Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Starr County approves $1.2 million bid for juvenile detention center rehab despite funding shortfall

2817104 · March 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On March 10, 2025, the Starr County Commissioners Court awarded a $1.2 million bid to Loscon Business and Investments to rehabilitate the county juvenile detention center. Commissioners noted the county currently has about $1 million in grant funds and asked architects to seek cost reductions or negotiate with the bidder.

Starr County Commissioners Court on March 10 approved a bid to repair the county juvenile detention center, awarding the single submitted bid to Loscon Business and Investments for $1.2 million.

The award follows discussion that the county’s available grant funding for the project totals about $1 million, creating an approximate $200,000 gap between the bid and available funds. Commissioners instructed architects to pursue negotiations with the bidder to try to bring the project cost into line with the awarded grant.

The county said the bid was submitted through a competitive solicitation process but that only one bid was returned. The court recorded the motion, a second and an affirmative voice vote; no roll-call vote with member names was recorded in the transcript.

County officials described the work as a rehabilitation of the existing juvenile detention facility, with specific reference to basement work. Officials said the funding includes grant money obtained with the assistance of U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar.

The court approved the award and directed staff and the project architect to proceed with negotiation and review to reconcile the bid with available funds. No timetable for negotiation or a revised contract was specified at the meeting.

The motion carried by voice vote without a named roll-call. The court did not specify an exact plan to cover the remaining shortfall in the meeting record.

Ending: The county will move forward with contract negotiations and architect review; the transcript does not record a follow-up deadline or additional funding source for the shortfall.