Henry Harrington

Write-In Candidate for Anoka County Commissioner — District 3

Jail Spending

Anoka County needs a safe and functional jail. The question is not whether the county needs adequate jail facilities. The question is how a project once discussed at roughly $100 million grew into a project costing more than twice that amount.

How Did We Get Here?

Anoka County has known for years that its existing jail has serious capacity and functional problems. Before moving toward the current proposal, the County examined whether the existing jail could be expanded, including the possibility of building vertically. That approach was ultimately rejected as impractical and expensive.

The County then moved toward construction of an entirely new jail. County financial documents placed the initial estimated cost of the replacement jail at approximately $163.98 million.

But the jail is not the only major expense associated with the downtown plan. The proposed jail would occupy the site of the existing Government Center parking ramp, requiring that ramp to be removed. The County also plans to construct an entirely new parking ramp on nearby property.

That puts the jail and replacement parking ramp alone at nearly $259 million under the County's current financing plan — before considering every other cost associated with the downtown project.

What taxpayers deserve is a clear accounting of how a jail initially estimated at approximately $163.98 million became a $210 million project. The County's public capital documents identify the higher figure, but they do not provide taxpayers with an itemized explanation showing where the approximately $46 million increase came from.

The location has created additional costs and controversy as well. Properties near Fourth Avenue and Jackson Street were acquired and demolished to make room for the replacement parking ramp. The project has also produced a continuing dispute between Anoka County and the City of Anoka over zoning, streets, the jail's footprint, and the effect of the development on downtown Anoka and nearby historic properties.

Rather than abandoning the disputed location, the County has continued pursuing it through government action and legal proceedings. In 2026, the County Board authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire a portion of Van Buren Street that the County says is necessary for the jail project.

Anoka County needs an adequate jail. But taxpayers should not be asked to accept a project approaching a quarter-billion dollars without a clear explanation of how the cost grew, what expenses are being driven by the chosen location, and whether a substantially less expensive alternative is available.

Where Is the Money Going?

The cost of the proposed jail is not simply the cost of constructing one building. The downtown plan involves the jail itself, a new parking ramp, demolition, design and engineering, site work, and other related expenses.

County documents provide an especially useful comparison of how the jail estimate has changed. In January 2024, the County stated that construction and soft costs for the proposed 263,000-square-foot jail had originally been estimated at approximately $153.3 million.

The County then reported that the comparable estimate had increased to approximately $190.7 million. Importantly, the County stated that this figure did not include the inflationary effects on construction of the new parking ramp or demolition of the existing parking ramp and jail.

The increase from $153.3 million to $190.7 million alone is approximately $37.4 million. The jail estimate subsequently increased again to approximately $210 million.

The replacement parking ramp is a major additional expense. The County originally estimated the new ramp at approximately $46 million. Current financing plans contemplate as much as $48.9 million for the ramp.

Taken together, the currently planned jail and replacement parking ramp represent approximately $258.9 million in potential financing. And that does not mean every expense associated with the overall project has been clearly itemized for taxpayers.

Before committing taxpayers to a project of this magnitude, the County should publish a straightforward, itemized accounting showing exactly what taxpayers are purchasing: construction, demolition, architecture and engineering, site preparation, security systems, furnishings, financing costs, contingencies, and every other major component of the project.

Are There Less Expensive Alternatives?

Yes. Anoka County has alternatives that should be seriously examined before taxpayers are committed to a project costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Consider a Different Site

One of the most important changes since this project began is that the replacement jail no longer has to be located in the City of Anoka. Minnesota law was changed in 2024 to allow Anoka County to construct its replacement jail and criminal justice facilities in any city within Anoka County.

Instead of attempting to fit a large modern jail into a constrained downtown site, the County should examine available land elsewhere in Anoka County where the facility can be designed around the needs of the jail rather than designing the jail around the limitations of the site.

A different site could potentially reduce or eliminate some of the expenses associated with the current proposal, including demolition, complicated site preparation, property acquisition, construction around existing government facilities, and the need for an expensive replacement parking ramp.

Do We Really Need a Nearly $49 Million Parking Ramp?

The replacement parking ramp alone represents approximately $48.9 million in planned financing.

Before spending nearly $49 million on a parking structure, the County should determine whether moving the jail to a less constrained site could allow for substantially less expensive surface parking or another lower-cost parking solution.

Compare Transportation Costs Honestly

One argument for keeping the jail next to the courthouse is that locating it elsewhere would require inmates to be transported to and from court. Transportation has a cost, and that cost should absolutely be included when comparing alternatives.

However, Anoka County already transports prisoners. The Sheriff's Office operates a Prisoner Transport Unit responsible for transporting prisoners to court appearances, medical facilities, prisons, jails, and other locations.

The important question is therefore not whether transportation costs money. The question is whether the additional transportation expense over the life of the facility would be greater than the money that could potentially be saved by constructing the jail on a more suitable and less expensive site.

Design for What We Need

A jail is not supposed to be a luxury building. It needs to be secure, durable, safe for employees and inmates, capable of meeting legal and correctional requirements, and large enough to serve the County's legitimate needs.

Every major component of the current design should be reviewed to determine whether it is necessary and whether a less expensive design could accomplish the same purpose.

Put the Alternatives Side by Side

Before proceeding with the current proposal, taxpayers deserve a straightforward comparison of realistic alternatives that includes:

These numbers should be presented together so taxpayers can make an honest comparison. Saving money on transportation does not make sense if doing so requires spending tens of millions of additional dollars on construction, parking, demolition, and site work.

If the current downtown location truly represents the least expensive reasonable option over the life of the jail, the County should be able to demonstrate that with the numbers. If another location can provide a safe, functional jail while saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, that alternative deserves serious consideration.

My Position

Anoka County needs a safe, secure, and functional jail. I am not opposed to replacing the existing jail when replacement is necessary. I am opposed to treating a project costing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as though there are no other options.

Before moving forward with the current plan, I believe the County should take another serious look at the size, design, location, and cost of the project. That includes examining alternative sites elsewhere in Anoka County and determining whether a less constrained location could eliminate the need for expensive demolition, property acquisition, and a nearly $49 million replacement parking ramp.

I would demand a clear, itemized explanation of how the jail's estimated cost increased so dramatically. When a public project grows by tens of millions of dollars, taxpayers should not have to search through years of government documents trying to figure out why. The County, its architects, engineers, consultants, and contractors should be able to show exactly where the additional money is going.

I would also insist on an honest side-by-side comparison between the current downtown proposal and realistic alternatives. That comparison should include construction, parking, demolition, property acquisition, transportation, financing, and long-term operating costs.

If the current site really is the safest and least expensive reasonable option, the numbers should prove it. If another location can provide Anoka County with the jail it needs while saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, then we should be willing to change course.

We need a jail that works. We do not need the most expensive jail we can possibly build.