Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(20020'7:J3 <br /> <br />Arnold made a motion and Eriksen seconded to proceed with a request for proposal for <br />a 350 to 500 bed jail with the private management of the facility. <br /> <br />Eriksen stated that he would like to go with the idea that they could have the opportunity <br />to go beyond the 50G-bed structure. <br /> <br />County Attorney Jerry Janulewicz questioned if it is the intent of the county board to use <br />the county owned site for the facility or to have the respondents provide a site. The firm <br />from Kansas City questioned if the county's location is the optimal site for the jail. They <br />recommended to avoid industrial areas and areas next to a railroad tracts. <br /> <br />Logan stated that when the county purchased the property Durant was informed of the <br />location and they did not have a problem with it. He would like to limit the construction of <br />the facility to the county owned property. <br /> <br />Hartman stated that rail and manufacturing are heavy at the other site too. He <br />questioned if the private company that is operating the jail bails out would the county be <br />responsible. The companies are bonded so the county would be protected. <br /> <br />Eriksen stated that the county bought the site for the jail and the board needs let the <br />bidders know that it is available but he doesn't want to restrict them to this site, maybe <br />there is a better location. <br /> <br />Arnold amended his motion and Eriksen seconded to include the county site but to not <br />limit it to this location. <br /> <br />Lancaster questioned if there was language in the RFP for future needs. Janulewicz <br />stated that he did not recall that there was. <br /> <br />Discussion was held on the financing; this can be discussed later. <br />Jeffries stated that when the proposals are received the county board could accept or <br />reject them all. One thing he would like to see happen would be that when the <br />construction is started that the local contractors can be involved in bidding on portions of <br />the construction. <br /> <br />Logan and Hartman expressed concern that all of the information is not disclosed and <br />now the people will not be able to vote on the financing. If this is true it is a disservice to <br />the board. <br /> <br />Humiston stated that with the RFP, this would be a good business opportunity. <br /> <br />The vote on the motion to proceed with building a 350 to 500 bed jail facility and request <br />private operation was taken. Arnold, Eriksen, Hartman, Humiston, Jeffries and <br />Lancaster all voted yes and Logan voted no. Motion carried. <br /> <br />Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. The next meeting will be December 31,2002 at 9:00 <br />a.m. <br /> <br />10 <br />