Board seeks detailed cost comparison after medical‑examiner briefing and site visits; more proposals requested

Mohave County health and administrative staff reported to the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 18 about recent site visits and the county's options for medical examiner services. The presentation by Director Palmer compared Coconino County’s in‑house model to the county’s current contracted service and outlined capital, staffing and operating cost drivers.

Director Palmer said Coconino County’s facility handles about 1,000 cases annually and stores 25 bodies on site; county staff contrasted that with Mohave County’s contracted model and a Fort Mohave facility that currently stores about 40 bodies and handles medical‑examiner duties under a contract. Palmer told the board that Coconino paid about $8.5 million to renovate and equip its facility (presentation cited renovations and a grant to buy equipment) and that recruiting and retaining forensic pathologists is difficult and expensive — "expect to pay 300 to 300,000 per year for a forensic pathologist," staff said.

A local Kingman pathologist, Dr. Daniel Sudolowski, told the board that other viable, lower‑cost service models exist and said Coconino’s published turnaround times are faster than some public perceptions: "80 percent of their bodies are released within 24 hours," he said.

Why it matters: medical examiner services are mandated and sensitive. The board must balance timeliness and dignity for decedents and families, operational reliability for law‑enforcement investigations, and the county’s fiscal constraints. Staff told the board an annual baseline for contracted services was about $1.11 million; bringing services fully in house would add both recurring personnel costs and one‑time capital costs if the county builds or converts a morgue.

Board direction: supervisors accepted the monthly medical examiner report and asked staff for a clearer, itemized estimate that compares: the county’s current contracted cost baseline; the projected recurring cost for an in‑house model (staffing, benefits, overtime, on‑call pay, toxicology and equipment maintenance); the potential capital cost range for a county facility conversion or purchase; and a written proposal from Kingman pathologists describing what services they could provide and at what price. Several supervisors said they would prefer alternative proposals and additional documentation before any decision to build or to bring services fully inside county government.

Next steps: staff will compile a comparative cost estimate (recurring and capital), solicit any proposals from local pathologists or providers, and return to the board with a procurement‑compliant recommendation and the range of implementation options reviewed.