Travis County Commissioners Court
November 23, 2004
Item 8
Number 8 is to consider and take appropriate action on issues regarding the
need and options for new jail construction at the del valle correctional complex,
including the following: 8-a is a strategy for planning and preengineering
new jail construction and source of funding. And b, a strategy for utilizing
new beds to promote efficiency and reduce operating cost.
>> all right. When we were last in court we had prawt an
outline of the scope of work, and some of the folks from the team, we have
reviewed the scope of work and added some things to it. You have a revised
scope of work in your backup and you will see it adds some items to if and
moves some things around. We thought this was a more realistic scope of work
to move forward on. I think the key issue at this point is I think we have
the scope of work getting fleshed out, but what really the scope of the project
is going to be, because the scope -- because you have a couple of the attachments
in a-2 and a-3 as well that talk about the planning. A lot of that is a function
of percentage of percentage of what the construction project is going to be.
So at this point we've talked about it comes with different pricings depending
on what the size of the project is. If you look at a-2, we're about -- according
to the facilities management estimates, about 600,000 if we do the full 1688
construction project or assume that the 1688 construction project. And then
if we do the various replacement beds, which is a 1460 bed, is about 522,000.
And then variance beds about 422,000. So you have a range there depending
on what we go with.
>> what if we do the whole deal, if this is 603 figures?
>> right.
>> and that would be extended over what time period, michael?
>> this project is going to take, it's estimated, about six
months.
>> so within one fiscal year?
>> right, one fiscal year.
>> thanks.
>> what happens if we planned on the 600,000 price on the
replacement and the additional beds, and then we put this advisory panel committee
together and through that process there is a determination that we go a different
way? Are we indicating to them that if we do this that we're telling them
that whenever we put together this advisory book that this is what we're doing.
So I want to make sure which end tells us what to do. If we sign on this today
are we basically telling the advisory panel that here's what we're doing and
we want y'all to give us the best information for us to fulfill and knowing
that the proposal is in the 100-million-dollar range, or might that group
come back and say, you know, with all the things we're finding -- I didn't
really get to follow closely what you did whenever we did the last bond --
the 2001 bond committee that was put together, did they come back and say,
you know, you really don't need to -- we don't think you need to spend this
money because we're finding out this?
>> actually, in 2001 they basically said not only should
you spend all this money, but we came up with a whole bunch more.
>> I remember they came up and said you really should do
a lot more than this.
>> but you will see this when we actually bring up the item
related to the suggestions from the bond subcommittee, the thought was toll
separate out that which we think is mandatory and no distropical discretion,
and that woulding the variance beds. And separate out the replacement beds
and additional capacity as the only piece that would be presented to the voters
because we do have choices. It may not be the optimizing of all of our opportunities,
but the piece that is non-discretionary, the thought was -- and that's what
you'll hear from the subcommittee, is we ought to reserve debt, and that ought
not be presented to voters because the variance bed issue is one that's rock
hard place. But the piece that is the other ought to be presented to the voters.
And this would allow both things to happen simultaneously in terms of the
piece that would be the no choice and the piece that would be discretionary,
although not optimum if it doesn't pass. It allows -- (indiscernible).
>> I think we tell the committee that we have funded the
design for the whole ball of wax, but the design can be done in such a way
that if we wanted to cut off part of it, we could. You just let the consultant
know that up front it seems to be ways that we can do that. The other thing
is it would not be wasted, but it may be part that you've delayed. It seems
to me that at some point if they're in poor condition now, the replacement
beds must be provided. And it may be that we decide not to do it this year
or next year, but five or 10 years from now I would think that the work --
the quality of work would still be good.
>> I absolutely agree with that. And Commissioner Daugherty
makes an excellent point, but of course if you look at it just -- if you flip
it around and look at it in the sense that if you tell them only to look at
the variance beds and then the committee comes back and said oh no, we need
to do that and much, much more, then we're behind, you know, the curve because
we don't have the plan. Or we don't have the predesign in place. So I agree
with the judge that we're really going to encourage you both to do this part
of the work on all those beds, and then like you say, judge, if you end up
having to delay it over the work, you have the plan. You've got a really good
start, head start on what you need to do.
>> I second that. I think we'd be in much better shape going
and doing the preplanning for the 1688 beds, and looking at that point what
are we really going to be able to do instead of scaling it down. And oh, we
got the whole thing passed, whatever you do now. So I think we are good to
go for at least the preplanning side, at least the 1688.
>> and I suggest -- the thought was that whatever one we've
had picked, one, two or three, that this would be part of a new co related
to the preplanning and engineering aspect of this?
>> it was my understanding that the thought -- I don't have
the backup in front of me. The thought was we were going to be looking at
existing co's, correct?
>> correct.
>> okay.
>> yes. And we have identified approximately -- I added it
up -- a million dollars in funds in the funds 435. And it's my understanding
that if there are any special services that this should be eligible. I would
want to have a final okay by the county attorney's office before we proceed,
but there is approximately a million dollars available in those two funds.
>> (indiscernible) and some of the team members have that
much of a grasp and what that he will we'll do will need professional services.
We'll need an architect or someone to do that.
>> so what is our strategy and feeling?
>> in b what we wanted to do is I know we talked about the
need for the variance beds, and I know we understand the fact that we're getting
our variance beds approved on kind of a year to year basis. So there's a pressing
need for those beds. What we want to do is talk a little bit about the larger
block of beds, which are the replacement beds, the 888 beds. And in your backup
we've also provided some information to talk about this. And if you look at
your attachment b-1, we kind of detailed what the scenario is of c-2 and how
existing facilities are going to be reused, which ones are going to be replaced
and then a plan for the variance beds. And you can see in that detail that
we're looking at really replacement beds for buildings 4 through 10 and then
tca or tct. And as we had shown in a prior presentation, those are those on
the schematic. And I think you have those in your attachment as well as b-3.
You can see a lot of the buildings on your schematic, they're listed like
230, 240, 330, 310. Also buildings four through 10 are the 185, 186, 187 in
that configuration there. It's also we've assessed as being in poor condition
by the consultant or in poor condition as in the case of building 4. And that's
the ones in this scenario we're talking about replacing those beds in those
facilities. The buildings that would reused are building 1, 2, 3 and the (indiscernible)
building as well as the jaikt trail. And I think do you have some more information?
Travis County jail.
>> i'll try to do this in a real easy format. You look at
the one piece of paper that's stapled that has the three different pages on
it, it just shows you where the variance beds are. And I think everyone is
in agreement that those need to go away and it's just showing the type of
beds that we're currently using. As our variance beds, whether they're maximum
security, medium or minimum. The next two pages show you the different buildings
that mike just talked about and gives you a real brief, you know, summary
of the buildings to show you which shape that they're in. Also to kind of,
you know, reinforce the -- what we've been saying all along, that these were
temporary buildings and they were great, they have sort of a useful purpose.
They've been outstanding. We've used them way longer than we ever thought
we would. And so they've done a great job. Don't misunderstand me. But they're
really costing us a lot of money. If you look at the little -- the sheet of
paper that we handed out now, the fy '04 stuff is based on actual numbers.
That's what we're spending and operating and maintenance costs. And in capital
costs. And then if you look at the '05, this is what we've planned to do next
year. As you can see, the operating and maintenance for those buildings is
about $500,000 a year, not including the capital. Then we do a shane pool,
our maintenance supervisor, has done a projection from years 2006 to 10. And
those are -- those are adding things that were recommended in the consultant's
report, systems that absolutely won't have to be replaced in years to come,
make sure the hvac systems and plumbing and boilers and things like that.
So those buildings have an ongoing cost. And if you just look at these numbers,
it really just makes sense to take care of those things. They've out lived
their useful life and it's time to build it. These of course are very, very
staff intensive areas because they're stand alone buildings. And if you can
build a facility out there that connects everything, so to speak, together,
then that's where you'll see your staff savings not only from the security
standpoint, but of course the support that goes along with it. Those all on
that list, those are all minimum buildings with the exception of a couple
of them that are medium. Although you can still build mediums for almost the
price of a minimum, so even the medium beds aren't horriblely expensive because
some of the waivers that we can get because we do have a securely closed complex.
As an example, we don't have to have safety bars on the front door because
basically our fence that surround it are the safety vents. What I?m trying
to point out is even though there are medium beds, when we get into construction
we can look at lower costs because they're lesser type security. We just wanted
to hand that out and give y'all kind of an idea to get a sense of why we make
those buildings go away. If we replace the 888 beds and we have the variance
beds and it leaves us 27 -- hafer that number is down there at the bottom.
The projected population in our last study that the consultant did for us,
that's where our population is going to be in 2014. So if we get these beds
all replaced and on board, we're going to have enough beds for our inmates
hopefully.
>> it also is our intention to construct the kinds of beds
that we actually need. Over the last few years we've found we have too many
minimum security beds and too few medium and maximum, right?
>> yes, sir, that's absolutely correct. This gives us that
opportunity to match what we need with the historical data that we've had
for the last 10 years with the type of inmates that are coming to jail. And
we're currently doing all kinds of studies and trying to project what's going
to happen to us. We are still a fast growing county. But our population dynamics
are changing in the jail around here. 15 years ago our hispanic population,
our gang population was much, much lower than it is now. It's the fastest
rising population that we have in the jail, and we need to build to meet those
type of demands. The mental health inmates are staying pretty consistent.
Of course, we are working real hard on, you know, diversionnary programs,
but as it stands now it still probably represents 12% of our population. You'll
read reports occasionally about how the jail population is becoming an older,
an elder population. And that's true. We need to give for all those different
types of things. This is a wonderful time to do that. When we do this expansion
we're able to build the actual type of beds that we need for the types of
inmates that we have.
>> for those listening, we are not significantly increasing
the number of beds that we have. We are replacing beds that we have been given
limited authorization to use. And two, beds are in poor condition and it really
must be replaced.
>> yes, sir. That's absolutely correct. Right now our variance
beds along with the design beds, we have 2800 beds. If you look at these numbers,
it builds out to 2700. If we didn't add any classification or any additional
capacity to the buildings that we're proposing need to be torn down and the
variance beds replaced. We're not adding on to our current capacity, but what
we are saying is not good correctional practice to double bunk and triple
bunk in areas that were designed for one person. It's not good correctional
practices, not a good way to run a jail. You run your facilities out quicker
and thren there's a variety of different problems that you have with the inmates
and managing them and controlling them.
>> and there are other programs in place to hopefully help
us keep individuals from becoming inmates in our custody. This kind of deals
with they're in our custody, so what do we do with them.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the main building that a lot of the programs happen
right now at del valle is going to remain, so that will kind of remain in
this scenario for c-2.
>> this is one of those kind of looking out, there's a compressed
time frame here. The county is going to be going out to new york city to go
visit with bond rating agencies, and certainly this -- whether it's -- however
it's funded would obviously be a part of the discussions. There's going to
be the need to have something oiled down in very -- I don't want to use the
word simplistic language, but very easy to understand language of not using
building 42 -- you know, using our internal language that we're very familiar
with, but something to very easily boil it down so that we can communicate
what the program is all about, why it's needed, but to take as much of our
own internal language out of the paper and make it very easy to be able to
relay that information about what's going on. And rather than say this two
days before the trip, we're going to need to start distilling this down to
something that is very easy to present as to why the county is looking at
something of this magnitude because it's a big number and they're going to
want to know planning, projections. The kinds of things I?m seeing here in
terms of building 1-a through d, we've got to get it down to things that will
make sense and easy communicate.
>> any more discussion? My motion will be to approve 8-a
and b with the strategy to be to fund the engineering and design work for
the three categories of beds which yields the total cost of the 600,000 and
a few dollars. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything
further on this today?
>> thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:01 PM