County executives and contracted architects briefed the commissioners court on Aug. 19 on the pre‑design planning for a combined diversion center and a central intake facility, emphasizing a data-driven operations plan, stakeholder engagement and an early look at operating costs.

Why it matters: commissioners and staff said a successful diversion facility requires coordinated operational planning, clinical staffing and sustainable funding; multiple county and health partners, including Dell Medical School and Integral Care, are collaborating to align data and service pathways.

County Executive Jackie Van Warmer (Innovative Justice and Program Analysis) introduced Brinkley Sergeant Wigginton Architects (BSW), Kirksey Architecture and Pulitzer Bogart Associates as the contracted design team for phase 1 of the project. Charlie Goodman of BSW said the firm will run a series of programming workshops and work groups to produce an operations‑based program — the number and adjacency of rooms, staffing needs and functional workflows — before full schematic design begins.

Curtis Pulitzer and other members of the team described planned public engagement, stakeholder workshops and site analyses for two or three candidate locations. The team said it will run separate but intersecting work tracks for “intake” (triage and referral) and “diversion” (short‑term care and stabilization), then reconcile them into an integrated facility design.

Health and data partners will be integral. Tyrone Jolley and Jackie Van Warmer said the team is integrating prior studies and data, and that an ILA with Dell Medical School will provide additional data and clinical options to inform program design. Travis County staff said agreements to share de‑identified data are nearly ready and expected to be presented to the court in the coming weeks. County and design staff said the diversion center’s capital cost will be only part of the financial picture: operating costs are expected to exceed construction costs over time, so the project team will develop staffing projections and a preliminary operating budget.

Schedule and phases: the architects said phase 1 (pre‑design/programming) is expected to run roughly one year, phase 2 (design) about 18–24 months, and phase 3 (construction) 36–42 months. The current contract covers only phase 1; the team is preparing monthly briefings to the court and plans precinct‑level community engagement sessions.

Commissioners urged clarity on roles, responsibilities and the project’s critical path. Commissioner(s) asked for a project charter and a functional dependency map to track which tasks must happen first, which can proceed in parallel and which depend on partner agreements. County staff said the roadmap will be a living document and will be updated as more data and stakeholder input are integrated.

Ending: the court received the briefing and directed staff and the design team to continue stakeholder workshops, complete data‑sharing agreements and return with monthly progress updates and site feasibility work.