Members of a community advocacy group and Bettendorf police officials presented the details of a city ballot referendum to the Pleasant Valley Community School District School Board, saying the project would modernize the police department and improve public-safety response. The presentation described a $27 million project: a 40,000-square-foot station plus a 15,000-square-foot vehicle garage, to be paid by a referendum voters will decide on Nov. 4.

Why it matters: Presenters said the current Bettendorf police facility was built in 1959, totals roughly 15,000 square feet and was last significantly remodeled more than 25 years ago. They said the existing building was converted office space, lacks adequate evidence storage and interview rooms, and offers limited training and vehicle storage—factors they called liabilities for officer safety, evidence preservation and response time to incidents in the district’s jurisdiction.

Brian, a chair of the Say Yes to Public Safety committee, told the board the “current Bettendor[fd] PD does not have a jail nor does this one. It does not change that.” He said the new site is intended to centralize operations and provide room for 10–20 years of growth. He also said the project’s cost figure of $27 million is a guaranteed cap under the contract with the builder listed in the presentation (Estes Construction), and that the contractor has accepted project cost risk beyond that number.

Bettendorf police chief Doug Scott was slated to speak at a follow-up public session, and the presenters encouraged tours and Q&A sessions for community members. Presenters described operational deficiencies at the current facility: two interview rooms for multiple suspects; evidence stored in an older maintenance-area restroom; and police vehicles parked outside and vandalized. Presenters said those conditions impose inefficiencies—officers must retrieve equipment from multiple locations and sometimes use a fire department bay for tactical vehicles—reducing readiness.

Several audience members asked about expansion capacity, vehicle storage, and what would happen to the current building. Presenters said the new site has space for modest future expansion and that the old police building would revert to office space for city administration or other uses; some city functions and fire-department needs could be eased by the relocation. One presenter explained the referendum requirement is a product of state law governing municipal bonding and capital projects: “a referendum is required” for a new police building and the measure would need a 60% approval threshold, as described in the presentation.

No formal board vote on the referendum was recorded in the meeting transcript. The board read a prepared resolution in support of public safety and the presenters said they were “after yes votes,” but the transcript does not show a formal board action adopting or endorsing the referendum at the meeting.

Board members thanked the committee for outreach and said they would share information with PTA groups and encourage constituents to attend tours. The presenters listed multiple upcoming public information sessions and tours (the presentation named a Waterfront Convention Center session and additional dates).