The Local Source for News and Information Since 1980
DENTON – As more details surface about a possible tri-county regional detention center, the Caroline County Commissioners are raising more questions about its feasibility.
Meeting Jan. 21 in Denton, the three Commissioners heard from County Attorney Stewart Barroll and Deputy County Administrator Daniel Fox, who attended a Jan. 16 meeting, the latest in a series of discussions among key officials from Kent and Queen Anne’s counties,
Among their questions is whether a new regional detention center would be overseen by Queen Anne’s County via a legal agreement with an oversight board, or whether a stand-alone entity called an authority would be formed by representatives of the three counties. An authority would create joint ownership of the detention center.
According to Barroll, an authority is a no-go for Queen Anne’s.
Last week, Stewart proffered his idea of a “general partnership approach versus the tenant paying for the construction of the building that it then pays rent to use,” he said. And we finally got down to brass tacks and got positions clear.”
Queen Anne’s County’s position is that it will not participate in an authority because it wants to retain ownership of the campus, which would be located in that county.
A requested redraft of the agreement had not arrived as of the morning of Jan. 21.
In addition, Commission Vice President Larry Porter proposed a public hearing to inform citizens about the project and Commission President Travis Breeding requested a cost-comparison report.
“I need numbers. I need to know what we're saving,” Breeding said.
The Caroline County Detention Center is housed in the 100-year-old Andrew Building on Gay Street, across from the County Courthouse. Negotiations that have lasted for months have focused on a joint venture between the three counties in an effort to create a modern, cost-efficient facility.
Other concerns voiced during past Caroline Commission meetings by the Commissioners, staff and Caroline County Detention Center Warden Charles Scott pertained to staffing and supervisory responsibilities, which would, under an agreement, fall to Queen Anne’s County; pay and benefits; food and medical services; debt percentages and obligations; and procedures for exiting the agreement, should Caroline or Kent counties opt to do so.
“The other thing is that we all compete for the same peer recovery specialists, mental health specialists – all of those things as well,” Breeding said. “So, pooling our resources together, we should be able to provide better services to the incarcerated individuals, and hopefully cut down on recidivism as well.”
At the Jan. 14 meeting of the Caroline Commissioners, Scott detailed how building logistics, state regulations, a decrease in the inmate population and staffing needs would all factor into either a new building or renovations to the existing one.
A provision in the current draft that Barroll felt would make it into a new draft states that the Queen Anne’s County board of commissioners “will not have an absolute veto over decisions made by the oversight board,” he said.
However, Barroll said he was concerned that those commissioners, who would own the campus and facility, as well as “the warden and every single employee of the facility (becoming) an employee of the Queen Anne's County Commissioners.”
“In the event that there was an impasse or a problem where the oversight board wanted something done, and the Board of (QA) County Commissioners did not want that done, I said, ‘Who do you think is going to win that in the end?’ And there was no response,” Barroll said.
Caroline Commissioner Frank Bartz said he felt the county should be granted some patience by the other two counties in hammering out an agreement. “We were patient with the (Mid-Shore Regional) Landfill. So, I just feel we should be given the same respect as far as making a decision,” he said.
Porter stressed the need to involve Caroline citizens. “Once we get this revised agreement, I would like to see us pull together every piece of information we can on this. I think we have to have a hearing,” he said. “This is probably the biggest decision that's gonna be made in a long time, for years to come. And we gotta listen to what people say.”
“I do think we need a public hearing,” Bartz said. “I'd like to see the cost savings analysis on that, for one, and just more reassurance for our county employees.”
Porter thanked county staff for their efforts. “It's a big decision, and I think we need, certainly, to thank you guys for the 15 weeks of going through this. I know it's a job, and it boils down to numbers and common sense, but the more information we can provide to our taxpayers, the better – the easier it’ll be for us to walk into Bullock’s and answer questions, and that's what I'm looking for.”
