HAVERHILL – Ground-breaking on a $38 million jail will begin later this year, after the 26-member Grafton County delegation yesterday approved the bond on a reconsideration vote.

A two-thirds majority was needed to pass the bond and it initially failed, 17-9, after heated debate from supporters, who argued that the present county jail facility is out-of-date and overcrowded. Those voting against the plan said that while they agree the condition of the jail needs to be addressed, they could not support the cost in difficult economic times in many of the county's communities.

►Grafton delegates mixed about county jail proposal (3)
►Grafton County representatives struggle with $40m jail project (6)

"I don't want to spend this money," said state Rep. Suzanne Laliberte, D- Enfield. "But we can't bring down (the cost) any further without drastic changes. We've got to pass it."

Lyle "Rusty" Bulis, R-Littleton, said his constituents in Lyman and Littleton "don't disagree" that something needs to be done with the present corrections facility.

"Everyone has a problem with the price tag €" $40 million is too much," he said. "Taxpayers are looking at hefty tax increases in the next couple of years."

The proposed jail, in addition to housing inmates, calls for a medical and mental health unit, which is not typical in county facilities. Planners included that component because these types of services are not largely available in the rural county.

For many inmates at the county jail, said Rep. Robert Matheson, D-Woodstock, it's their first time in the facility.

"Let's help them turn their life around," he said. "Let's build it as a corrections facility instead of a warehouse."

When planning began more than a year ago for a new corrections building, the initial cost came in at more than $60 million. It was redesigned several times to bring the cost in at under $40 million.

"My concern is that the even if the numbers were $30 million or $20 million, we would still hear the same arguments of this project," said Rep. Bernard Benn, D-Hanover. "At this point, we know the numbers. If we don't pass this today, the price of the jail will go up. Putting it off is not going to save the taxpayers money. I urge that we pass this bond today."

After the initial vote on the plan, defeated 17-9, the meeting went into a short recess and at its conclusion, a motion was offered to adjourn the meeting, which failed. Rep. Carol Friedrich, D-Wentworth, offered an amendment changing the cost from $38 million to $35 million.

"I'm against it," said Rep. Edmond Gionet, R&D-Lincoln. "I don't like the circus atmosphere this morning. I haven't seen (the amendment), if I'm going to spend millions. No thank you."

Contractors told the delegation the plan would have to undergo a redesign before they could say what the changes would have to be to bring down the cost.

"I don't like to pull figures out of the air," said Rep. Burt Williams, R-Bristol, advocating time for the delegation to regroup and come back in the next month.

County Commissioner Michael Cryans said the planners brought forth the proposal after months of work and listening to representatives ask for a plan with a smaller price tag.

"If not now, when?" he asked. "Ultimately, where are we? If you're against it, you're against it. We think we have a good plan. We have done what the mandate was. If it's not enough, it's not enough."

Rep. Carole Estes, D-Plymouth, said she recognizes the economic times, but was concerned the plan would be unacceptable to some even if it came back at $24 million.

"In New Hampshire, I'm afraid the only acceptable thing is volunteerism and free. Nothing is going to eliminate a 100-year-old problem. We need to step up and take care of this. It is never going to be cheaper or any less onerous," she said.

The motion to reconsider came from Rep. Gene Andersen, D-Lebanon, who voted against the bond in the first vote.

"I was convinced we weren't going to resolve the issues," he said. "My decision was based on moving forward or not. I'm still not satisfied. I'm concerned the building is too big and if we build it, will we fill it?"

Of the nine representatives who initially voted against the bond, Andersen was the only one who voted in favor of the on the second vote.

The bond issue, which needed 18 votes for the two-thirds majority, was passed 18-8.