Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County begins process to solicit design and construction teams for proposed juvenile detention facility
Summary
Commissioners agreed to publish two request-for-proposal documents — one for architects/engineers and a second for construction manager-at-risk — to select a project team to study and design a juvenile detention facility; the selection committee and tentative timeline were described.
County staff and a consultant called in updates about the next procedural steps for a proposed Yankton County juvenile detention facility, and commissioners agreed to publish request-for-proposal documents to identify an architecture/engineering (A/E) team and a construction manager at risk (CMAR).
Tyler (caller) said the procurement process is a procedural step to assemble a selection committee and choose firms. The county intends to publish the A/E RFP first and the CMAR RFP one week later, then hold interviews and make selections in April. The project team would conduct initial planning, and the consultant led the commission through a timeline that anticipates selection and preliminary work in the spring and presentation to the commission by June–July.
Preston (staff) described the selection committee the county is assembling and read the names proposed for the review panel: jail administration staff (Steve and Luke), county commission chair John Marquardt, a school representative (Dr. Kendall) to address educational services for juveniles, Dr. Tom Standish (mental‑health/behavioral health perspective), Amy Leon (Yankton city manager), Chief Jason Foote (Yankton Police Department), and Alec Martin (state’s attorney’s office). Tyler and staff said the county aims to limit interview shortlists to three or four firms for each RFP to keep the review process manageable.
Commissioners and staff discussed budget expectations for the initial phase. Tyler said proposals will include cost breakdowns by step; earlier estimates placed the initial planning and concept stage in the range of about $50,000, a figure commissioners recalled approving as a not‑to‑exceed estimate for early stage work. Commissioners discussed financing options for the larger project if the study leads to a build — including bonds and a voter referendum — and agreed that a future funding decision should involve public input.
Ending: Commissioners authorized publication of the RFPs and asked staff to proceed with the selection schedule and notify the commissioners of interview dates in April. No contracts were awarded at the meeting.
