Early step for new Inyo office building

Inyo County issued the following press release:

The Inyo County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider entering into an exclusive negotiation agreement with Joseph Enterprises to build and lease a consolidated County office building near Wye Road and Highway 6 in Bishop.


The County issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for Consolidated County Office Space in the Bishop area in early 2009 to hundreds of potential developers and received two proposals. Since that time, staff has been negotiating with both respondents to determine which proposal might best meet the County’s needs. This process is culminating Tuesday with staff recommending that the Board consider entering into exclusive negotiations with Joseph Enterprises to explore the feasibility of the project further.

“Entering into an exclusive negotiation agreement is the next step in the process outlined in the RFP,” said Inyo County Administrative Officer Kevin Carunchio.

Carunchio stressed that the exclusive negotiating agreement is non-binding on the County. He said it does require the preparation of a non-binding Term Sheet, followed by non-binding Concept Plans – showing what County’s office space needs are and where services will be housed – that each must be approved by the Board of Supervisors in open session. If the Board of Supervisors approves of both the (non-binding) Term Sheet and Concept Plans, the last step will be to draft final documents that will be binding on the County if approved by the Board.

“We’ve still got a very long way to go,” Carunchio said. “The only decision that’s being made is who to negotiate further with. If approved, the exclusive negotiation agreement will create a framework to see if this project will ultimately make sense for the County and the developer.”

Consideration of the exclusive negotiation agreement is agendized for action by the Board of Supervisors at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 6th, in the Board of Supervisors Chambers in Independence, California


, , , ,

15 Responses to Early step for new Inyo office building

  1. Dan Watson September 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm #

    Home Girl – the County hasn’t built any buildings in Mammoth Lakes. In fact, I’m not aware of any buildings that they own in Mammoth Lakes. The new courthouse was built by the State to replace an existing courthouse in Mammoth Lakes that was in lease space. It was not built by the County.

  2. Home girl September 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    They have been trying to do the same thing in Mono for years, build all of the county offices and new court buildings in INCORPORATED Mammoth and let the County seat, Bridgeport, die.

  3. Daris September 12, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    Why not build the county services building in the county seat? First DWP with just a few departments to Bishop now all most all are in Bishop, now the courthouse that is purposed in Bishop. No wonder Independence is losing population and having trouble with school enrollment.

    One supervisor stated that it was hard to get high level employees to apply because the job was in Independence. Other parts of the country travel much more than 50 miles to and from work each day.

    If you want to live in Bishop so be it, but get to work where the job is located on your own
    (this includes all county employees present and future).

  4. J.H. September 11, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    I personally regret voting for my supervisor. Hell I went out of my way to vote for the sneak. I don’t see the need for all this wasted money. All I think we need are sidewalks on the roads we already have.

  5. Eamon September 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

    Considering that Inyo County is significantly “behind” in regards technology, services, and “logic” to the rest of the State of California and even Nevada; this is an excellent choice. Building a County center in the only incorporated city in Inyo County as well as the most populous is the logical decision. This type of facility will serve 65% of the County’s residents for decades to come as well as being at the intersection of two major highways and two major retail centers.

  6. JeniferCastaneda September 7, 2011 at 9:07 am #

    The Supes met in closed session for 18 months and then gave the public one business day’s notice before voting to enter into this exclusive negotiation for a 42,000 sq foot building at a cost of $15-$20 Million Dollars. They claim that it is not binding but in a very short time it can be. I agree that consolidation is good. I agree that owning is better than renting. I think the size and cost exceeds the need. They agreed to schedule public meetings in local communities. Please attend and get the facts. It’s our tax dollars and our deb’t and we should be involved in the decision.

  7. downthecreek September 6, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    this thing is already overbudget.


  8. Steve September 6, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    What is wrong with the current facility that a little remodel cannot accomplish?

  9. Sally September 6, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    So we are looking at using a prime piece of commercial property that could generate tax and business dollars for our community and using it for a building that spends those dollars we are so short on?

    Maybe negotiations for local reservation lands should be made like the DMV and feds did. Leave the commercial property to generate revenue. That would be a fantastic location for a truck stop and or light industrial center.

    Just a suggestion….

    • Rob September 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

      Sally – I’ve always been curious about the arrangment between the tribe, the DMV, and the Interagency Command Center.

      I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the State & the Feds built buildings on reservation land and lease the land until hec freezes over from the tribe. This would be a sweetheart deal for the tribe but a terrible deal for us taxpayers.

      Do you or anyone else know the details of these building on reservation land?

  10. Daris September 5, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    I believe that when this parcel was going to be developed in the past the City of Bishop would agree only if all the water,sewer, fire protection, curbs,etc. etc. were installed first. Is this another county expense?

    What about the Truck bypass that is being considered, the map in the Register looked real close to the same area?

    A lot more questions than answers from our supervisors.

  11. JaneE September 5, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    That would be 14 million, plus possibly 750K more. Cost of land, moving, and tenant improvements extra. Sounds like a minimum of 15 million. Can we get a guarantee that the money will be spent via local business and construction firms?

  12. JeniferCastaneda September 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    $2,000,000 upfront
    $600,000 a year for 20 years
    $750,000 in bonus payments
    Donation of 5+ acres of County land at ? value
    Cost of move and staff time
    Cost of tenant improvments
    This is supposed to accomplish the goal of reducing costs to taxpayers
    I have lots of questions….
    Supervisors meeting Tuesday (at 10am I think)

  13. JaneE September 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    “non-binding term sheet” sounds like they haven’t even decided for sure what their words are going to mean. It is hard to estimate what you can’t even define.

  14. bobbie lee swagger September 2, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    maybe it’s just me but i DON’T see any estimated budget in this article

    considering it’s the govt. spending OUR dough

    that’s just a tad scary , ‘taint it ?


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.