Inyo County Supervisors reevaluate consolidation of services into one building in Bishop

Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote that “Controversy equalizes fools and wise men – and the fools know it.”

There was very little controversy and therefore likely fewer fools than wise men at Tuesday (Aug. 6) night’s public meeting on the Inyo County building consolidation project held in the Board of Supervisors’ Board Room in Independence. Judging by the small attendance of the public, the idea of consolidating county services in Bishop into one building at the north end of town may have finally arrived after 20 years of discussion.

In the latest online survey by the Inyo Register Newspaper, 54% favor the proposed county building. According to County Administrative Officer Kevin Carunchio, transparency is important.

There was no opposition voiced to the project from either the public or any of the county supervisors. If anything the sentiments in the room appeared to range from acceptance to optimism, due largely to a very thorough 56-slide presentation by Deputy Public Works Director Jim Tatum.

District Supervisor and Board President Linda Arcularius started the meeting by stating that the building design has yet to be determined; that the final decision has yet to be put to a Board vote, and that if it happens, it will be based only on a building that meets the needs of the county departments already providing services in the Bishop area. These points were repeatedly stressed during the meeting.

Carunchio said that the idea for a new county facility in Bishop has been around for at least 20 years, with the last plan from 1998 to 2005 for a “northern campus,” which ranged in size from 42,000-45,000 square feet of office space. At that time the cost was estimated at $14.7 million using traditional debt financing. It simply never got off the ground. Interestingly, the proposed new consolidated building costs are approximately the same as the one eight years earlier.

Why has this idea of a new county building in Bishop resurfaced? Something took place that forced the county to take another serious look at the idea. It was all about money.

“In 2007-2008”, said Carunchio, “there was a building crisis developing in Bishop from increased rentals of privately-owned building in which the square foot costs were raising concerns. We could not afford it.”

The county’s short-term plan to solve that crisis was to relocate some county offices back to Independence and move six offices to new locations in Bishop for a savings of $120,000 a year in rent. The Board then voted to look for better, longer-term solutions, which led to the current proposal. The number one goal is to save money on rent and to be able to use that “saved” money to continue to provide vital county services into the future.

Tatum stressed that the time to act is now. With an improving economy the likely result will be higher rental costs, higher costs for materials, and higher financing rates. Carunchio said that given the significant savings over the long term and the ability to provide “one-stop” county services in a single, accessible location that is designed specifically to meet the needs of the public and the public employees that serve them, simply makes good sense. Seconding that opinion was the 2011-2012 Grand Jury, which after taking a look at the project, recommended that the county pursue the idea.

After the slide presentation, several members of the public spoke to the Board, offering support, concerns, and asking questions about the project.

Independence resident Rich White was supportive of the new building. He said he felt that “having county services spread all over Bishop was ridiculous.” Remembering his own county service 15 years ago as the County Assessor, he said that the South Street county building was inadequate then, and that it surely is no better now.

Questions were asked about building security, the safety of the public while inside the building exposed to others that might present potential health or safety risks, and how confidentiality issues would be handled. For example, “Is it safe for the public to be in the same building with those on county probation, especially one that provides services for children?” and “Is it safe for individuals with infectious or communicable diseases or mental illness to be treated at the health clinic planned in the building without posing a health or safety risk to others?”

Fourth District Supervisor Mark Tillemans asked Tatum whether or not the county had looked at how other counties handle similar security issues. Tatum responded that they have not, but that issues regarding public health, safety, and confidentiality have all been high on the list brought to meetings by department heads and that they are addressing them. Health and Human Services Director Jean Turner added that they are speaking to their counterparts in other counties that have consolidated services in the same building and she feels that it can be worked out.

There were questions regarding adequate storage, as many departments require sizeable space for equipment and supplies used in their programs. Carunchio thought that the county South Street facility might be available as a potential space for off-site storage of paper records and files, although he emphasized that there is an effort in the county to become as “paperless” as possible in the future. The answer to where equipment and other program supplies would be stored was left largely unanswered.

Mary Roper of Independence inquired about the flexibility of the new building to accommodate additional or future needs of county programs. Tatum expressed confidence that it would have the built-in flexibility to meet them. Carunchio added that he frankly doesn’t see Inyo County government growing any larger.

Fifth District Supervisor Matt Kingsley noted that it should not be assumed that the only growth would take place in Bishop; to which Supervisor Arcularius agreed, saying that most likely any future growth is likely to be in the south county where there is more available private land and room for growth.

Tamara Cohn, the Director of Public Health, Programs and Clinical Services for Health and Human Services, stood to voice her opinion that the health clinic on South Street should be in the new building, and that it would be unfair to both the public and the staff to be left in a building that is simply not in good condition.

Nancy Masters of Independence expressed concern over the “balloon payments” as part of the financing agreement. “Would the money be “set-aside?” she asked, “And what would happen if the county could not make the payment?” To which Carunchio responded that he felt the county should put money aside leading up to the payments, adding that a former budget director told him that you always budget your debt first.

All-in-all, this first public meeting on the consolidation of services in Bishop into a new county-owned building went smoothly. Future public meetings are scheduled for Lone Pine on Monday, August 12 at 6 p.m.at Statham Hall; and in Bishop on Monday, August 19 at 6 p.m. at the City of Bishop Council Chamber.