Camden County work session narrows scope for multiuse sports complex after single bid and financing concerns

County administrator opened a work session presentation on the proposed multiuse sports complex renovation, summarizing a conceptual site plan that includes realigning the entrance road, enlarging the asphalt parking area, installing a new restroom and playground, building a maintenance area, and adding irrigation, lighting, ball-stop netting and new turf for the fields (00:05:32).

The county'funded design shown to commissioners calls for roughly 213 total parking spaces after adding about 73 aggregate overflow spaces where the Kwanzaa huts now sit, new sidewalks and site canopy, and ADA accessibility. Staff said the total project estimate on the plan is just over $4.8 million; engineers and consultants (Davenport & Company and Thomas & Hutton on the materials presented) also provided three financing scenarios for a $4,000,000 loan that vary by repayment structure and early payoff timing tied to anticipated SPLOST proceeds (00:09:30).

"We put out the project to bid, and we just got our bids back. We only received one bid," the county administrator told the board (00:08:19). Commissioners were shown that the single bid came in higher than the conceptual numbers and were offered two basic next steps: value-engineer the plan to reduce cost or reject the sole bid and rebid to obtain additional responses for better benchmarking.

Community users and commissioners focused debate on which elements are essential. Mike, a representative of the county soccer club, urged the board to prioritize the playing surface, irrigation and lights: "Our concern is the playing surface of the complex and potentially the parking," he said, adding that the club does not manage parking or ADA duties because "it's your complex" (00:18:53). He and other users described safety hazards on the current turf, reported minor injuries tied to field conditions, and asked that irrigation be reliable to prevent rapid deterioration.

Commissioners and staff discussed trade-offs in line items. Staff presented a reduced, site-focused package (fields, irrigation, lighting, structured parking and shade) that cuts out the new vertical elements (a new restroom, playground, water/sewer main and a new maintenance building) and reduces scope from the roughly $4.8 million conceptual total to about $2,929,390; adding an entry-road alternative would raise that to approximately $3,074,510 (00:40:24).

On utilities, engineers reported the existing well is inoperable and that a new well and pump sized to provide irrigation capacity were specified (engineers estimated a 20-horsepower pump and a 6-inch well). Commissioners asked whether a new well and septic would be less expensive than running city water and sewer to the site; staff cautioned that DNR/EPD permitting and proximity to city infrastructure could prevent relying solely on septic and that permitting would need to be confirmed (00:20:17).

Storage and maintenance logistics were debated. Several commissioners and staff said moving or reusing the existing Kwanzaa huts for equipment storage could reduce cost versus constructing a new maintenance building; others cautioned that removing hut storage would encroach on parking. Staff noted that PSA equipment stored on-site will be relocated only when a new storage location is identified (00:32:10).

Contracting strategy produced split views. Several commissioners supported rebidding the project with line-item alternates and clearer delineation of the base bid and alternates so the board can remove or add components without redoing the full design; staff advised that rebidding with the same exact plan could yield similar results and recommended either rebidding with clarified alternates or conducting internal value-engineering before a second bid (00:33:50).

No formal action or vote occurred at the work session. Staff asked for clearer direction about which items the board is willing to forego; commissioners agreed to continue discussion at a follow-up work session. The administrator said staff will return with a value-engineered plan or a rebid plan depending on the direction provided (01:02:20). The board did not commit to a final financing structure; staff highlighted that scenario 3 (short-term interest-only with planned early payoff from SPLOST proceeds) reduces near-term general-fund contributions but carries timing risk if SPLOST receipts are delayed.

What this means: users and staff urged retaining irrigation, lighting and improved parking as the minimum necessary work; commissioners asked staff to produce a rebid with clearer alternates and to quantify savings from specific line-item cuts before authorizing major vertical construction. A follow-up work session was scheduled to provide more direction and to review any revised bid documents or value-engineered plan (01:02:20).