Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits on jail plan after bids exceed estimate; commissioners move project to FY2015
Summary
After hearing that bids for the previously planned adult detention center expansion exceeded estimates by roughly $7 million, commissioners agreed to shift the project from FY2014 to FY2015 while staff negotiates land and state funding questions and prepares a FY2015 grant application.
St. Mary’s County commissioners debated several options for the adult detention center on Feb. 25 after staff and the sheriff described a significant difference between the prior project estimate and contractor bids.
George Erickson, county staff overseeing capital planning for facilities, told the board the previously approved expansion design produced bids that came back substantially higher than the estimate — roughly a $7 million overage on the package that included an addition and numerous infrastructure upgrades. The county holds a partial state grant for the project, but the design as drawn places part of the footprint on state‑owned land, creating an immediate title/lease issue that staff and elected officials said must be resolved before moving forward.
Why this matters: the project touches multiple county interests — correctional operations, courthouse and detention infrastructure, and county finances — and commissioners said they needed clarity on (1) the state’s willingness to share any bid overage, (2) the land/lease issue with the State (which staff said should be resolvable with Delegate Bohannon’s help), and (3) whether a redesign and re‑solicitation would produce materially different bids.
Sheriff (unnamed in the transcript) told the board he prefers proceeding with the project as designed, citing the operational need and recommendations from corrections experts. Other commissioners were more cautious. Commissioner Cynthia L. Jones and another commissioner pressed for a clearer accounting of the $7 million gap before committing county funds; they asked whether the county would be liable for the state’s share if the county resubmitted for different design work.
After extended discussion, commissioners agreed on a path to preserve state grant eligibility while deferring most cash spending in FY2014. They asked staff to submit a FY2015 grant application that reflects the higher cost scenario so the Department of Budget Management (the state agency handling participation) can indicate whether and how much of any overage it would share. Commissioners also directed staff to continue negotiations with the state concerning the parcel and to clarify whether submitting the current reimbursement request would limit the county’s future options.
The board’s working consensus was to move the larger jail project out of FY2014 and show it in the FY2015 CIP, keeping a smaller, $9.5 million “upgrade” package in place for immediate facility needs if the board chooses that route. Commissioners explicitly discussed four options: do nothing, proceed with the $9.5M upgrade as proposed, re‑bid the previously designed expansion after resolving land and state questions, or develop a new, redesigned project (which would require fresh design funds, a new solicitation and likely push the timeline out further).
Ending: Commissioners instructed staff to protect the state grant window by submitting a FY2015 grant application at the higher cost estimate while continuing to seek a negotiated land resolution; no final design or construction contract was approved at the meeting.
