City and County present scaled-back 60% design for Joint Public Safety Facility; project funding said to be in place

City and county officials and the design team presented a 60% design update for a Joint Public Safety Facility and said the project has been scaled back from an earlier, much larger estimate and is being funded through a mix of grants and local commitments.

Todd Milkey, County administrator, told the joint meeting the project team had been “directed to reduce the project cost significantly by about a third” and reported that the current design-based estimate is roughly $20.6 million to $20.8 million, with staff proposing a rounded working budget of $22 million to include contingency for market uncertainty.

Why it matters: the facility is planned to house emergency management and public-safety communications (PenCom) functions in a single resilient building intended to serve the region during major incidents. Cost, schedule and grant deadlines—especially for a FEMA grant—are driving the design and procurement timeline.

At the presentation, Wendy Head, program manager with OAC Services, said the team achieved the reductions by “optimizing the programs for EOC and PenCom,” reducing circulation, combining a common lobby to eliminate redundant space, moving mechanical rooms to a central location and changing some materials and structural systems. Head outlined five major program changes and several elements that were removed from the initial scope and deferred to future phases, including the radio-frequency antenna, an EM staging area, a solar microgrid (with infrastructure “future-proofed” for panels), future-growth parking and a second backup generator.

Michael Marcus, architect with Henneberry Eddy Architects, walked the group through the updated site plan and floor plans showing the smaller footprint, consolidated mechanical/electrical cores and a barbell-like floor plan intended to reduce duct, plumbing and electrical run lengths. Marcus said the team evaluated two schematic options and pursued one that centered services and used an all-wood structural approach in places to reduce cost while meeting resiliency requirements.

Funding and grants: Milkey reviewed earlier estimates and funding. He said a 2023 rough estimate had been about $12.5 million, design development through mid-2024 escalated the estimate toward $30 million, and the scaled-back design brought the estimate down to roughly $20.6–20.8 million. Presenters listed identified funding sources including a FEMA grant (described as reimbursable and time-sensitive), two Department of Commerce grants, previously committed Phase 2B design funds from the city and county, and approximately $2 million in 9-1-1 reserves. Milkey said the city and county each previously agreed to contribute $3 million to close an earlier funding gap and that the state legislature approved an additional $2 million appropriation. He said, based on the funding identified to that point, “we have a fully funded project,” subject to the contingencies they built into the budget.

Grants timing and FEMA scope change request: presenters emphasized timing risks tied to the FEMA grant. Milkey said staff requested a change of scope with FEMA so the FEMA funds could be used earlier in the work (pre-design/pre-construction) rather than as a construction reimbursement, and that staff had also planned to request a six‑month extension if necessary. He said staff were awaiting a response and that FEMA regional staffing changes had introduced delays in the agency response.

Schedule and next steps: staff reported the project would proceed from 60% design toward 90% design and to a 100% bid-ready set, with soft-cost verification planned in June and a “go/no-go” decision to release bid documents anticipated in August. Milkey outlined an aggressive timeline that would aim for contractor selection and negotiation in the fall and, if market and schedule align, construction mobilization in November and an optimistic completion sometime between late 2026 and spring 2027. He emphasized the need to keep contingency in place when going to bid.

Questions from council and commissioners focused on restroom configuration costs, stormwater and parking design (including use of grass-grid staging areas to reduce impervious surface), whether the project team had identified further options if bids came in higher than funding, and the building design’s daylighting and security features for PenCom. Presenters said they had layered contingencies and built in design choices to permit deductive alternatives at bid time (for example, postponing perimeter fencing or potable water tanks) if market conditions made tradeoffs necessary.

Presenters asked the councils to reconvene in late August for the formal go/no-go decision when bid documents are ready. No formal action was taken at the meeting; presenters said the session had been noticed as a special meeting for an informational update and that a future decision point would be scheduled.

Ending: staff said they would continue to seek FEMA guidance on the scope change and keep both governing bodies updated on timing and funding. They recommended maintaining the contingency and returning with 90% and 100% design cost confirmations before committing to construction bids.