Agenda - 09-05-1995 - IX-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/D Disadvantages: • Construction costs. There is a very real possibility that construction costs could escalate further. The most recent trends seem to indicate that costs could increase by 8-12% by January 1, 1996 and then level off to inflationary increases thereafter. While this is a smaller increase than what we have seen in the past year, it is still an increase and would require even more money than what we have now. • Time. Overcrowding is the rule rather than the exception at the jail right now. As pointed out earlier in this document, we are averaging 118 inmates in a 71 inmate capacity jail. This consistent significant overcrowding makes us vulnerable to various inmate problems. 0 Revenue. Again, as I pointed out earlier in this document, the Sheriff has had to reduce the number of Federal inmates held in order to reduce the Jail population. The County is reimbursed $49.96 per inmate per day for each Federal inmate. As a point of reference, the loss of just five inmates per day would reflect a revenue decrease of over$90,000 per year. Option 3. Scratch both projects and wait to build under the recommendations brought forward by the Justice Facility Study Group. Advantages: • None apparent. Disadvantages: 0 Continued significant court and Jail overcrowding. Potential legal action by Judge against Commissioners which would force the construction of additional court facilities. The Jail operation could face similar sanctions as well. • Continued over crowding in Jail.. • Lose $2 million in Federal Marshal funds; • Future construction would cost us more in the long run; the problems will not go away. Option 4. Assess whether there are current Capital Improvements Program (CIP) projects which are no longer a priority and from which funding could be shifted. The results of this assessment indicated that funding is necessary for all projects currently in the CIP; obtaining additional funds for the Jail/Courthouse project from this source is not practical. Option 5. Attempt to solicit other bidders and re-bid by end of Summer, 1995. Since the bids were solicited the first time there was an indication from another bidder that they would be interested in submitting a bid. The expectation was that by creating a more intensive level of competition a more positive bid price would result. This in fact was the case. The low bid submitted by Trafalgar House on August 28, 1995 ($3,765,000) was approximately$180,000 lower than the bids earlier received. You will note, however, that the lower bid significantly exceeds funding currently available for this project ($2,208,552). In an effort to bring the bid amount closer in line with the funds available, Grier- Fripp and the low bidder, Trafalgar House Construction, have identified a list of potential areas for cost savings without functional modification of either facility . Modifications to the project which are recommended include the following: • Revising backfill material used; • Tap into existing utilities rather than having temporary service installed; • Use a landscaped berm rather than a retaining wall on the northern perimeter of the Jail