Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County staff urge updated facilities assessment and service‑level standards to avoid costly replacements

Yolo County Board of Supervisors · November 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

General Services reported that many county buildings are aging, recommended an updated facilities condition assessment (last done in 2014), and proposed adopting APPA service‑level standards and sustainable funding models to reduce deferred maintenance and long‑term replacement costs.

Yolo County’s General Services Department told the Board on Nov. 18 that many county buildings are reaching milestones that typically trigger major maintenance or replacement and recommended a structured approach to facilities planning and funding.

Ryan (Director of General Services) said the county has roughly 850,000 square feet of facility space with an estimated average replacement value of about $591 per square foot—totaling an order‑of‑magnitude replacement value in the hundreds of millions. "If every building was demolished and had to be rebuilt, we're looking at a half $1,000,000,000 as the current replacement value of every building," he said, then described immediate next steps: update the facilities condition assessment (funded in the current budget), assign condition scores, and develop prioritized capital and maintenance plans.

Staff proposed adopting APPA facility service‑level standards (levels 1–5) to define expectations across custodial, grounds and maintenance work and discussed possible funding models such as a dollar‑per‑square‑foot annual allocation or targeted funds for high‑wear items (flooring, painting, HVAC). Ryan emphasized that the current cost‑recovery model (billing departments for work orders) can disincentivize preventative maintenance and recommended exploring longer‑term funding to preserve assets.

Board discussion covered the need to group buildings by public visibility and use, rightsizing staff workloads, procurement complexity and a potential role for the Committee on Capital Investments (CCI) to flesh out service levels and funding recommendations. Several supervisors signaled support for moving toward a level of "comprehensive stewardship" to avoid costlier repairs down the line.

Next steps: staff will complete the contracted facilities condition assessment, return with scored priorities and recommended service levels and funding options for Board review (proposed discussion at CCI).