The ongoing battle between Autauga County Sheriff Mark Harrell and the Autauga County Commission over conditions at the Autauga County Metro Jail will reach a head today as a judge hears arguments on whether to dismiss the case.
Harrell sued the commission in May about a year after evacuating the jail due to the presence of mold, claiming the commission has failed to fulfill its duties to properly maintain the building.
The county has argued that the conditions in the jail did not warrant evacuation and that the commission has taken appropriate steps to remedy the jail’s deficiencies.
In its motion to dismiss, the county argues that 2023 evaluations of the jail by Environmental Materials Consultants Inc. simply called for cleaning of the mold and did not call for remediation measures, nor a full-scale evacuation of the jail.
“At this time, Commissioner (John) Thrailkill visited the jail to inspect the alleged mold issues, ” the county wrote in its motion. “Commissioner Thrailkilll, a homebuilder by trade, suggested that the jail employees utilize a solution bleach and water to clean mold that they saw, which is in accordance with the suggestions of EMC. (Jail Capt. Larry) Nixon responded with anger and disrespect to Commissioner Thrailkill’s suggestion of jail staff cleaning the jail … as Nixon believed it was beneath his employees to be expected to clean their workplace.”
Harrell denied that characterization in his response, arguing that Servpro had found that the jail’s HVAC system was “infested with black mold” and suggested the system be shut down for “safety reasons.” According to the filing, Servpro declined to perform any kind of remediation because the mold was “too bad” for them and stated that there was a need for a professional remediation company to get rid of the subject mold.”
Harrell evacuated the jail on June 6, 2024, the same day that EMC came to evaluate the jail. its report, returned four days later, identified most of the mold present as not a major health concern, except for the presence of “black mold” in one hallway in an unoccupied area used primarily for transporting prisoners to and from court.
The county’s motion to dismiss emphasizes the report from EMC and the credentials of its operator Trent Hills, a Registered Environmental Manager and Certified Environmental and Safety Compliance Officer. The position requires a bachelor’s degree in an environmental-related discipline or 12 years of work experience directly related to environmental engineering, health, science or management.
It contrasts those credentials with Harrell’s primary source of evaluation, A+ Renovations.
“Throughout this matter, Harrell has relied heavily on his ‘expert’ Kevin Ricke of A+ Cleaning and Restoration, Inc,” the county wrote. “Mr. Ricke’s educational background that allegedly qualified him as an ‘expert’ is a series of online courses from www.moldinspectioninstitute.com. They consist of the Certified Residential Mold Inspector and Certified residential Mold Inspector, which is a series of online courses that total forty hours of online classes.”
There are also disputes over communication, with Harrell claiming that his attempts at getting information and assistance from the commission have been frustrated, including by the failure for the commission to discuss jail issues in executive session.
The county’s motion to dismiss claims there was not a valid reason for an executive session under Alabama law and that the Commission has maintained “an open-door policy with the Sheriff.”
“They do not shy away from communication with him; however, instead of having a conversation, Harrell would rather send condescending and demanding letters and make public comments to the media instead of discussing this with the Commission when given the opportunity,” the county wrote. “Harrell’s failure to utilize the numerous avenues of communication shows his obstinance and refusal to communicate.”
In a reply to that argument, Harrell said it is the county’s attorney who requested the conversation not be had in public.
The county’s latest response argues that Harrell’s assertion that the county knew of the jail’s problems and has failed to act is undermined by acknowledgments that the county has been working with numerous parties and operating under Alabama bid law to attempt to remediate the jail.
There are numerous other arguments between the two parties in the court filings, including Harrell claiming the county failed to fund enough staff for courthouse security, while the county argues that Harrell’s budget proposal did not even include any money for new courthouse security.
These issues will all be played out in front of a Dallas County judge this morning with the County Commission hoping to have the case dismissed, while Harrell will be looking for the court to accept his amended verified complaint and move forward with the case.
