The Lancaster County commissioners will be asked on Tuesday, Dec. 31, to approve the schematic design presented for the county’s new correctional facility and the “base bid plus alternates” approach to fleshing it out.
Their action will allow the design team to move into the next phase, refining the project and preparing detailed construction documents, Purchasing Director Linda Schreiner said in an update Thursday at the Prison Board’s monthly meeting. Throughout that process, the project will continue to evolve and there will be plenty of opportunity for public input, she said.
The commissioners normally hold work sessions on Tuesdays to discuss the matters that come before them, then take action at regular meetings on Wednesdays. Since Wednesday, Jan. 1, is the New Year’s holiday, the Dec. 31 meeting, incorporating the “work session” discussion component, will be a regular voting meeting.
The design process
The schematic design was introduced publicly in mid-August. It depicts a facility of 433,000 square feet, with a preliminary estimated price tag of about $400 million.
In September, commissioners Josh Parsons and Ray D’Agostino asked the design team to offer a range of options to pursue, rather than a single approach. That led to the “base bid plus alternatives” proposal.
As outlined previously, it would yield a final design consisting of a large core (the base bid) containing the facility’s essential components, plus a set of optional elements. All elements could then be bid separately, allowing the commissioners to weigh costs and benefits and decide which alternate items to include.
Those components are as follows:
- An expansion of the wellness center to include seven additional beds
- An 88-bed work release unit
- Male and female “support clusters” where inmate programs could take place
- Fitting out the central booking space
- On-site storage for maintenance equipment
Commissioner Alice Yoder has asked for the cost and benefits to be spelled out as fully as possible in reports accompanying each alternate.
The schematic design presented in August was for 994 beds. As things stand now, the facility would have 986 beds if the work release section is included, 898 beds if it isn’t, Warden Cheryl Steberger said.
Opioid researcher and policy advocate Gail Groves Scott questioned whether any of the many suggestions offered by the public at the county’s August listening session were being considered or adopted. Not yet, Schreiner said, but all public input has been collected for review, and those ideas deemed appropriate will be incorporated during design development.
The Rev. Jason Perkowski asked how nonprofit service providers and other interested parties can best weigh in. He and others have noted the difficulty of finding the appropriate venue to learn about and offer input on programs such as work release that involve both internal prison processes and the complexities of the court system.
There will be additional public discussions as things move forward, Parsons and D’Agostino said. A virtue of the base-bid-plus-alternatives format, D’Agostino said, is that it keeps decisions about certain key components in play rather than treating them as settled parts of an overall design.
Definitive answers will come later on, but the discussion that is under way is positive, D’Agostino said, adding, “I think it’s important to realize that this is what we wanted.”
He also noted that designing the project as a base build plus alternative does not commit the county to bidding it that way. That decision will be made later.
It’s possible that the alternates could be modified somewhat during design development, Parsons said. Once they’re finalized and put out to bid, however, they would most likely be accepted or rejected by up-or-down vote, not adjusted further.
Design development should also yield increased clarity around cost. Then comes bidding, which will yield exact numbers.
Work release
Steberger has previously said she would prefer to retain work release as part of a comprehensive reentry program. On Tuesday, outgoing President Judge David Ashworth seconded that view. The court system’s primary focus is to reduce recidivism and it values anything that contributes to that, he said, most definitely including programs such as work release that help individuals get and keep jobs.
The work release area would be for inmates who regularly leave the facility for work or other activities in the broader community. It would have its own level of security and its inmates would be kept separate from the rest of the population.
Video recording
Thursday’s meeting took place at the County Prison, one of four held there each year. Scott reiterated her plea that the Prison Board record and post video of those meetings, as it does with those held at the County Government Center.
County IT staff previously told Commissioner Yoder it would cost $30,000 to install the necessary equipment, not including staff time. Surely someone could just record it on a portable device at minimal cost on the county’s behalf, Scott said; Yoder said she’d be amenable to discussing that idea further.
Steberger said she is not in favor of recording at the jail. The room where the meetings take place is part of an active housing unit, so there are confidentiality concerns for staff and inmates, and with the impending move to a new facility, spending money on recording equipment would be throwing money away, she said.
