Dickinson County’s new jail, courthouse renovation becomes a reality
Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part installment regarding the events that led up to building Dickinson County’s new jail addition and renovating the courthouse. Part 1 deals with the planning and bond issue process, while Part 2 focuses on the trials and tribulations of completing a major building project during a pandemic and the associated problems.
By KATHY HAGEMAN
Dickinson County public information coordinator
Nearly a decade after the commitment was made to build a new jail and renovate the courthouse, Dickinson County now has a government building that is safe, energy efficient, technologically advanced and aesthetically pleasing, without being opulent.
Except for a few remaining issues – like replacing the elevator, which has been delayed time and time again due to vendor issues -- the project is finished.
An open house on Saturday, June 11, attracted about 100 people who took the opportunity to see the renovated courthouse. An open house for the new jail and sheriff’s department, held in August 2021, allowed people the opportunity to tour that facility before prisoners were moved in.
Nearly everyone who attended the two open houses said they were impressed with the building and the changes that had been made. However, the journey to completion has not been simple.
The path included a failed bond issue, a complete revamp of the project, a second bond issue that barely passed, surprise demolition obstacles, a pandemic, supply chain problems, workforce issues and more.
But now that the end is nearly here, it’s time to take a look back.
Dire need
Soon after joining the Dickinson County Commission in January 2013, Commissioner Craig Chamberlin said the county needed a new jail. Both he and Commissioner Lynn Peterson joined the commission at the same time after being elected in November 2012.
“Craig brought it up immediately during his first or second meeting in office,” recalled Dickinson County Administrator Brad Homman. “He said something needs to be done about this building and the jail and we need to start planning for that right now.”
Chamberlin, Peterson and then-Commission Chairman LaVerne Myers knew that building a new jail would not be popular. It had been brought up numerous times with other county commissions in the past and never gone anywhere.
Unfortunately, the jail was a disaster waiting to happen. Not only had it outlived its usefulness structurally and technologically, but changes in the way the criminal justice system houses and cares for prisoners meant the old jail was a major liability risk.
Not only that, the entire layout of the top floor of the courthouse – which housed the jail, district court and court service offices – was no longer safe in the 21st century. With inmates and the public using the same hallways for access, public safety was a major concern. That was true not only in the court area, but in the entire courthouse with the modern threats posed by active shooters and the like.
As for the courthouse, it also was aging – and not gracefully. While the building itself was structurally sound, the infrastructure was failing. Constant repairs and skyrocketing energy costs had become a financial drain.
Jail and court concerns
Back when the courthouse was built in 1956, public safety was not a concern. In fact, the sheriff’s family lived in an apartment inside the jail area on the top floor, with the sheriff’s wife cooking the prisoners’ meals and their children calling the place home.
But by the 2000s that way of life was long gone and keeping inmates isolated from judges, witnesses, jurors and the general public was considered imperative.
One of the biggest problems in the courthouse was the lack of public safety. The only way to transport inmates was through hallways used by the general public, moving them from the jail to the courtrooms. Inmates were walking past potential jurors and witnesses, sometimes intimidating them. It also created an opportunity for the inmate to run and possibly hurt someone in the process.
At the time, one Abilene woman said she felt victimized “over and over again” as she waited in the hallway for court to start and the inmate who assaulted her glared at her as guards brought him to the courtroom.
The openness of the original courthouse sometimes was dangerous for judges and court officials. With only one way to get to the courtroom, judges were forced to walk through the crowds gathered in the hallway, and depending on the case, the judge’s safety could also be at risk.
There were incidents in other places – especially in highly-charged situations like child in need of care cases – where judges had been attacked by enraged family members and the open hallways in the Dickinson County courthouse presented a perfect opportunity for a similar situation.
But now that the new addition and renovations are completed, those concerns were all addressed.
The new jail addition created a separate hallway, staircase and elevator to move prisoners, keeping them out of the public venue. It also created a place for judges to move from their chambers to the courtroom without walking through the public area and added other necessary spaces.
The new addition also houses the sheriff’s department in an area with adequate space, evidence storage, interrogation rooms and all the things a law enforcement office needs in the 21st Century.
Inmate safety
While public safety was a major concern, so too was the safety of inmates. The 1956 jail did not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requirements. Nor did it comply with the building codes and standards set by the American Correctional Association, the National Institute of Corrections and the National Institute of Justice.
Back in October 2016, architect Larry Goldberg of Goldberg Group Architects, who designed the new facility and renovations, noted the jail was a “disaster waiting to happen,” especially in terms of PREA.
“The problem is the concept of deliberate indifference. You know what’s wrong. You know it’s non-compliant. You know it can’t be fixed. You know the opportunity for inadvertent or intentional violations of personal privacy give way to a sexual assaultive environment,” Goldberg said.
Besides that, the 1956 jail had deteriorated to the point where cell doors were broken, some could not be locked and replacement parts were no longer available.
Jail capacity also was an issue, particular in an age where jail populations must be separated. Obviously, males cannot be housed with females, but in today’s world, other gender classifications are now in the mix, plus the need to separate violent from non-violent offenders.
Infrastructure failing
Besides the jail and public safety problems, the entire courthouse had issues.
The windows were no longer efficient. Wind blowing in through windows that were sealed years ago rustled the blinds and allowed sound to pass through. When trains came through, commission meetings and courtroom proceedings came to a halt because of the noise.
Sewer and water lines were encased in the block walls which make up the interior of the building, making them difficult if not impossible to repair. Deteriorated water pipes produced leaks, creating problems for the offices below.
A deteriorating sewer line in the wall leaked sewer gas into the register of deeds office, creating a smell that not only permeated that office, but wafted through the main floor.
Air exchangers in the heating/AC system were rotting away and replacement parts were unavailable. Luckily, a vendor had been located that was able to create made-to-order parts as a stop gap.
Also, the building had areas where asbestos needed to be removed, restrooms were not ADA-accessible, basement offices were not flood proof and there were other problems.
Early steps
Realizing that “kicking the can down the road,” was no longer an option, county commissioners Chamberlin, Peterson and Myers hosted a meeting in 2013 about the need for what then was planned to be a judicial or “Justice Center” -- bringing all justice-related functions under the same roof. Some of the attendees included representatives from the sheriff’s department, the Abilene Police Department, the jail, district and municipal court and court services.
“First we came up with the Justice Center proposal,” Homman said. “That was to build a new jail with a new district court and courtrooms, the sheriff on the second floor, the Abilene Police Department on the main floor or vice versa.”
Homman, who was involved in law enforcement for decades, said he believed having all the agencies involved in law enforcement located in the same building would be beneficial, but the City of Abilene later decided to go its own way.
Commissioners approved a two-mill levy in August 2013, effective with the 2014 budget, to begin funding for a justice center, knowing it would not come to fruition for several years.
“That was about $200,000 a mill. So, we were putting about $400,000 back a year for several years,” said County Administrator Homman.
A small portion of that money was used to purchase two vacant, dilapidated houses that were located east of the courthouse next to the old (now demolished) county attorney building. That way, space would be available if needed.
Once acquired by the county, the road and bridge department demolished the structures in August 2015.
While these early steps were underway, the commission and Homman were researching what kind of jail should be built. Commissioner Chamberlin and Homman, along with the former sheriff and undersheriff, attended a week-long National Institute of Corrections training about designing and building new jails in Colorado.
“The big thing they told us was ‘don’t build a jail so big you can’t afford to operate it’,” Homman recalled. “In California, the state gives money to build local jails, but you (the local county) have to run it yourself. One California county had really big eyes and built a 600 to 700 bed jail, but they couldn’t afford to open the doors. It had been sitting vacant. That was a good example of what not to do.”
Getting started
A big step in the process involved hiring an architect and construction manager at risk, working as a team. Four interviews were held in November 2015. After a thorough vetting process was completed, Goldberg Group Architects of St. Joseph, Mo., and Loyd Builders of Ottawa, were selected to design and build the new jail and complete the courthouse renovation.
“Goldberg had selected Loyd Builders to work with. They were already working together on a new jail project in Miami County,” Homman said. “They invited us to look it over while it was under construction.”
Commissioners also toured a jail in Seward, Neb., and one in Marion County, Kan, where they met with the late Marion County Sheriff Bob Kraft and a couple residents who served on that county’s jail board.
“Their message was the same as the one we heard in Colorado: Don’t build anything so big you can’t operate it. Build it to a scale that will serve you quite a while,” Homman said. “They told the public they were not going to build anything fancy. So, we decided we were going to build it practical. You don’t see marble countertops. You won’t see ceramic tile on the floors. We’ve got Formica, brick and block.”
Next, a 14-member Justice Advisory Committee was created and tasked with doing a preliminary needs assessment and helping gain public support.
In February 2017, the advisory committee told commissioners they should proceed with plans to build a justice center and remodel the current courthouse, using the Dickinson County Public Building Commission (PBC) as the funding mechanism.
One month later, the PBC approved a resolution to issue bonds in the amount of $17.735 million to finance building a Justice Center and renovate the courthouse.
The resolution included the county’s intent to utilize the municipal finance company, Piper-Jaffray and Co. of Leawood, to serve as legal counsel for the bonds. It also signaled the start of a 30-day protest period, allowing the public to force the issue to an election.
A resounding no
Public reaction was quick. Even though stories in the local newspaper had been covering the process for at least four years, people felt they had not been informed. A townhall meeting brought out a large number of people vehemently opposed to the idea. People wanted the opportunity to vote on the question.
A protest petition with the needed number of signatures was verified and the question was placed on a mail-in ballot in August 2017. When the votes were counted, the Justice Center bond issue failed by 308 votes.
The cost was the main source of discontent among the public. Many thought erroneously that the county was going to raise taxes to pay for the project, but steps had been taken to ensure taxes would not be used.
Despite the no vote, the need still existed.
“We went back to the drawing board and redesigned,” Homman said, explaining the Justice Center was scrapped and the project narrowed down. “We took district court, court offices and courtrooms out of it and lowered the price to $15 million.”
Of the $15 million, $1.8 had already been set aside to finance the project through the two-mill levy started in 2014, while $13.5 million would be funded with bonds issued by the county’s Public Building Commission.
The commission heard the public’s desire to vote on the question and decided to place the new bond issue on the ballot.
In August 2018, Dickinson County voters narrowly approved the pared-down version - a $13.5 million bond issue to build the new jail and renovate the existing courthouse - by a 51-vote margin.
And then the real work began.
. . .
Part 2 on Wednesday will focus on the challenges involved with building the jail and renovating the courthouse in a world changed by a major pandemic.