Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster County approves jail design add alternates; commissioners discuss value engineering and financing plan
Summary
The board accepted five design add alternates for the proposed Lancaster County jail—additional medical beds, a work release area, support clusters, central booking and maintenance space—and commissioners said value-engineering options and a financing plan will return for further review.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster County Commissioners on June 3 voted to accept five Add Alternates into the final Design Development plans for the proposed county jail project, and discussed next steps for cost review and financing.
The add alternates approved were: additional medical beds; a work release area; support clusters (two male, one female); central booking space; and a dedicated on-site maintenance space. The motion, made by Commissioner Joshua G. Parsons and seconded by Commissioner Alice Yoder, passed unanimously.
Commissioner Ray D'Agostino noted that value-engineering options had been discussed previously in a work session and said the project team will gather additional information and return to the board within the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Parsons said the board will continue reviewing options to reduce costs but that many items are integrated in the design and difficult to remove without undermining the overall plan. He described three major components moving forward—design work, site coordination with Lancaster Township, and financing—and said a financing plan will be presented at an upcoming public meeting and tied to the County budget.
Commissioner Yoder said the five elements are aligned with the project's framework and vision, particularly for work release and central booking, and thanked the project team for consulting with corrections staff and community members.
Two residents spoke during public comment expressing concerns about the proposed project and urging attention to health and screening services; commissioners did not vote on programmatic changes during the meeting.
