Jail bid comes in $1.7 million over

It was nearly a year ago when the city of Mountain Home and Elmore County began working toward obtaining judicial confirmation to allow use of certificates of participation to construct a new joint law enforcement/jail facility.

When the original request for judicial confirmation was denied, the Board of Elmore County Commissioners tried to address the concerns raised by the court, directing the county's legal advisor, Aaron Bazzoli, to amend the petition. Three issues seemed to be key to the court's decision in denying the petition -- the number of inmate beds available, the location, and the county's ability to pay for the facility without having to raise taxes specifically to do so.

County officials worked diligently to address each concern and submitted an amended petition. The number of beds was reduced from 144 to 100 beds. The county proposed it could take $2 million from its reserves and PILT funds to make a down payment, holding the budget level for the sheriff's department and jail. And a new location within city limits was proposed.

The amended petition was approved and with no appeal filed on the decision, the county and city advertised for requests for proposal (RFP) for the joint law enforcement/jail facility. Only a single response was submitted for the RFP.

But that response was not exactly what was expected. The new proposal from Durrant/Engelmann was nearly $1.7 million higher than the original submitted before the court denied confirmation, apparently snatching the project out of the grasp of the county once more.

Representatives of the company met with county and city officials Nov. 26 to take a closer look at the proposal to see what could be modified to allow the project to meet the needs of the city and county and yet stay within the requirements to comply with the judicial ruling.

Although the new design is similar to the initial project proposal, it had been downsized to an 88-bed facility and includes a 12-bed work release area, utilizing a single control center.

Construction fees have increased since the initial proposal was made. Under the new proposal the cost of construction has been estimated at $8,852,170, nearly as much as the entire package presented originally for judicial confirmation. Both the county and city expressed concerns regarding the orientation of the facility on the site limiting the possibility of future expansion when necessary.

Designers and contractors both thought that problem could be overcome by relocating the facility to another area of the 4.5 acres site. Filling in the grade rather than cutting through or blasting the rock would be comparable in costs for construction.

The companies suggested additional site work for the N. 8th East Street location would cost about $150,000.

A computer aided dispatch (CAD) management system had been added to the proposal, tacking on another $507,555 to the costs. The system could tie in with the records system and jail management and the costs would include all the licensing and hardware necessary to operate. Company representatives explained that monies from the E-911 funding should cover much of the cost of the equipment and programing needed for the CAD units.

The furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) portion of the proposal includes everything needed for the sheriff's department to open the jail's doors and accept inmates.

The companies feel the jail facility would require a staff of 15, including administration, to operate efficiently. The current jail has a staff of eight.

The county has yet to determine the terms of the lease. If determining the jail and sheriff's offices are 'ordinary and necessary,' the lease would be for the full term of the contract, costing approximately $660,000 annually. If the county chose an annual appropriation to pay the lease, the annual cost would increase to $696,000.

County and city officials asked the company to see what adjustments could be made to meet the needs now and still comply with the requirements of the judicial confirmation.