Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Jail Remodel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Osceola County supervisors discuss jail remodel drainage, mechanicals and costs; staff to return with estimates
Summary
Supervisors spent more than an hour reviewing options for drainage, waterproofing and mechanical systems tied to a jail remodel and directed staff to collect cost estimates and vendor proposals before making further deletions to the project scope.
Osceola County supervisors examined a series of design and budget questions for the county jail remodel on Feb. 24, focusing on storm drainage between the new and existing buildings, waterproofing the courthouse foundation, and whether to keep existing boilers and rooftop chillers.
The discussion centered on preventing recurring leaks by rerouting roof drainage and potentially waterproofing the courthouse foundation where the jail will abut it. Supervisors and staff agreed to seek engineering estimates and contractor proposals before removing work from the current contract or approving further change orders.
Why it matters: The decisions affect the project’s near-term cost and longer-term maintenance risk. Several line items already identified as potential deductions totalled roughly $364,000 in initial estimates, and board members said deleting items without full analysis can produce later cost increases.
Board members and county staff reviewed three technical areas. First, staff recommended tying courthouse roof drains into a new storm system for the jail rather than leaving a standalone storm line between the two buildings. A drainage deduct of about $16,000 remains in the project but staff said upsizing piping or reconfiguring manholes could be necessary to avoid moving water into the courthouse subgrade.
Second, mechanical work: the group discussed not reconnecting the courthouse boiler to the new jail mechanical system. Staff said the new gas main would feed furnaces serving the jail and that removing boiler connections could allow elimination of the rooftop chiller and related equipment. Supervisors asked staff to confirm whether the existing boiler and chiller should be removed and to obtain proposals for removal prior to reroofing.
Third, scope and cost trade-offs were debated for elements already identified as potential deductions. Staff gave rough figures discussed in the meeting: demolition of the existing jail estimated at about $70,000; a walkway (Sally Port) connection estimated near $55,000; renovations to the existing sheriff’s office estimated about $238,000. Staff said two recent change orders totaled about $135,000 (described in discussion as 135 and 24 for two change orders) and that they had proposed a $159,000 deduct tied to a specific scope item under negotiation.
Board members emphasized caution about deleting items now, saying earlier deletions sometimes lead to “snowball” effects where omitted items must be added back later at higher cost. Staff agreed to pull firm numbers for options discussed, including: (1) engineering and construction costs to waterproof the courthouse foundation adjacent to the new jail, (2) cost to upsize piping/tie in additional manholes to the storm system, (3) proposals to remove the rooftop chiller and to decommission or remove the boiler and related piping, and (4) estimates for demolition and existing-building renovation savings.
Other operational items raised: staff reported receiving inquiries about selling an existing emergency generator (rough market estimate $10,000–$15,000) and said any such sale proceeds could be applied to project costs. Staff also noted a permit for code enforcement would be $2,365 and that code and fire-marshal approvals will be required once final scope is set. Sibley Sheet Metal was identified as the contractor installing heating and cooling and staff will confirm whether Sibley will include removal of the rooftop unit in their scope or whether separate proposals are needed.
Next steps and follow-up: staff will compile cost estimates and vendor proposals and report back to the board to support a firm decision before deleting additional work from the project. Staff also said contracts are signed, insurance certificates are in hand, and contractor coordination meetings will be scheduled.
Ending: Supervisors expressed a preference to proceed carefully, balancing the goal of keeping the project within budget with the desire to avoid recurrent maintenance problems. Staff committed to returning with the requested cost breakdowns and vendor proposals for the board’s review.
