A Citizen’s Estimate of PT-01 Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility
By Ed Kettler, 9 July 2026
Executive Summary
The PT-01 Transit Maintenance and Operations Engineers’ Opinion of Probable Cost (EOPC) at
Design 60% is $35,736,622.40, up $7.4 million from the prior fiscal year of $28.3 million. This
number is completely out of line with commercial spaces of similar size and function.
The main purpose of this facility is to maintain municipal vehicles. The current proposed
solution has three bays with a maximum capacity of six vehicles. The three bays come to $12
million per bay, or $6 million per vehicle, simply by dividing the estimate by the bay or vehicle
count. While this is a simple mathematical approach, it does highlight the need to dive into the
Public Works/Kimley-Horn estimates to understand the huge cost differences.
Two common methods were employed to assess other ways to provide alternative estimates for
the facility:
- Comparative Analysis of Vehicle Maintenance Facilities
- Steel Frame Building Construction
The two methods delivered estimates ranging from $7.1 to $16.0 million, with cost per bay
ranging from $2.4 to $5.3 million and cost per vehicle between $1.2 and $2.7 million. The worst-
case value of $16 million is $20 million less than Kimley-Horn’s $36 million EOPC. Kimley-Horn
and Sedona Public Works need to provide a detailed breakdown of their estimates, describe
their estimating process and provide justifications.
Sedona is grossly overspending on this project. $36 million EOPC is irrational because it is 2 to 5
times higher than the alternative estimates, and should be deeply investigated and revised, or
the whole project canceled.
The time to make changes is in the Design Phase, not Construction. The time is now.
Overview
Capital Improvement Project PT-01 Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility (TMOF) is
currently at the 60% completion of the Design Phase, and has an Engineers’ Opinion of Probable
Cost (EOPC) at 60% is $35,736,622.40. This amount is reflected in the FY 26-27 Budget,
representing a $7,418,622/26.2% increase from the FY 25-26 budget of $28,318,000. The facility
is composed of administration and maintenance facilities, with three maintenance bays with a
maximum capacity of six vehicles. If you take the almost $36 million and divide it into the
capacity numbers, you get some irrational numbers:
- $36 million / number of bays (3) = $12 million per bay
- $36 million / maximum number of vehicles (6) = $6 million per vehicle
The bay and vehicle capacities represent the primary operational necessity and value this facility
is purported to deliver, the same type of metrics that have been applied to the Uptown Parking
Garage with a cost per space of $92,500. While this is a simple mathematical approach, it does
highlight the need to dive into the Public Works/Kimley-Horn estimates to understand the huge
cost differences.
Neither of the bay or vehicle capacity costs represent anything close to reality in commercial
environments in the local area.
The purpose of this document is to display two different estimating approaches to provide
alternatives to Kimley-Horn’s Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost:
- Comparative Analysis of Vehicle Maintenance Facilities
- Steel Frame Building Construction
so that the City of Sedona’s staff and City Council can open a discussion with Kimley-Horn and
Public Works to understand how their estimates were created, and validate the estimates.
The fueling facility was deliberately omitted because there are plenty of gas stations in the area,
and it would be politically ill advised to take money away from constituents. Also omitted was a
separate $5 million CIP for intersection improvements at 89A.
The two methods delivered estimates ranging from $7.1 to $16.0 million, with cost per bay
ranging from $2.4 to $5.3 million and cost per vehicle between $1.2 and $2.7 million. The worst
case value of $16 million is $20 million less than Kimley-Horn’s $36 million EOPC. The $36
million estimate is irrational because it is 2 to 5 times higher than the alternative estimates.
The time to make changes is in the Design Phase, not Construction. The time is now.
Government Versus Commercial Building Practices
Before examining the two estimating methods and results, we need to defuse some of the likely
criticisms of the approaches.
- The cost per bay/cost per vehicle is simplistic.
Response: Agreed. It is meant to give a comparison and draw attention to the apparent
high cost per delivery capability. It is analogous to the $92,500 per parking space at the
new Uptown Parking Garage. - You are not taking into account a fifty-year life span.
Response: Aircraft hangars are designed to last well past 50 years if properly maintained.
Many commercial steel frame structures in the Phoenix area are over fifty years old. - You can’t compare aircraft hangars and commercial vehicle facilities to a municipal
vehicle repair facility.
Response: Aircraft hangars are storage and maintenance facilities. Commercial vehicle
facilities currently maintain Sedona’s and other Verde Valley fleets. - You did not consider the site prep and hidden infrastructure
Response: Site prep costs are included in the estimates for each approach, plus they are
also embedded in the values used in the comparatives as combined land and building
FCVs are used. The land is relatively flat and there should be limited grading needed to
get to level for building. There is a separate line item for Maintenance Fit in the Buildout
estimates to include equipment and any specialized construction. The comparative
properties already have special drainage for hazmat, oil, etc. Allowance is also included
in the “Max” values for items like reinforced floors in the service bays. For the Steel
Frame estimates, the estimates also include up to three (3) times the commercial
starting estimate of $150 per square foot: $450 per square foot. The solar panel array is
literally across the fence from the new facility. The solar arrays and EV charging are not
included in the $36 million budget at this time. - Did you include city employees into your estimate?
Response: No. These employees should be rolled into the $36 million Public
Works/Kimley-Horn estimate as well. - Municipal construction is much more expensive than commercial because of X, Y, Z
Response: The two estimating approaches have a range of estimates to allow
comparisons: the Min/Max/Average for the Comparative Approach and the variable
price per square foot for the Steel Frame for up to 3 times the commercial rate. The City
can choose the highest cost for their discussions.
Even considering the above items, Sedona is grossly overspending on this project.
Read more in the PDF File:
Floor Plan
Learn more from Concept Site Plans:
Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility Budget Year Graph
Recent Posts:
Thank you, Ed Kettler, for your insightful and precise review and report. Everyone should take the time to read this and grasp how our city is heading towards yet another misguided costly project. Why would they construct such an extravagant and costly luxury bus barn at the Dells?
The city is out of control. Vote for change.
VOTE NO on Home Rule prop 400.
Vote YES to proposition 403 preserve the Culture Park.
VOTE in Sedona residence first slate.
Henry Silbiger for Mayor
Lita A Boyd, Rich Gay, Jean Buillet, for City Council