Tazewell County board narrowly approves procurement amendment for PJ Harris, then sends resolution back to committee

Tazewell County board members on Oct. 29 debated a resolution (P25-18) to use construction manager PJ Harris to oversee scheduled capital projects and to solicit subcontract bids for specified renovations, approving an amendment that requires the firm to follow the county's procurement procedures in resolution E1184 but ultimately referring the amended measure back to committee for further study.

The amendment to P25-18—moved on the floor and read aloud during the meeting—would add this sentence to the resolution: "PJ Harris Incorporated will follow the procurement procedures set forth by the County Board in resolution E1184 with regards to conditions for use and the bidding process rules with all projects listed and any additional projects added." The amendment passed on a roll-call vote announced by the clerk as 9 yes, 8 no.

The debate that preceded the vote focused on how PJ Harris would solicit and present bids, whether that process would be equivalent to the county's formal competitive-bid process and whether the arrangement shifted authority away from elected officials. One board member said the change "takes authority away from elected officials and put[s] it in unelected officials," and warned that stricter rules should apply when the county is spending "40 to $50,000,000" on capital projects.

County legal counsel Holmes answered questions from the board about statutory compliance, stating that competitive-bidding statutes had been followed in the contract award and that the board may choose how it wants to proceed under the existing contract. "The competitive bidding statutes were followed," Holmes said, adding that the board could require individual projects to be subject to full competitive bidding if it preferred.

Members also debated the financial impact of the contract-management fee. Officials identified PJ Harris's contract fee as 2.75% of project cost; one speaker estimated roughly $8 million of work planned under PJ Harris, and a 2.75% fee on that volume was described in the discussion as approximately $220,000 (one speaker framed the change as "just increased the cost of this project by a quarter million dollars"). The treasurer clarified that the 2.75% fee was already included in current bid pricing and therefore had not been newly added by the amendment.

After the amendment passed, a board member moved to send the amended resolution back to the property committee for additional drafting and review; the motion to refer the item back to committee carried on a recorded vote and the resolution will be returned to committee rather than be adopted at this meeting.

The board did not adopt P25-18 as final policy at the Oct. 29 session. Next steps are for staff and the property committee to refine the language and for the item to return to the full board for further consideration.