BC 2006 02 20 REGULAR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 20, 2006 - Regular Meeting Page 502 Mr. Cayado presented drawings of options identified by the Sheriff's Office and Detention Center Design Review Committee. He reviewed the following parameters that the committee had been working under: (1) The facility must meet the County's needs for the next 15-20 years (i.e., approximately 416 to 477 beds based on current projections); (2) The facility must be located on the county-owned property bounded by Union Street, South, and Corban Avenue that was recently rezoned "CC" by the City of Concord; and (3) Any building constructed on Corban Avenue must not exceed the height of the former First Union Building located at the corner of Union Street, South and Means Avenue. Mr. Cayado reported the committee had brainstormed during its first meeting and at its second meeting had considered 11 different options with the housing unit and administrative building in various combinations. At its third and last meeting, the committee had considered three options with three members voting in support of Option 1 and two voting in support of Option 3. Options 1 and 3 were as follows: Option 1 - This is the existing approved plan with an estimated cost of $60 million. This option includes a maximum of 576 beds. Option 3 - This option keeps the Sheriff's and administration building on Corban and also moves the main housing building up to Corban (with the possibility of lowering the structure 24 feet below grade to be explored). The Tribune Building remains and the annex building would not be built. The savings of $5 million by not constructing the annex would be realized, but re-design, excavation, construction delay costs, and two years of extended transport of inmates would result in a net increase of $2.3 million. This is a 3.8 percent cost increase and with the maximum bed count being 480, the cost per bed goes from $104,000.00 to $130,000.00 (approximately 24.6 percent). Mr. Cayado responded to a number of questions regarding the two options. He addressed issues involving the extensive excavation that would be required for Option 3 I including retaining walls and shoring along Corban Avenue. There was also discussion regarding parking needs 1 construction of the Annex for use while the other facilities were being built and the 576 beds provided by Option 1 versus the 480 beds provided by Option 3. Also discussed were the 142 beds in the existing jail, the costs associated with upfitting that facility and the current Master Plan that calls for demolition of that facility for future expansion of the Courthouse. Further, Mr. Cayado stated there would be an estimated one year delay for redesign and resubmittal if Option 3 were selected with a construction period of two years expected for either Option 1 or Option 3. However, he pointed out the extent of the site work to lower the buildings as shown in Option 3 was not known at this time. Scott Pyle of Turner Construction responded to questions regarding cost of the project, the cost per bed and the difference in cost for Option 1 ($60 million) and Option 3 ($62.3 million). Also, he pointed out Option 3 would result in 96 fewer beds. Commissioner Privette questioned the cost per bed, stating that Harnett County was building a jail at a cost of $70,000.00 per bed. Mr. Pyle estimated the cost per bed at $104,000.00 for Option 1 and $130,000.00 per bed for Option 3. He pointed out the cost per bed was reached by dividing the entire cost of the project, including the administrative building, by the number of beds. He stated it was unknown what was included in the per bed cost figure for Harnett County; therefore, he could not compare the two costs. Commissioner Freeman questioned the time frame for redesign and bidding Option 3. Mr. Pyle advised there would be a one year design period and two years to build the facility. This would place the completion of the jail out three years to 2009. There was discussion throughout this portion of the meeting regarding the pros and cons of Electronic House Arrest programs. Issues addressed including the programs used in other counties, the number of persons in the County jail that would qualify for the program, prisoners placed on house arrest in other counties and safety concerns associated with the use of the program.