Cabarrus Cheap Seats

Just in time for the 2006 Primary season, Harold Smith presents us with 2 more issues to be the topics du jour before Republicans and Independents go to the polls to select the Republican nominees for Cabarrus County Commission.

The County Jail and John Day:

December 11, 2005: Who Was Negligent in Jail Project? 

Who is responsible? John Day? Turner Construction? Or Fletcher Hartsell?

The county has spent $4.6 million todate on the jail project before the required zoning was granted for the jail.

What developer would spend $4.6 million on a project before receiving the required zoning? None.

Was it negligence in spending $4.6 million on the jail project before the required zoning?

Who is responsible?

John Day? A professional manager in private business would be fired for such negligence.

Turner Construction? They should have known better.

And where was the county attorney, Fletcher Hartsell?

Who will be held accountable?

Harold Smith

Root Cause Analysis

I work in an industry where affixing blame is an interesting process. If a piece of equipment breaks, it seems only logical to blame the last person who last touched it. At many facilities, this blame game keeps people on their toes and risk-averse. However, when you work in an industry where the failure of critical components could result in massive loss of life and property - the way one looks at failure is completely different. There’s a process called “root cause” analysis. The details are complicated; but it works by interrogating like a 4-year-old…keep asking “why” until the fix is obvious.

In this case, the question to ask to get to the root of the problem is “Why haven’t we got zoning 6 1/2 years after the problem was initially identified?”. From there, it’s pretty easy to figure out.

According to the handy timeline in the Charlotte Observer, on Feb 20, 1999 then-Sheriff Robert Canaday reported that the jail was chronically overcrowded. The County Commission leapt into action and two-and-a-half years later asked that a $70,000 study be performed. They did not review a study, they did not even start it - they had only appropriated money to study this problem. Nearly two years after that, Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners approves request for architectural firms to design a new jail and justice facility. So four-and-a-half years after the problem had been identified is facility design becoming a reality, not location; but a design. The problem was bad in 1999 and it was worse in 2003; and it borders on illegal now in 2005. Just as an exercise, take those three dates: 1999, 2003, and 2005 - now look at who was on the board, who was the sheriff, and who was County Manager during that time. The County Manager was different - Frank Clifton in 1999, John Day in 2003 and 2005. The Sheriff was different - Robert Canaday in 1999, Brad Riley in 2003 and 2005. The board is interesting, only Coy Privette and Carolyn Carpenter were on the board at those three points in time. However, Carolyn Carpenter was defeated in a primary in 2000, only to return in 2002. Coy Privette is the only name to span those dates in time contiguously. It might be good to take a look at his behavior through this process.

Jail Project History
In 1999, the Commission consisted of Arne Fennel, Coy Privette, Sue Casper, Carolyn Carpenter, and Jeff Barnhardt. This issue of the jail was initially brought up this year. Cabarrus County was undergoing a shift after the failure of a school funding referendum in 1998 and the rise of the Cabarrus Taxpayers Association during that same time - putting Coy Privette in office in 1998. This marked the ascension of Arne Fennel to the post of Chair and signaled a shift in voter sentiment in Cabarrus County. Maybe it was a misunderstanding of the situation or the fact that it would be a difficult political situation in an election where several of the incumbents were targets of the powerful CTA; but there seemed to be little done about the jail situation by this board. A search of the meeting minutes in 2000 (1999 is not available) yields no discussion of adding on to the existing jail capacity.

• The first time the jail comes up in the agenda is in spring of 2001, when a study was performed to look at needs over the next 15 years. By this time, Jeff Barnhardt and Carolyn Carpenter are off the board and CTA-backed candidates are fully in control of the County Commission. The study concluded in October 2001 that additional construction was needed and that the best option would be to expand the existing facility at its current location. There was no objection to that idea on the record. Also, that study concluded that the facility would have to be six to seven stories in height or could be shorter; but take up much downtown real estate. Once again, no objection. The end of the story here is that they would “look into it later”
• The issue doesn’t come up again until May 2002 when budget discussions come up again. Two options are given by then-County Manager Frank Clifton: expand the current facility in Downtown Concord, or move the complex to another location. Nothing is said on the record.
• In August 2002, a resolution from The Residents of Historic Concord is presented to the board urging the board to consider Downtown Concord as the location for the jail and to keep the design faithful to the character of Downtown Concord. During the response time, none of the Commissioners were on record mentioning that this facility would be stories upon stories high; but they did take the time to defend some pet projects.
• In January 2003, the board made their first comments on the record on the jail matter identifying the jail as a long term goal.
• At the next January meeting, a report was received that directed staff to work with the Sheriff’s Department and to keep the Jail on “Old Business”
• At the February 17, 2003 meeting, the following happened:
  

  The main goal: design a site that will serve for 50 years and allow for phased construction of the necessary facilities.

  Three candidate sites were identified: Downtown Concord, Brown Mill, and the old Fairgrounds site near US29.

  A number of groups representing Downtown Concord pushed to have the Courthouse and/or jail located in Downtown Concord.

In July 2003, the Board of Commissioners unamiously approved that $500,000 be provided to Ware Bosnall for architectural services for the jail.

In February 2004, the Sheriff, after repeated reports of increasing jail overcrowding, stresses that the board must implement “stopgap” measures in advance of any construction underscoring the immediance of the situation.

On February 23, 2004, the board held a work-session for the jail project. Not much got accomplished. As was the leadership style of the board under CTA-backed candidates they urged the Sheriff to find other measures - including using mobile units to house prisoners. One interesting fact did come up - the project number of beds needed in a jail in 2030 was 590. In 2003, the average number was 213. Also, four sites in Downtown Concord were evaluated. This is important too; because they weren’t looking “somewhere out in the county”

March 9, 2004 - 50 people attend an open house for the Justice Facility selection process. More than 70% of them select the Corban and Church Street site for the project. The 600 bed number was established at this time.

March 15, 2004 - During informal public comments, the Concord Downtown Development corporation entered a resolution agreeing to the proposed site (Corban and Church Street intersection) and commending the Board of Commissioners for working closely with “stakeholders”

April 19, 2004 - a motion unanimously carried which selected the Corban and Church Street intersect as the site of interest. The County Manager was to report on “all possible” options with that site.

June 14, 2004 - This is important. The board voted 4-1, on a motion made by Coy Privette, to approve the construction of a $57 million dollar jail at the intersection of Corban and Church Street. Then-Commissioner Suggs voted against it citing that steel prices were at an all-time high and would be coming down in the future. He favored construction in two discrete phases. After more than two years of studies, open houses, proclamations, and meetings - not one commissioner: not Coy Privette, not Richard Suggs, not Carolyn Carpenter, not Robert Freeman, and not Bob Carruth- objected to the site, scope, or size of the jail project.

Now begins Coy’s obstruction campaign. Why would he start it now? Well, about this time, his ally on the board, Richard Suggs, was soundly defeated in the 2004 Republican Primary. At the August 16, 2004 meeting he stated that he didn’t see the need for a construction manager since the architect, Ware Bosnall, would be overseeing the construction.

August 25, 2004 - On a motion made by Coy Privette, the board unamiously approves the contract with Ware Bosnall architects for Basic Service. Price: $2,934,500.00.

At the end of 2004, Joni Juba has taken Richard Suggs’ old seat. The board is now no longer in the control of CTA-backed commissioners - they are now in the minority. It’s important to establish the following before we move on:

• Scope - Each Board member agreed to a long term site (30-50 years) for construction. They were all presented repeatedly with information that to fill need needs for the next 50 years about 1,000 beds would be necessary - with about 600 being filled in the next 30 years. This was established and repeated in all of the design presentations. These presentations were made in public meetings. All the designs, from the beginning, were multi-story.
• Location - County staff, city officials, and neighborhood groups were all informed of the goals and scope of the project. If you follow any of the links that I have here - you can tell that this is all public information. Not one commissioner went on the record opposing the site. As a matter of fact, at the July 14, 2004 meeting then-Commissioner Richard Suggs stated that the City of Concord should pay for part of the jail because the County had agreed to put it there! I would love to have seen what the various factions in Downtown Concord would have said to that this year.
• Urgency of Need - The Board of Commissioners requested and received monthly updates from the Sheriff on jail capacity and inmate levels. In January 2003, the average jail population was 199 inmates - by October the number was 217. That’s about 10% in less than a year. The situation was not improving with time, and the county was quickly running out of options.
• Cost - The previous board approved a nearly $60 million cost for the jail. The previous board approved $3.4 million in spending for the architect alone before land had been bought, Turner Construction had been considered, or Joni Juba had been sworn in. As far as someone getting fired, the previous board had several construction professionals on it. They all knew that in order to get zoning, there has to be a plan. If someone knows how to get a zoning board to agree to change zoning and grant permits before land has been purchased and plans have been drawn up, than that someone should replace John Day. However, that person could probably make more money selling perpetual motion machines or raising unicorns.

Now it starts getting interesting. Keep in mind that before this, Coy had basically gone along with whatever the Chairman wanted to do and didn’t object to what County staff was advising. He made most of the motions to spend money and hire contractors, in addition to voting for all of them. Let’s see if he stays true to this when he’s in the minority.

• December 28, 2004 - The Board unamiously approves consideration of a temporary jail site (including one that at that meeting had been citied to having flooding problems) and the addition of more deputies.
• January 10, 2005 - The Board considers two sites for a temporary jail - one at Industrial Court and one at the Arena and Events Center. Yes, at the new fairgrounds. The Deputy County Manager had presented the Board with a petition from residents in the proposed area around Industrial Court opposing the temporary jail. Coy brings up the idea of house arrest. Captain Paul Hunt stated that none of the inmates would be eligible for house arrest.
• February 7, 2005 - To bring some light to idea of house arrest, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Erwin Spainhour, Chief District Court Judge William G. Hamby, Jr., District Court Judges Michael G. Knox and Martin B. McGee, and District Attorney Roxann L. Vaneekhoven objected to the use of house arrest on several logistical grounds. Captain Paul Hunt noted that only 2 of the 220 inmates would qualify for house arrest under the following standards: Bond under $10K, no felony charges, probation violations, failures to appear, etc. So, enhancing house arrest options isn’t going to make much of a difference in the jail overcrowding situation.
• Even though it was established that house arrest wasn’t going to make much of a difference, that doesn’t stop Coy from bringing it up again at the February 21 meeting. The new Chairperson Carpenter authorized Coy Privette to investigate the costs associated with the house arrest program. At this meeting, the new Board of Commissioner makes their first design input. After a open house where three options were presented for the design the facility, a “mill” design was chosen by the participants. The Board of Commissioners unamiously approved this.
• At a March 14, 2005 work session, information was provided about a pre-trial release program now in use in Rowan County. After reviewing it, Captain Paul Hunt stated that only 5 or 6 inmates would be eligible in Cabarrus County; because Cabarrus County already implements many of the same practices as Rowan County does.
• On April 4, 2005, a work session was held to explore the differences between the Rowan County pre-trial release program and what Cabarrus County does. Here’s the main difference - if you can’t afford to make bail in Rowan County - the county may pick up the tab. That wasn’t a mistake, Coy Privette’s answer to the jail overcrowding is that the taxpayers pay the bond of someone who is part of the pretrial release program. In spite of how crazy that sounds, Coy pushed and the compromise was made to have Coy sit on a committee of him and people who understood the law and how such a plan would be implemented.
• During the April 18, 2005 meeting, Sheriff Riley reminded the board that an Electronic House Arrest program and Pre-Trial release had already been considered; but they were not found to be effective…in 2001. Coy was on the board back in 2001…why didn’t he just look at his old notes? Well, maybe he misread them; because for a third time Coy Privette brought up the pre-trial release program - even though in the earlier meeting the Board of Commissioners agreed to table the issue until the recommendation came back from the committee. Doesn’t it seem sort of strange that Coy didn’t push this idea back when he was in the majority?
• May 23, 2005 - A special meeting is held to discuss the temporary jail situation. The decision was made to condemn property near the proposed jail site Downtown and to add a 96-bed jail annex, and to take off the table any considerations of a temporary jail site.
• June 20, 2005 - John Day mentions that he had met with the Residents of Historic Concord regarding the preservation of the old Tribune building.
• August 8, 2005 - The Board of Commissioners votes to condemn the properties near the jail site for the new jail annex. This was agree upon unanimously.
• August 15, 2005 - The BOC meets again - Coy Privette criticizes the whole CM at-risk option bringing as example several projects that he says were handled incorrectly because of the CM at-risk option. The political motivations behind his objections are detailed in “Speculation #2″ section of the Politics in an Odd-Numbered Year XVIII: Jumpin’ Juba post I made in August. Oh yeah, I almost forgot - Coy seconds and votes on the motion to approve more than $1.9 million in land acquisition costs for the jail.
• August 19, 2005 - County Manager John Day debunks every one of the examples Coy Privette brought up criticizing the CM at-risk contracting option.
• August 20, 2005 - He had no problem approving millions of dollars in architectural fees and giving Ware Bosnall whatever they said they needed; but when it came to hiring Turner as the Construction Manager - he objected. He objected on the grounds that other firms weren’t considered - even though an RFP had been sent out, three firms had expressed interest, and a committee (including Joni Juba) had made its recommendation.

Of course, we all know how it went down from there. Harold Smith’s so-called Juba Scandal, the various groups who represent the residents of downtown Concord were “shocked, absolutely shocked” to find out that the County was building a jail in their community. For those who stumbled on this post here are the links to other “View From the Cheap Seats” posts on this matter:

August 29 - Politics in an Odd-Numbered Year XVIII: Jumpin’ Juba
October 23 - The Worst Form Of Government Except For All Of The Others
November 5 - Politics in an Odd-Numbered Year XXIII: Clever Omissions
November 25 - Downtown Concord to County: “Drop Dead”
December 10 - Politics in an Odd-Numbered Year XXXI: The Cover-Up That Wasn’t

Of course, the most recent development - after all of the delays and vacillating - John Harkins, the state jail inspector arrived at the last Board of Commissioners meeting stating that something had to be done or the State was going to take action. The Board made the decision to enter into an agreement with Alamance County to export 40 inmates requiring a budget amendment of $370,000. It was the last chance before the State took action. The vote was 4-1 with Coy Privette voting against the measure. He felt as though, and you won’t believe this, that the prisoner transfer was unnecessary because the County had not duplicated Rowan County’s early release program. Even though it was established earlier this year that it wouldn’t be effective.

Bottom Line: If anyone has been “draggy, draggy, draggy” with this Jail project - it has been Coy Privette. His latest action tells this voter than my safety is less important to him than his reelection.