Santa Barbara County OKs $5 million construction-management contract for North Jail design, directs fuller analysis in April

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 10 authorized a not-to-exceed $5,000,000 construction-management contract related to the proposed North Jail expansion, but required staff to return in April with a fuller analysis comparing a single-pod and 1.5-pod design and clarified the contract would not bind the board to a final expansion size. The motion, made by President Nelson and seconded by Supervisor Lavanino, passed unanimously.

Board members repeatedly emphasized the distinction between hiring a construction manager and approving final construction. A supervisor told the room the contract was "only for the company that will do the work, not the work itself," and asked staff to confirm that the agreement would not lock the county into a specific facility size. County staff told supervisors the contract is a "not-to-exceed" construction-manager agreement and that design options would be brought back for a decision in April.

The item drew extended public comment. Dozens of speakers, representing community groups and individuals, urged the board to delay expansion and invest instead in housing, mental-health services and alternatives to incarceration. "No necesitamos expandir la cárcel," one Zoom speaker said, arguing that budget shortfalls and program cuts make expansion the wrong priority. Other community members pointed to the county's existing obligations under litigation timelines and asked for clarity on costs and alternatives before any construction decision.

During board discussion staff and supervisors exchanged questions about whether the contract assumed a 1.5-pod design and how changing the scope would affect timelines. County staff said the design process would continue; selecting a smaller option could shift design deliverables by a month or two but would not substantially delay an overall schedule. Staff also said a more complete package, including operational cost estimates and comparisons of one-pod versus 1.5-pod options, would return in April.

The board's action authorizes the county to proceed with the construction-manager contract as described in the staff report, with explicit direction that the consultant be told the conversation about final size remains open and that the board will consider a revised package in April before any binding construction decision. The board recorded the motion and approved it by roll call; the clerk reported the motion passed unanimously.

The next procedural step is the staffled design analysis and cost comparison scheduled for April, after which supervisors may take further action on the scope, financing and any related budget items.