The Benton County Board of Commissioners voted on a course of financing for the proposed new county government center and directed staff to begin the HRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority) lease revenue bond process, while scheduling meetings to preserve current contractor bids and advance the permitting timeline.

The move follows months of public meetings, a reverse-referendum effort that produced roughly 1,900 validated petition signatures asking for a public vote, and a set of certified construction bids that came in at $24.5 million — about $5.2 million lower than earlier estimates in the county’s capital improvement plan.

Commissioners debated whether to put the project to a public vote, reject the contractor bids and rebid the work, or proceed using an HRA lease revenue bond to finance construction. The board ultimately gave staff direction to begin the HRA lease revenue bond work and to schedule two near-term actions: a special county board meeting the week of June 23 to accept or act on the current contractor bids and a public hearing at the HRA on July 8 (08:30 a.m.) to consider a redevelopment plan and the set-sale resolution needed to issue lease revenue bonds. County staff told commissioners that the current certified bids needed action by June 28 to hold pricing tied to current material guarantees.

Commissioners were divided. Several members said they supported moving forward now to secure the lower bid environment and avoid future price escalation. Others said they wanted the public to get a vote in a future general election and objected to using an HRA lease financing pathway without a referendum. The board’s discussion included practical concerns about scheduling, the cost of special elections (estimated at roughly $50,000), the immediate cash available for the project (about $2 million on hand), and the risk that delaying rebids could produce substantially higher prices.

Board members also repeatedly cited public safety and building-condition issues inside the existing county government center, including the county’s server room location and security/egress concerns, as part of the rationale for moving forward with a permanent facility. At the same time, petition organizers and several public commenters urged the board to let voters decide.

The board did not adopt a final construction contract on the floor at this meeting; instead members approved the procedural steps needed to keep current certified bids available and to start the HRA bond process. County staff and the board’s bond advisor were instructed to draft the set-sale documents and publish the public hearing notices for the HRA redevelopment plan. County staff said that if the board wanted to preserve the current steel pricing and other bid components, accepting or otherwise acting on bids before June 28 was necessary.

Next steps identified by county staff: a short, special board meeting the week of June 23 to act on bids; an HRA public hearing and set-sale resolution in early July; and an August bond sale if the HRA and county proceed on the timetable staff described. County staff and the board emphasized that HRA lease revenue bonds are not general-obligation bonds and typically carry a modest yield premium over a typical CIP general-obligation issue, but can be issued without the reverse-referendum petition process that applies to some types of county bond issues.

What’s next: The county will publish the HRA redevelopment-plan hearing notice and the set-sale materials in local papers, convene the special board meeting the week of June 23 to address bids, and proceed with bond-advisor work if the HRA public hearing and set-sale resolution move forward.

The issue will return to the board for final decisions on awarding any construction contract and any formal financing motions after the HRA process advances.