Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Engineers present Prescott transfer‑station 90% plan; council hears roughly $18.5M estimate, asks for capacity and cost‑benefit analysis
Loading...
Summary
Consultants presented a 90% master plan for the Sundog Ranch Road transfer station, proposing a new 17,000 sq. ft. transfer building, about 30 new city vehicle stalls and operational separation of recycling. Engineers estimated an $18.5 million project in today’s dollars; moving to a new site was roughly estimated at $62 million. Council asked for a more detailed capacity and cost‑benefit analysis before committing to a funding approach.
Consultants and city staff presented a 90% transfer‑station master plan to the Prescott City Council on March 10, laying out operational improvements, environmental controls and a preliminary cost estimate.
Brady Higgs, the city’s field operations manager, told the council the plan was intended to give the city a basis for discussions with Yavapai County about a 1991 intergovernmental agreement that currently governs use and cost sharing of the Sundog Ranch Road transfer station. "We needed to have a number to be able to go to [the county] and let them know, Hey, this is what we're looking to do," Higgs said.
Brett Wolf of JR Miller & Associates, the lead consultant, described regional growth that has strained operations: population in Yavapai County grew about 20% from 2014–2024, and consultant charts showed a rise in self‑haul customer trips (about +15,000) and tonnage (about +18,000 tons/year). The proposed site plan repurposes the north side of the facility for recycling only and adds a new, south‑edge transfer building of roughly 17,000 square feet, plus about 30 new oversized stalls for city vehicles and significantly more self‑haul unloading stalls.
"The new transfer station is about 30 to 40% bigger," Wolf said, adding that self‑haul unloading capacity could increase by about 50% because of the additional stalls. Consultants also proposed bioswales to pretreat stormwater, drought‑tolerant plantings and a 6‑foot solid screen wall to buffer the Peavine Trail.
On costs, the consultant presented an engineer's opinion of probable cost: building and site construction ≈ $12.7 million; project development/soft costs ≈ $3.6 million; permits and fees ≈ $320,000; owner‑provided items and contingency ≈ $1.8 million — for a grand total of about $18.5 million in today's dollars. Consultants also showed a new‑site scenario that included land acquisition and new infrastructure and produced a rough order of magnitude near $62 million, noting that a multi‑year delay could increase price by an annual 4–5% construction escalation.
Council members focused on budget, capacity and intergovernmental issues. The city’s finance representative said the project would be considered in the next solid waste rate study and implemented through rates; the mayor warned the solid waste enterprise fund has been operating in the red and said the city must consider fee increases or service reductions. Councilman Gamboji asked for a cost‑benefit and capacity analysis that quantifies truck time and resident wait time and examines whether county tonnage is crowding city capacity; staff said fee‑booth software now collects self‑reported data on whether waste originates inside the city or the county (staff cautioned the data is not ID‑verified).
Staff noted the existing IGA includes language about cost sharing for facility updates and said the original split was roughly 65% city / 35% county based on population; staff said that formula could be revisited in talks with the county. Next steps identified by staff include finalizing the master plan narrative, initiating conversations with Yavapai County on cost participation, and returning with design and funding details ahead of a FY2031 design consideration and potential FY2032–34 construction timeline.
The council did not take action; members asked staff and the consultant to return with a capacity analysis, a cost‑benefit study and traffic and safety analyses to better evaluate whether to refurbish the existing site or seek a new location.
