HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-16 adj 000299
December 16, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 16, 1994, at 9:00 A.M., Rooms 5/6, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was
adjourned from December 14, 1994.
PRES~I~T: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles
S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PR~SEI~T: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with City Council.
City Council Members Presents: Ms. Virginia Daugherty, Ms. Kay Slaugh-
ter, Mr. David Toscano and Mr. Thomas J. Vandever.
Mr. Toscano called City Council to order.
Item 2a. Presentation by Jail Board on Proposed Jail Expansion.
Mr. Mitchell Neuman, Chairman of the Jail Board, said the purpose of
this meeting is to provide sufficient information that would allow the Board
of Supervisors and City Council to make a decision on proposed expansion of
the Joint Security Complex. The two bodies then need to decide whether they
support the expansion plan and whether they support the creation of a Jail
Authority. The project cost is approximately $16.0 million to provide 230
beds along with 9000 square feet of instructional and program space. The Jail
Board has deemed this to be a necessary project based on the increase in
population experienced over the last five to six years. The currently year-
to-date population is 257 inmates; in 1994 the average daily population was
240 inmates.
Mr. Neuman said even with an Authority both bodies would still maintain
control over issues surrounding the jail. Both bodies would control the
makeup of the Authority Board and would approve or deny all contracts,
construction, design, etc. When the Department of Corrections (DOC) approved
funding for the project it strongly suggested that the Jail Board have a value
engineering study done prior to construction. DOC also indicated that it
would not pay for any cost overruns beyond December 31, 1998. The original
plan was phased out in the early 2000's. The entire Jail Board supports this
project and feels that it is essential, necessary and a long time in coming.
Not only does the current facility need to be expanded, but it needs to be
modernized. The facility is 20 years old and in dire need of major renova-
tion, maintenance and upkeep. The Jail Board would like to have the Authority
established by February 1, 1995 which would then enable it to meet specific
deadlines for planning and construction. The design of the facility, award of
contracts and beginning construction will take about a year to 18 months.
Mr. Neuman said also present is Mr. Ed Powell of Powell & Associates,
prepared the needs assessment; Mr. A1 Tumminia, Superintendent of the Joint
Security Complex; Mr. David Puckett of Farmer, Puckett and Warner Architects,
prepared the planning study; and Mr. David Rose and Mr. Doug Fawcett, will
speak on the public finance issue and bonds. The Jail Attorney is Mr. Roger
Wiley who can also answer any questions.
Mr. Neuman explained that after approval by DOC the request goes to the
Treasury, to the Department of Planning and Budget and then to the General
Assembly for final approval. The state has agreed to fund approximately $7.7
million. The localities or the Authority, through the issuance of bonds,
would be responsible for the other one-half of the project cost. The bond
issue would be for the full amount. The state reimburses 50 percent during
the retirement of the bond issue.
Mr. Powell said he was initially hired to prepare a needs assessment for
a 40-bed expansion project in 1992. During the state review process, the
legislature adopted a Community Based Corrections Plan as the requirement for
any jail enlargements, renovations or expansions. He then had to develop a
plan for this project. That plan involved a description of handling capabili-
ties, physical shape, types of jail-based programs and alternatives to incar-
ceration available within the community forthe current facility. The next
step was an analysis of the various components of the criminal justice data
system such as arrests, courts and the confined population. From that data, a
20-year forecast of future needs was prepared. He also took a look at
expanding nonconfining programs that were in operation or that were in a pilot
stage in other parts of the state. Mr. Powell said using all the available
data, a final study was prepared and sent to the state for review. The study
was developed with the help of Jail staff and people from the community. The
study was subsequently approved by the state. Mr. Powell said the next step
in the process is to prepare a planning study to be reviewed and approved by
the state, followed by the actual design and construction of a new jail
facility.
December 16, 1994 (Adjourned Me&ting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Powell next summarized the components that went into developing the
forecast. He also compared his forecast to the actual number of inmates in
the jail. He believes the forecast is reasonable and one that can be used as
a planning tool. Mr. Powell then briefly explained the impact of parole
reform and new legislation relating to sentencing laws.
Ms. Slaughter asked what would prevent this locality from having an
explosion of state prisoners if new prisons are not built on time and there
are additional prisoners being housed. Mr. Powell said new legislation
requires the removal of state inmates from local jails within a certain period
of time. The Director of DOC must remove them unless the Governor declares a
public safety emergency that would allow the backup.
Mr. Toscano asked if the present jail population was broken down by
violent versus nonviolent criminals. Mr. Powell said the data lists the
crimes in which the indiViduaI was sentenced and it can be determined from
that information. Mr. Toscano asked if that was done in this needs assess-
ment. Mr. Powell replied "no" Mr. Toscano said a breakdown of the present
population as well as future projections could make a difference in how many
beds to build and alternatives to incarceration. Mr. Powell said generally
sentences of two years or less are given for nonviolent crimes.
Mr. Toscano asked how complicated is it to incorporate the juvenile
detention issues into this study. Mr. Powell said that is a complicated
process. Juveniles must be kept totally separate from adults. He thinks a
juvenile facility can be accommodated on the same site, but it needs to be
done in separate environment and separate building. Mr. Toscano asked how
would the needs be assessed. Mr. Powell said a separate study needs to be
done and the process is approved by a separate state department. Mr. Tucker
commented that he has requested that a needs assessment on the issue of
juveniles be done. Mr. Toscano asked how long will the study take. Mr.
Tucker said he has not received any information on the timing, but he knows
that the study is proceeding. Mr. Tumminia added that the Joint Security
Complex only houses juveniles when there is a crisis situation and a secure
place is needed. The Jail does not house juveniles on an ongoing basis and it
is no longer certified to house juveniles.
Mr. Vandever asked how the projections are affected by the policy that
requires the state to assume responsibility for its own prisoners. Mr. Powell
said he prepared two forecasts. Forecast "A" assumed that the state accepted
its responsibilities and removed prisoners within the time period they are
supposed to be removed. Forecast "B" assumed that the state continued to
remove inmates at the same rate it has in the past. Forecast "B" is signifi-
cantly higher than Forecast "A". In his presentation he referred to Forecast
"A". Mr. Vandever said he was bothered by the five year period used in the
study. The study included the years 1989 and 1990 which were high arrest
years in all localities. He asked if a longer time period used. Mr. Powell
said he actually used a ten year span. The information in the study for the
jail population was a comparison from 1983 to 1993. The inmate population
increased by 102 percent. The forecast for the coming ten years, 1993 to 2003
was 91 percent. Mr. Vandever then asked if the years 1989 through 1991 were
isolated because they were high arrest years. Mr. Powell said the forecast
was developed using data from May, 1990 through July, 1993. There was a down
turn right after May, 1990 in total population that lasted for about nine
months. In Forecast "B" he also deleted those nine months which is one of the
reasons for the higher forecast.
Mrs. Thomas asked what is the projection if the state announces an
emergency and does not live up to its obligations. Mr. Powell said the
forecast he quoted was 367 inmates in 2003; that figure would increase to 468
inmates; 20 years out the low forecast was 527 inmates; that projection would
increase to 730 inmates in the year 2013.
Mr. Puckett said his firm responded to a request for proposal to provide
an intake center and various upgrades of infrastructure to support anincrease
in prisoner population. The proposal was completed in February, 1994 and
submitted to the DOC for approval and funding. DOC indicated that the scope
needed to be expanded to include housing and a planning level to show how the
infrastructure upgrade tied into plans to provide housing. His firm was then
retained to provide the housing component. That document was submitted to DOC
for comments in July, 1994 and at that time the response was that the remain-
ing component needed to address issues of multi-purpose programs, education
and counseling. The proposal then provided for a 9200 square foot block of
multi-purpose rooms, counseling rooms and classrooms for the inmate facility.
The size of the facility is based on the projections of the Community Based
Corrections Plan and provides 230 additional beds to bring the total facility
population to 440 beds. That final proposal was submitted to DOC on October
31, 1994 and subsequently received approval for funding.
Mr. Toscano asked if there is a formula for calculating the space. Mr.
Puckett said DOC provides the formula which is based on square footage per
function. The only function not programmed by DOC on the square footage is
the magistrate's office and DOC does not participate in the reimbursement for
the construction.
Mr. Toscano asked if there are factors related to increased female
population. Mr. Puckett said the pods (cells) are divided into units and
units can be designated as male or female or the current mixed units can be
December 16, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
redistributed to address the change in female ratio.
options available if the gender population changes.
There are plenty of
Mrs. Thomas asked if the division between minimum, maximum and medium
security is a matter of state regulation. Mr. Puckett said DOC provides a
formula for construction which is fairly explicit.
Mr'. Perkins commented that the proposal allows for the construction of a
larger facility than needed. He asked if the reason for this is to have the
ability to rent space for federal prisoners to bring in additional income. He
also asked if the units could be prefabricated so that they are added on an as
needed basis. Mr. Puckett said the construction is phased so that cells can
be brought on line as the population grows. The idea was to give the locality
time to look at other options. In terms of the actual physical techniques of
construction, the modular unit is precast. The cells are brought in and
stacked~ Another faCtor to be cOnsidered is that.every year they put a
construction piece the escalation of construction costs is about four and one-
half percent per year. If you shorten the process from the year 2000 t° the
year 1998 your escalation on that last piece is substantial capital invest-
ment. ~ ~ i
Mr. Rose then summarized a handout (on file) of the schedule of events
for the next three years that need to be implemented in order to bring the
project to fruition. He explained how they arrived at the costs, the occupan-
cy assumptions and a cost comparison of expanding the facility. He also
summarized the historical approach used to allocate costs to the two locali-
ties. Currently one-third of operations is paid by the County and two-third
of operations is paid by the City; capital costs are split evenly.
Mr. Fawcett saidthe recommendation, at this time, is to not focus so
much on the cost of the facility, but instead focus on trends. The forecasts
and projections are based on assumptions. They are confident that the trends
are correct. He also explained that a different approach was taken in the
timing of the construction and the timing of the planning study. When the
planning study was reviewed, they analyzed the income potential for building
the entire facility and then renting unused space which is a much more
preferable approach. Using the projections and assumptions from the day the
facility is opened in 1998, until 2003 when there is no longer the option of
renting out beds, during that five-year period the facility could generate
about $5.7 million in revenues from renting unused beds. Mr. Toscano asked if
this is a net increase. Mr. Rose replied that it is an increase because the
state reimburses localities approximately 85 to 90 percent of operating and
maintenance costs. The fees charged is additional income. It is a net
benefit.
Mr. Martin said that someone commented that each year the facility'is
built in advance of the schedule is a four percent savings. Mr. Fawcett said
the state's approved figure is based on the planning study estimates include a
four percent annual inflation on the schedule. If the facility is built all
at once the capital costs will be based on that year and not on four percent
inflation for each succeeding year in the schedule.
Mr. Bowerman asked what happens in 2008 when the facility is at capacity
and the site cannot be expanded. Is it the assumption that another facility
would be built on at another location.
Mr. Neuman said the Jail Board has considered total replacement of the
current facility. They need to decide on a site for a new facility and what
to do with the current facility in its present condition. The current
facility is in need of repairs and those repairs will need to be done as long
as the facility is in use.
Mr. Martin said he is interested in getting a juvenile facility in this
area. It seems to him to be reasonable to make one of those pods sight and
sound specific to include juveniles. There is also the potential to earn
income from housing juveniles. Mr. Neuman said the Jail Board has discussed
the juvenile issue, but they feel that their charg? is the current joint
security complex. They have discussed possibly using the existing facility to
house juveniles if a new jail facility is built. They did not want to become
focused on the juvenile issue when they feel there is a greater need with the
current facility.
Mr. Tumminia said philosophically there should be a big'difference on
how you operate a juvenile facility versus an adult facility, and that would
be his biggest concern in housing both together. He feels that juvenile
facilities should provide maximum therapeutic services much more so than the
average adult jail. Also, he has found that a juvenile facility is usually
operated by someone who has a psychology background; the emphasis is more on
therapy. Mr. Martin said the current detention facility is Staunton has no
therapeutic direction, has no mental health capability and the superintendent
has no background in psychology. Mr. Tumminia said he believes it should be
done that way because more emphasis should be put on the youngsters. Mr.
Martin said in Virginia a detention facility for juveniles is strictly a
holding facility until the juvenile is placed in a facility for therapeutic
training. It seems to him that in a $15.4 million expansion project it makes
sense to put a little more effort into looking at the possibilities, develop
some operations and a scenario for a juvenile facility. Mr. Martin said he
does not want to put his stamp of approval on this plan until we come a little
December 16, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) 000302
(Page 4)
further along with what we are going ~:~:~O::'~out a 3uvenile facility. He made
these same statements four months ago'. He wants to know if a juvenile
facility can be incorporated into these plans. It does not seem to him that a
decision has to be rushed so he would like to slow down the process and
incorporate this into the plans.
Ms. Daugherty asked if the detention facility in Staunton is at capaci-
ty. Mr. Martin said the facility is totally full; there are plenty of times
when there is absolutely no bed space in the state. Mr. Tucker said if some
portion of the existing was used or expanded facility, the only thing that
could be used jointly is kitchen facilities. Everything must be kept totally
separate. In terms of postponing the planning process, there is a time line
and state financing that must be considered.
Mr. Rose said as the project moves forward, there is the ability to
modify the plans, but we are facing a July 1, 1995 deadline. There is a
deadline to get the financing plan to the state treasurer's office and other
state agencies which if missed could cause a two year delay. Inactivity
during the next several months could mean inactivity for the project for the
next 24 months. Mr. Rose emphasized that timing is important.
Mr. Perkins said even if the current facility is built out there is no
sense in abandoning it, going somewhere else and building a new jail. This
facility could still be used to house prisoners. Mr. Neuman said he did not
intend to give that impression.
Mr. Vandever said he is nervous about this entire package because each
assumption is based on a previous assumption. Each year the numbers get
shakier. Mr. Rose said the key is to build on the facts. He suggests that
when the two localities start meeting they look at all the "what ifs" These
numbers are only starting points and any number of alternatives could be
considered. Mr. Toscano said he needs to see some alternative scenarios. Mr.
Bowerman said he does not think it is so much the question of needing addi-
tional beds and incarceration spaces, but how we go about it.
Mr. Toscano said the issue also is how much we can afford. These are
significant costs to the localities that will be in the operating budgets
every year for 20 years and.then in 2008 possibly having to start all over
again. He does not want to see corrections drive our local budgets. He would
like to see some more numbers. He then asked if financing for architectural
work, etc., would have to be authorized before a commitment for reimbursement
is received from the state. Mr. Rose said "yes" There will be an element of
expenditures such as design, architectural work and breaking ground prior to
receiving a commitment from the legislature. Mr. Toscano asked if that money
would be advanced out of the respective capital budgets. Mr. Rose said if the
localities were to form an authoritY, the authority could borrow that money
and the repayment could come from the respective localities through the
authority. AnOther approach is the two localities could directly advance
funds out of their General Fund. Either way those funds would be reimbursed
at the time of permanent financing. Mr. Fawcett said this has been a major
point of discussion. If the localities go ahead with a commitment of $100,000
to $1.0 million to begin this project, there is no guarantee in financing.
However, to date, the General Assembly has never failed to fund a project that
was recommended by DOC. Also, this facility is part of a package of four or
five regional jail facilities to be considered for financing in the 1996
General Assembly. Mr, Rose added that if one of the localities decided to do
something on its own, such as expanding the old jail for County purposes only,
the County would be eligible for only a maximum of 25 percent reimbursement.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there is an interest rate assumed in all these
figures. Mr. Rose said they have used an interest rate of approximately seven
percent. The state has indicated that it will reimburse 50 percent of the
capital costs plus the interest rate. Mr. Neuman commented that the size and
scope of the project is subject to change and modification.
Mr. Tucker said he and the City Manager will discuss forming a committee
to work with the Jail Board and consultants to look at some of the scenarios
and bring back a recommendation to City Council and the Board of Supervisors.
Item 2b. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other
matters.
Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. With no further business to discuss, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:00 A.M.
Chairman