Santa Barbara County OKs $5M construction‑management contract for North Branch Jail, directs April cost comparisons

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 10 approved a not‑to‑exceed $5,000,000 contract to bring a construction manager onto the Northern Branch Jail design‑build team, while directing county staff to return in April with a comparison of alternatives including a one‑pod, one‑and‑a‑half‑pod option and costs to rehabilitate the existing Northwest facility.

Chair Jen Nelson moved the staff recommendation and Supervisor Rose Lavinino seconded. The motion included direction that the CEO’s office provide the board the additional operational cost information and comparative analyses before any final award to a design‑builder; the roll call vote was unanimous among members present.

The contract approved Wednesday covers construction‑management services to oversee the design‑build process, the county’s General Services Department said. "This is to award the construction management services for the oversight of the design‑build process," Diana Estorga, Capital Vision chief for General Services, told the board. Assistant CEO Wade Horton added that approving the construction‑management contract “does not lock in whether we proceed with 1 or 1.5 pods,” and that the construction manager will participate in evaluation of competing design‑build teams.

Opponents—public commenters and several supervisors—pressed for delay and for the board to consider alternatives. Community speakers argued the county should prioritize mental health, housing and treatment programs instead of expanding jail capacity, and asked the board to consider smaller options or to vet rehabilitation of existing space. Maureen Earls, one of the speakers, urged the board to require the county CEO to return "with a public analysis comparing a 1.5 and a 1 housing unit option grounded in a proposed implementation plan." Several speakers warned the larger option could cost hundreds of millions in operations.

Supporters of moving forward said selecting a construction manager now is necessary to properly vet design‑build firms and keep the larger project on schedule; staff told the board that a fuller discussion of the number of pods could be reconsidered in April and that a smaller project could shorten construction time once selected. The board specifically asked staff to include operational costs in the April update and to communicate to the construction manager and design‑build teams that the board's conversation about final scope is ongoing.

The board’s action authorizes the county to engage construction‑management services up to the contract cap. Chair Nelson said the board was "giving direction to the CEO's office to come back with a full package of information in April" so the supervisors can confirm or revise their earlier direction on scope before engaging a design‑builder.

What happens next: The CEO’s office will return in April with the requested comparative analyses; the selected construction manager will begin work with the competing design‑build teams and the board will vote on any final design‑builder award at a later hearing.