Council authorizes shortlist step for downtown parking garage design-build after extended debate over bonds and scope

The Edinburg City Council on Feb. 4 authorized staff to advance up to five shortlisted teams to the second step of a design-build selection process for a downtown parking garage (RFQ No. 2025-002), after an extended debate about scope, budget and earlier renderings of the project.

Councilmembers and members of the public raised concerns about the project’s original design, the cost of prior bids, the $6 million in EDC- and city-related bond funds available for parking, and whether the city should instead acquire nearby property for surface parking. Supporters of continuing the process said the design-build route is a way to bring the project within budget while meeting minimum parking commitments to Hidalgo County.

Project background and budget: Tom Green, assistant city manager, told the council an earlier design bid had returned above $15 million and that the initial rendering’s cost exceeded the funds available. “Our bid came out when we did put it out for bid was over $15,000,000, which was still over exactly what we had in our budget,” Green said. Staff said the current shortlisting step is the first of a two-step design-build process: qualified teams would be shortlisted, then asked to submit proposals and budgets for evaluation.

Design, parking count and scope: Earlier renderings called for roughly 290–295 parking spaces in the original design; staff said a budget-constrained design would aim for “a little above 255” spaces while meeting the council’s minimum contractual requirement for county parking in the downtown area. City staff and the project manager said the shortlisted teams would be asked to prepare preliminary designs and a working budget at the bidders’ cost; those proposals would return to council for approval.

Debate over transparency and alternatives: Several council members criticized what they described as insufficient transparency about changes in scope since the original public rendering and urged staff to present updated plans to the public. Other members, noting the city’s commitments linked to prior bond issuances and county needs, argued it would be fiscally responsible to continue the procurement process and evaluate actual proposals.

Design-build process explained: Carlos Alangel of Brownstone Consultants summarized the statutory two-step design-build process for the council, saying the city may shortlist between one and five teams and later request detailed proposals, pricing elements and interviews with selected teams. “The statute for design build is, laid out as a 2 step process,” Alangel said. Selected teams would present proposals that include preliminary design and a working budget; the council would then decide whether to proceed to a final contract.

Decision and next steps: After debate the council voted to allow all qualified contractors on the shortlist to submit proposals (step two); staff said proposals and costs returned in step two would be ranked and brought back for council consideration. Councilmembers asked that staff present clear, public-facing information at the next meeting to explain the project history, budget parameters and what the shortlisted teams would be asked to deliver.

Why it matters: The project is tied to prior bond funds and county parking needs and could affect downtown growth and use of EDC funds. Council members and the public raised competing visions for downtown—clustered multi-story parking to serve courts and events versus dispersing parking across purchased surface lots to leave room for long-term downtown growth.