VA01B - DJJ Cheltenham Youth Facility Demol

Document Sample
VA01B - DJJ Cheltenham Youth Facility Demol Powered By Docstoc
					                                                     VA.01B
                                       Office of the Secretary
                                       Department of Juvenile Justice

Cheltenham Youth Facility Demolition (Phase 1)

GO Bonds                      $995,000             Recommendation: Approve


Bill Text: Provide funds for the demolition of portions of the Cheltenham Youth Facility.


Project Description: The funds support the demolition of four cottages (Neal, Colbert, McGuire, and
Whyte) currently inside the fence at the Cheltenham Youth Facility and two structures (the staff
dormitory and the staff residence) outside the fence.


Comments: Conditions at the Cheltenham Youth Facility have long concerned the legislature. In the
2001 Joint Chairmen’s Report, the following narrative was adopted:

        The committees remain gravely concerned about the ongoing use of the Cheltenham Youth
        Facility. The facility remains the State’s largest secure detention and pending placement
        facility despite noted physical inadequacies which have necessitated recent emergency safety
        repairs. The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) has committed to replace the existing
        detention and pending placement capacity at Cheltenham with a much smaller facility of 48
        secure detention and pending placement beds. The committees are also committed to the
        demolition of the present buildings used for secure detention and their replacement, if
        necessary, by no more than two new buildings housing up to 24 youth each. The
        committees expect DJJ to reduce the number of detainees at Cheltenham sufficiently over
        the course of next year to allow the department to begin demolition in June.

    The secure detained population at Cheltenham has in fact been reduced since the beginning of 2001
through two efforts: limiting secure detention to only violent offenders through appropriate detention
protocols; and utilizing the Hickey School for detention. While efforts to downsize Cheltenham have
been delayed somewhat by ongoing delays in the opening of the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center
as well as programming changes at Victor Cullen, the department appears to be well-positioned to
continue population reductions at Cheltenham.

   The fiscal 2003 budget calls for a 24-bed detention unit, a 24-bed pending population unit, and a 36-
bed shelter care program to be operated at Cheltenham.




For further information contact: Simon G. Powell                                      Phone: (410) 946-5530

                                                        1
                                    VA.01B - DJJ - Office of the Secretary

Project Data
                                                  ($ in Millions)

                      Prior              2003           2004         2005          2006         2007
    Description    Authorization        Request        Estimate     Estimate      Estimate     Estimate


 Planning                  $0.000          $0.077        $0.000         $0.000        $0.000       $0.000

 Construction               0.000           0.918           0.000        0.000         0.000        0.000

 Total                     $0.000          $0.995        $0.000         $0.000        $0.000       $0.000


 Total Project Cost:                           $995,000

 Approved Program Plan:             Yes (demolition only)      Estimated Completion Date:      June 2003



Issues
1. Demolition a Step Closer but What Follows?

    While the Capital Budget does contain funding for partial demolition of Cheltenham, the Department
of Budget and Management has informed DJJ that provision of the demolition funds does not imply any
approval of the proposed part I and II program plan for Cheltenham. At this point no approval for
redevelopment has been given.

    Proposal for Redevelopment of Cheltenham

    The recently completed DJJ Facilities Master Plan laid out three different construction options for the
redevelopment of Cheltenham:

Ä   The construction of a 48-bed detention building to include assessment, intake/release, health center,
    and other central services (food, laundry, etc.) with two bed-wings securely attached to the main
    building. 48 beds total

Ä   The construction of an assessment center building to include assessment, intake/release, health center
    etc., two 24-bed residential buildings, a central services building, and three new 12-bed cottages for
    shelter care programs. 84 beds total




                                                        2
                                    VA.01B - DJJ - Office of the Secretary

Ä   The construction of an assessment center building to include assessment, intake/release, health center
    etc., a 48-bed self-contained detention center to include space for intake, education, recreation,
    medical services, food services etc., three new 24-bed buildings for residential care programs, and a
    central services building. 120 beds total

   However, the proposed redevelopment as contained in the proposed part I and II program plan
envisages a different option:

Ä   The construction of an assessment center building to include assessment, intake/release, health center
    etc.; a 48-bed self-contained detention center (two 24-bed units) to include space for intake, education,
    recreation, medical services, food services etc.; the creation of a shelter care village (three 8-bed units);
    and a central services building. 72 beds total

    The proposal reflects the department’s emphasis on assessment and the provision of required services
to this population.


    Secure Detention Demand and Capacity and the Redevelopment of Cheltenham

    In considering if, and how, to redevelop Cheltenham, one area of debate will be the need for any
proposed secure detention capacity at Cheltenham. DJJ’s recently completed Facilities Master Plan is not
helpful in this regard, as it uses straight-line population projections which estimates ongoing drops in
detention based on recent declines. Such a decline does not appear realistic as the most recent fall in
detention numbers relate to specific efforts by the department to detain only violent youth offenders.
Further, after several years of decline, juvenile violent crime arrests and arrest rates increased in calendar
2000, the last reporting period for this data.

    The debate is perhaps crucially centered on whether the State should be developing regional detention
capacity as well as a statewide detention capacity and how the two relate. Exhibit 1 provides a snap-shot
of current and shortly to be on-line secure detention facilities and compares capacity to the detained
population by area of residence on January 29, 2002. Only male detainees are considered in this analysis.

    While this is an unsophisticated analysis, a number of points can be made from this exhibit:

Ä   It would appear that the secure detention capacity that will be on-line by the end of fiscal 2003 is more
    than adequate. However, it must be remembered that detention facilities also often house the pending
    placement population. This population has been running at over 100 on any given day for several
    years and remains a stubborn problem for DJJ.

Ä   Two points-of-view can be proffered as to the future use of Cheltenham: from a statewide standpoint,
    there is already more than enough detention capacity to justify building no more at Cheltenham;
    however, from a regional standpoint, an argument can also be made that a regional detention facility
    is required for Area V, presumably at Cheltenham.

Ä   There is excess detention capacity on the Eastern Shore and the Facilities Master Plan recommends


                                                       3
                                        VA.01B - DJJ - Office of the Secretary

    configuring the Carter Center as an intake and assessment center for the region.
Ä   There is excess detention capacity in Area 3, and the Facilities Master Plan recommends a smaller
    detention unit at Noyes.

                                                       Exhibit 1


                              Projected DJJ Secure Detention Capacity

                                    Architectural     Detained           Architectural Detained
                                      Capacity       Population Deficit/  Capacity     Population                Deficit/
Area/Detention Facility              Fiscal 2002     1/29/2002 Surplus Fiscal 2003     1/29/2002                 Surplus
Area 1 – BCJJC                             0             102        (102)            144             102             42
Area 2 – Hickey                          48               40             8             30             40           (10)
Area 3 – Noyes, Western
Maryland Detention Center                35               17           18              59             17             42
Area 4 – Carter, Lower
Eastern Shore                            15               12             3             39             12             27

Area 5 – Cheltenham                     106               35           71              24             35           (11)

Maryland                                204              206           (2)           296             206             90
Notes:   Waxter is in Area 5, but serves female youth from various areas. Female youth are currently served at Carter and
         Noyes, but for the purpose of this particular analysis they have been excluded from the totals. Fiscal 2003 figures
         for Cheltenham and Hickey is per DJJ’s Managing for Results. Fiscal 2002 capacity at Hickey has been expanded
         beyond 48 by transfer of committed youth. The detained population on January 29, 2002, was 210 and included
         4 out-of-state youth (2 each at Carter and Noyes) excluded from the analysis.
         Area 1 = Baltimore City.
         Area 2 = Baltimore, Howard, Harford, and Carroll counties.
         Area 3 = Montgomery and Frederick counties and Western Maryland.
         Area 4 = Eastern Shore.
         Area 5 = Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties and Southern Maryland.

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice; Department of Legislative Services




Recommended Actions
    Approve.




                                                               4
                            VA.01B - DJJ - Office of the Secretary

                                                                                      Appendix 1

                               Capital Project Cost Estimate Worksheet

Department:               Department of Juvenile Justice
Project Number:           VA01B
Project Title:            Cheltenham Youth Facility: Phase 1 Building Demolition
Analyst:                  Simon G. Powell

Demolition
Basic Demolition         63,825 Sq. Ft. X            $8.50 Sq. Ft. =               542,513
Asbestos Removal          9,458 Sq. Ft. X            $3.25 Sq. Ft. =                30,739
SUBTOTAL                                                                           573,251
Regional Factor:        100.0%                                                           0
SUBTOTAL                                                                           573,251
Escalation to midpoint:    2.38 Yrs. X                4.4%      =       10.50%      60,191
TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURE (Bid Cost)                                                 633,442

Site Work and Utilities
Site Work               57,325 + regional factor + mid-point escalation             63,344
Utilities              114,736 + regional factor + mid-point escalation            126,783
PROJECT SUBTOTAL (Bid Cost)                                                        823,570

Fees and Miscellaneous Costs
Total Construction Contingency                        5.0%                          41,178
Inspection Cost:                                      4.6%                          37,884
A/E Basic Services Fee                                7.5%                          61,768
Miscellaneous:              MDE Review                                              12,000
Miscellaneous:              CPM/Schedule                                            16,000
TOTAL COST OF PROJECT                                                              992,400




                                               5