Lock Haven council tables police building award after funding, scope concerns

Lock Haven City Council debated whether to award construction contracts for a proposed new police building after staff presented low bids that together totaled about $3.78 million and outlined remaining funding gaps.

City staff told council that low bidders included Dixon AC&R Corporation (mechanical, $126,333), GR Noll Electrical Construction (electrical, $746,115), Allen Mechanical and Electrical (plumbing, $201,900), and Mid‑State Construction (general construction, about $2,703,786), yielding an aggregate low‑bid sum the staff recorded at roughly $3,778,534. Staff said subsequent value‑engineering negotiations with the general contractor could reduce the cost by about $400,000–$450,000 but that a project funding gap of roughly $172,590 to $344,456 could remain depending on final negotiated reductions.

Council discussion ranged from support for a new facility to repeated concerns about affordability, long‑term maintenance and alternatives. Several council members noted a 2021 feasibility study showing a current need larger than the planned new structure and asked why the proposed 6,000‑square‑foot design would not meet that study’s recommended square footage. Others pressed whether remaining City Hall repair needs should be addressed instead of building a separate facility. Staff noted possibilities for reusing some items from the existing space and described steps to isolate a police facility in City Hall if council chose rehabilitation instead of new construction; code and systems isolation (separate HVAC/plumbing/electrical and required fire separations) would add complexity and cost to a renovation option.

On motions, council conducted two competing actions: one to award the contracts as presented and another to table the award for a week to allow a small building committee and staff to pursue additional engineering review, seek clarifying code guidance and verify bid hold periods. The motion to table carried by recorded vote: Council member Mizzouri voted No; Council member Clausen Yes; Council member Alexander Yes; Council member Conklin No; Council member Brinker Yes; Council member Brand No; Mayor Long Yes. Because the tabling motion passed, council did not immediately authorize final contract signatures; staff was directed to pursue value‑engineering discussions with Mid‑State Construction, confirm whether bidders will hold prices, and work on gap‑funding options (including a potential $500,000 borrowing request to be brought forward in ordinance form at a later meeting).

Councilmembers and staff agreed to assemble a small building committee to meet with engineers and code reviewers (a "Frank" referenced in the packet as a reviewer for code compliance was requested to attend if possible) and return with more precise estimates and clarifications. The council recorded concerns about the long history of the project, prior decisions about City Hall, the source and structure of existing borrowing, and the public perception of spending. No final contract was signed and the issue will return to council after the follow‑up work.

Next steps: staff will pursue value‑engineering negotiations with the recommended contractors, check whether bids can be held, pursue identified gap funding options, and convene a short building committee to meet with design/code professionals; council scheduled a review in roughly one week.