Raymore council agrees to start design procurement for proposed Justice Center
Loading...
Summary
Raymore staff briefed the council on a multi-year Justice Center plan and the city signaled consensus to issue an RFQ for conceptual design so voters can see proposals before a potential no-tax-increase bond is placed on a future ballot.
Raymore City Council members on Feb. 2 agreed to begin the procurement process for conceptual designs for a proposed Justice Center, leaving any final decision about a bond vote to a later date.
City staff told the council they completed a 2022 space-needs study by Hofer Welker (finalized in 2023) that recommended facilities to serve the police department, municipal court and emergency management. Staff said a no-tax-increase general obligation bond could generate “slightly more than $31,000,000, for the construction of the justice center,” and that the city currently holds about $3,900,000 in a reserved federal COVID fund that could be paired with a bond.
The immediate request from staff was not to place a bond on the ballot but to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) to hire a design firm to produce conceptual renderings and cost estimates for public review. “We just want voters to make sure that they have a clear understanding of what we’re talking about,” Mr. Murdoch said during the presentation.
Council members pressed staff on timing and cost assumptions. Mr. Murdoch said the original space-needs study modeled an upper-end scenario of about $28,000,000 for a 50,000-square-foot building, a size he said the city would likely not pursue. Councilmember Baker raised uncertainty around Senate Bill 3 and potential effects on property valuations and debt capacity, saying research suggested “potentially $2,000,000 out of our budget if that passes.” Staff replied that the bill’s related litigation is in Cole County (Judge Lindbergh) and quoted a court case number for reference: 25ACCCO7281.
Council members disagreed about timing for a ballot measure. Some members favored preparing materials and pursuing a November ballot if deadlines are met; others urged delaying to 2027 so voters have more time to absorb recent tax measures and to avoid perception issues. Staff repeatedly stressed that issuing an RFQ and developing concept designs would not be the final step and that the council would retain the option to decide later whether to place a bond before voters.
The council indicated a consensus to start the RFQ/concept-design process, with staff to return with procurement details, public-engagement plans and more precise cost estimates before any bond authorization is sought.
The council adjourned without taking a final vote on a bond measure; any formal ballot placement would require separate council action and adherence to county deadlines.
