measures the county council took last week. They voted to bond up to $8.5 million for the temporary facility and build it outside of Greenfield city limits at land commonly called the county farm, along U.S. 40 between County Roads 400E and 500E. That project would increase the number of trailers to 21 and could house 146 inmates instead of 126. But, it would include added infrastructure and utility costs and put the temporary units a few miles away from the current jail.
The number of inmates in the 157-bed Hancock County Jail, which was built in 1988, has been growing since 2014, when state lawmakers voted to change the criminal code, forcing county jails to house those guilty of Level 6 felonies in order to free up space in Indiana Department of Correction prisons.
The jail has been housing about 240 inmates as of late, Keith Oliver, the jail commander, has said. County leaders have been discussing building a new jail since 2010, with talks intensifying since 2015.
Brad Armstrong, board of commissioners president, said the majority of the three-person board isn’t in favor of putting the trailers on the county farm. Commissioner Marc Huber also voiced opposition to the plan.
“I’d rather do nothing than that solution. It’s not timely and it’s not going to work,” Armstrong said. “The council needs to save some money back and figure out where to put prisoners over the next year.”
Ray Richardson, county attorney, has said if the county issues the $8.5 million bond, it could be pushed to a referendum in an upcoming election. The next countywide election is 2020, but the county could pay to join a municipal election next year, he said.
The county would need to issue the $5 million bond by Dec. 31, but Armstrong said the county is in a time crunch to go through all of the necessary steps to bond in the final few months of the year. He said the council should’ve decided to move forward on the $5 million bond at their meeting last week.
In addition to beginning negotiations with ADS, the commissioners unanimously passed contracting with the county’s design firm, RQAW, on site development design for the temporary jail being installed in the parking lot between community corrections and the downtown jail. RQAW will also assist the county in applying for a building permit with the City of Greenfield for the temporary facility.
A resolution stating the Greenfield City Council would cooperate with the county on building a jail downtown as well as any temporary means to house inmates died for lack of a second at last week’s council meeting. Council members and Mayor Chuck Fewell have said they don’t want a new downtown jail.
Richardson told the commissioners that case law states if a city tries to stop a county function through planning and zoning, the county is entitled to go to court and have a judge decide.
The commissioners on Tuesday also discussed having RQAW study the county farm to analyze soil, drainage, infrastructure and utilities before moving forward on schematic design.
The council last week appropriated spending $400,000 on the design of up to a $65 million jail project on the county farm and $100,000 on engineering of the temporary jail. Armstrong said he’d rather use that $100,000 on the site analysis of the county farm. The commissioners plan to create a contract with RQAW at their meeting next month.
“If we’re going to drag something out there, we have to figure out how it financially benefits our constituents, instead of pouring money away since we’re forced to move this off campus,” Armstrong said.
County officials have been talking about putting a new jail on the county farm since June — a month after Hancock County voters shot down a referendum that would’ve paved the way for local leaders to increase property taxes to pay for the construction of a $55 million downtown jail and improvements to other county buildings. The county intends to pay for the project with a mix of property taxes and income taxes.
Previously, county leaders have said the $65 million plan wouldn’t include renovations to other county buildings. Pete Peterson, director of business development at RQAW, said the $65 million proposal still includes renovations to the current jail and community corrections buildings that the $55 million plan proposed. Most county council members, however, have said they want to eventually move most criminal justice departments to the county farm, negating any need to update downtown buildings.
Commissioner John Jessup said he commends the decisions the council made last week to cap the jail project at $65 million and put the temporary facility on the county farm, saying it’s a way to find middle ground between the council and commissioners. He said it’s a solution amidst miscommunication.
Huber and Armstrong disagreed, saying the best solution is still a downtown campus.
“I don’t know what gives (the county council) the right to abuse the taxpayers for a more expensive plan when there’s a more reasonable, more efficient, more economical plan on the table that’s ready to be sent out for bid when we’re sitting here and all wasting time,” Huber said.
