The proposal to move forward with a “base bid plus alternatives” approach to designing Lancaster County’s new correctional facility was officially presented to the county commissioners on Tuesday.
At the morning’s work session, Purchasing Director Linda Schreiner expanded on the idea, which she introduced at last month’s Prison Board meeting. Essentially, the county’s design team would plan the project so parts of it could be bid separately: There would be a core design with the essential components, but also a range of alternate elements that would be bid separately, yielding separate costs estimates from contractors.
The commissioners would then have the opportunity to weigh costs and benefits of those elements and decide whether they’re worth including.
The design team is not asking for immediate action, Schreiner said. The county will allow a couple of weeks for additional comment and feedback before she returns to seek formal acceptance of the schematic design. That would be expected in early 2025, since the commissioners have no meetings scheduled the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s.
In the interim, people can comment on the proposal at the commissioner’s meeting Wednesday, at their work session or regular meeting next week, at the Dec. 19 Prison Board meeting or via email.
Breaking down the elements
The “base bid plus alternatives” process responds to commissioners Josh Parsons’ and Ray D’Agostino’s request for more options, which they made after the design team presented the schematic design in August.
A preliminary cost estimate provided at that time suggested that a full build-out of the facility as presented could cost around $400 million.
Dividing it into multiple bid components “would allow the County to keep its options open regarding the inclusion of certain aspects of the project based on the cost of each element,” the county said in a one-page summary of the plan (PDF) posted on the project website. “This also allows the County to balance the delicate needs of public safety with fiscal responsibility of taxpayer dollars.”
The base bid would be for a 986-bed facility, Schreiner said. That reflects downsizing the juvenile section by eight beds, from 20 beds to 12 beds, evenly divided between male and female. (The section would house inmates under 18 who are charged as adults.)
The alternate components are as follows:
- Wellness center: Downsize by seven beds, to align with the new 986-bed size. The facility’s program had previously called for a 28-bed center, in light with a 1,212 overall bed count. Wellness beds are counted separately from the facility’s total, Schreiner said.
- Work release: If 88 beds were in a work release or “reentry” housing unit, that would allow for a corresponding level of security and programming. Without it, those beds would be part of the general population.
- Male and female support clusters: These would provide more flexibility for inmate programming. Without them, programming would take place on individual housing units, potentially limiting size and scope.
- Central booking: Central booking would streamline the booking process for police departments countywide. The proposal calls for shell space to be built no matter what; the question is whether or not to fit it out and equip it from the start.
- Maintenance storage space: This would allow equipment to remain on-site, rather than brought in and out.
The decision to designate certain elements as alternatives was based on their function, Schreiner said. The county does not have estimates of their square footage or potential cost; that comes later, as the design is finalized and companies submit their bids.
Commissioner Alice Yoder asked Schreiner and Warden Cheryl Steberger about the implications of including or excluding certain components, such as the support clusters. Program providers are worried, she said, that they won’t be able to bring in their services if they only have the space in the housing unit.
That drew rebukes from Parsons and D’Agostino, who said such discussion is premature. What is at issue is merely whether to adopt the bid-plus-alternatives approach, D’Agostino said: Weighing the alternatives will come later. Yoder disagreed, saying it’s better to start the conversation now.
