Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Health Department topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions $2.75M Verizon-building renovation request; finance director points to bond timing
Summary
The Health Department requested $2.75 million for renovations to the Verizon building; councilors asked for itemized estimates and finance staff said bond-authority timing (first reading in July) affects when funds will be available.
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Health Department topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The county's proposed budget includes a $2.75 million request for renovations to the former Verizon building to house the Health Department. At the May 2025 work session councilors questioned the size of the estimate and asked for itemized cost information before committing bond funding.
"I just don't see how that's gonna go through," one council member said, noting that the county has not received an itemized cost estimate. Finance Director Pamela Lynn confirmed the administration had internal estimates but said an itemized design bid has not yet been received. "We have estimates, and that is unfortunately how we do most of our budgeting," Lynn said, explaining that up-front bids are not always available until a design RFP is out.
Lynn told the council the administration planned to bond the project if approved and that the bond-timing schedule requires the first reading of the enabling legislation in July to meet the project timeline. She suggested the council could move some PAYGo-funded projects to bond funding to free PAYGo dollars for the Verizon renovation if the council preferred a different funding mix.
Council members asked whether the health department could delay work until detailed design and firm bids were available. Lynn and staff said the design RFP was on the street and that the county had had two interested parties contact the county about acquiring the building, but councilors insisted on an itemized renovation cost before bonding the amount included in the proposed budget.
No final funding decision was made; staff said they would return with an itemization and options for funding (bond vs. PAYGo) and proposed shifting other projects if council wants to reduce the bond amount in the fiscal package.

