After months of meetings, looking at proposed designs and hearing from county officials, the DeKalb County Commission looks to have made some progress as to a new judicial center. The county jail committee, which is made up from the entire county commission, has settled on the design of the facility. The commission must now take a hard look at where the center will be built.
During an April 29, Jail Committee meeting, the commission previewed three options for a new judicial center. During previous meeting, the committee narrowed down the requirements for the center, and decided to get estimates on three proposed designs; a single-story center built at a new location; a two-story facility built at a new location; and a four-story facility built at the jail’s current location. In the end, the committee voted 11-0 to approve the cheapest option, the two-story design to be built at a new location.
The estimated cost for the project will be $63,817,500, not including the purchase for the land and the cost of three times more staffing. At that price, the county is looking at as much as a 65-cent property tax increase, or a combination 47-cent property tax with a $50 wheel tax.
All three designs were based on 190 bed requirements, which were below the 225-bed recommendations by state estimates. Treanor Architects and Bell Construction, designed the 102,000 square-foot, two-level structure, which would be situated on up to a 15-acre site. The design allows room for future expansion. In the front of the housing quarters would be another two-story building with courtrooms on one floor and the sheriff’s offices on the other. The orientation of the front building could be turned in order to hide the housing buildings from the public view.
Of the first two options, built on a new site, the two-story option was considered the most cost effective, sharing common walls and roofs, while building on the current jail site was considered the most expensive. At the current site, designers reported that building in phases and the constraints of working on the narrow option would cost more money in the long run.
“Construction time would be 18-20 months longer and there is no way to expand it in the future. Sufficient parking would be a struggle and the topography is such that we would have to put retaining walls in and build up the site. Utilities would probably have to be relocated two times during the course of the project and by building next to a facility already in operation, we would have to ensure that the sheriff’s office could maintain its operational duties. That would be difficult to do when you are building right next to it not to mention the fact that on other sides of the property there is the public square, a creek, and someone else’s property,” said Rick Bruining of Bell Construction.
Another issue the county seemingly was caught off guard by was the number of staff that is recommended for all three designs. Jim Hart, Jail Consultant and Field Manager of the County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) recommended that the number of staff for the jail operation be increased from the current 17 to as many as 58 once the new facility is finished.
“Scenario 2 is a 190-bed detention facility that has courts and the sheriff’s operations associated with it,” said John Eisenlau of Treanor Architects. “The total square footage of the building is roughly 102,000 square feet. Under this scenario, the housing sits in back of the property, not seen by the public. The jail would be on the first level in front of the building for the intake, medical, kitchen, laundry all those things you want on the ground.”
“The second level could have the courts and the sheriff’s operations. That way the sheriff’s department is moving everybody on one level and the only time they go up is when they go to court. We as the architectural team and the build team recommend the two-story solution. It offers some operational, construction, and energy related efficiencies for the facility with it being more compact. It turns out to be the most cost-effective solution which is normally the case with a multi-story versus single story building and it’s planned for a 15-acre site which makes it expandable on all levels. The jail, courts, and housing can all be expanded in the scenario we have developed. The committee did a terrific job in evaluating the three options,” said Eisenlau.
Jail committee members Monday night voting for the judicial center scenario 2 option were Beth Pafford, Mathias Anderson, Jeff Barnes, Andy Pack, Larry Green, Glynn Merriman, Greg Matthews, Tony (Cully) Culwell, Tony Luna, Sabrina Farler, and Daniel Cripps. Members absent were Tom Chandler, Myron Rhody, and Susannah Cripps.
The committee is now taking on the task of finding a location for the facility, with 57.59 acres near Allen’s Ferry Road (behind Bizee Mart) at a price of $1.3 million as one possible option, but property is currently not located in the city limits, a requirement for a justice center, and would have to be annexed.
Commissioner Tony Luna later suggested that all members of the jail committee visit suitable land options for the facility. The committee approved the suggestion with members scheduled to look at different options on May 7.
