Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses staff for refined scope, financing on county capital projects and rural services plan
Summary
Supervisors directed staff to return with financial analysis for a new sheriff administration building, Gurley Street remodel and Commerce Annex and asked for a revised, smaller scope for the Congress rural services project; several supervisors expressed preference to pause the current RFP and rescope.
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
YAVAPAI COUNTY, Ariz. ' The Board of Supervisors discussed a package of capital projects and a countywide rural services study, asking staff to return with financing analysis and a revised scope for a proposed Congress-area multipurpose building.
Tyler Goodman, assistant county manager, told the Board that staff will bring Stifel (financial advisors) to a July 16 study session to present construction estimates and bonding options for three priority projects: a new Yavapai County Sheriff's Office administration building, a remodel of the Gurley Street facility and a proposed Commerce Annex Building B. "On July 16, we plan to bring to the board during a study session, Stifel, who will . . . help us understand bonding capacity," Goodman said.
Nut graf: The Board heard updated cost and schedule estimates and discussed whether to proceed with an existing RFQ for the Congress multipurpose project or to rescope that project as a smaller sheriff substation. Supervisors also emphasized that the county's rural services master plan (deliverable due in August) should inform decisions about new facilities in outlying communities.
Staff presented third-party construction cost estimates prepared by Kitchell: a proposed 40,000-square-foot sheriff administration building was estimated at $30 million and a Gurley Street remodel at $18 million, for a combined $48 million and a combined construction schedule of roughly 48 months. An estimated 48,000-square-foot Commerce Annex Building B was shown at about $30 million and a projected 30-month design-and-construction timeline.
Goodman also reported that the county is in escrow on a separate Commerce Annex land sale with the Town of Prescott Valley, with a negotiated amount of $1,175,000. He said an appraisal for 16.8 acres near Prescott valued the parcel at about $3.5 million; if sold, that transaction would leave roughly 146 acres of county-owned land in that area.
Several supervisors urged a different approach for the Congress-area project (originally a multipurpose building combining library, health services and a sheriff presence). Vice Chair Compton said he wanted to downsize the project to a sheriff substation that could be built faster and at lower cost, and he described an alternative plan that would use donated land in Peoples Valley and seek state funding. "Instead of building a $12,000,000 building, we can build a $4,000,000 building," the vice chair said.
Supervisor Jenkins and others asked for a written revised scope before rejecting the bids already received. Several board members stressed that the rural services master plan's community surveys and department-head input (both underway) should guide final decisions about which services and building types are needed in each rural community.
On procurement questions, County Manager Maury Thompson and staff reminded the Board there is an existing professional-services exception in county procurement policy for smaller projects and that state statute establishes a procurement threshold; they said any use of a professional-services exception requires due diligence and documentation.
Ending: The Board directed staff to return with a financial analysis with Stifel on July 16, to continue discussions with Prescott city staff about the land sale, and to prepare a revised Congress scope in consultation with the sheriff. Members signaled they did not want staff to proceed with the existing RFP while the scope is reconsidered; no binding contract award was made during the study session.
