Yucaipa council pauses bid-driven library build as expected city share swells to about $10 million

City staff told the Yucaipa City Council on Feb. 10 that construction bids for a planned new library raised the projected cost and increased the city's expected contribution to about $10 million, and recommended the council not proceed under the current timetable.

The recommendation followed an extended presentation by city staff and partners on a library project that began with a $9 million state matching grant. The city and its partners had worked to assemble matching funds, including $6 million in partner commitments. Staff said the design‑build procurement produced an average estimated construction price of $25 million, raising the city's share to about $10 million once site improvements and ineligible costs are included.

City Finance Director Phil White told the council the city's unrestricted ("unassigned") reserve balance is roughly $14.5 million and that a $10 million draw would consume about two‑thirds of that balance. "Once that unassigned is gone, that means that we have serious problems," White said, urging caution about committing the funds.

The recommendation from staff was clear: because the city would be required to cover a substantially larger portion of the project than anticipated, staff advised against moving forward on the current schedule. "Staff is making the recommendation that the city council not proceed with the project," project lead Joe Pedeto said during the report.

Council members and members of the public urged continued effort to save the project. Presenters at the meeting included a representative of one of the design‑build teams, Bianca Nuf1ez of Erickson Hall Construction, who said the firms remained available to continue conversations and that interviews would allow more dialogue about delivery methods. Residents and civic leaders including Dr. Hansen Wong and Mark Westwood urged the council to keep pursuing ways to preserve the grant and complete a new library.

After discussion the council directed staff to pursue an extension of the state grant deadline where possible, to continue talks with project partners and potential funders, and to return with a recommended strategy at the council's first meeting in March. The council motion to have staff report back passed with a majority; one council member said they could not support continuing under the current conditions and indicated a negative vote on the motion.

Staff outlined several financing and schedule constraints that shaped its recommendation: the state grant requires a 100% match of eligible costs; additional federal earmarks and private philanthropy remain possible but are uncertain and typically take time to secure; and certain site and site‑improvement costs are not grant eligible and therefore fall to the city. Staff also flagged that the current fiscal year began with a structural deficit that is being addressed and that using a large share of reserves would reduce the city's financial flexibility.

City staff said they would seek clarity from the State Library on whether the grant deadline can be extended and how much additional time might be granted, then consult project partners about any scope, procurement or schedule changes that would make the project viable. The council set the next check‑in for the first meeting in March.

If the council ultimately decides to abandon the current plan, staff also noted potential alternative steps such as exploring phased construction, selling or redeveloping the existing library site and adjacent city parcels to raise funds, or expanding cooperative arrangements with nearby jurisdictions while a local project is advanced.

The discussion spanned technical procurement issues (design‑build versus design‑bid‑build), grant timelines and local fiscal policy; staff emphasized that construction inflation and the results of the RFQ process pushed the project beyond the financial assumptions used when the city accepted the state grant.