A victims advocacy center remains the Gilbert Police Department’s highest priority project, but the town needs to identify funding for nearly half of the $85 million project.
The town has about $43 million set aside for the center, more than enough to complete Phase 1 of the project, for which construction is anticipated to start next fall. That will bring a 26,266-square-foot building to the public safety complex on Civic Center Drive.
That building will house investigations, advocacy and counseling services for victims.
“We made sure that Phase 1 has everything we need at buildout to take care of the victims,” Police Chief Michael Soelberg told council and executive staff at a recent town workshop on capital improvement projects. “But what is left out of that in Phase 2 and Phase 3 is the actual work locations for our employees that will be working at the advocacy center and Phase 3 being a multipurpose room.”
The money set aside thus far comes from the American Rescue Plan, a COVID-19 stimulus package passed by Congress in March 2021, and from the town’s general fund.
Terms from the ARPA funding dictate that the town must have construction started by January 2025.
Phase 2 would be workspace and an employee wellness space for essential advocacy center personnel. The price tag is expected to be $42 million.
“Phase 2 is extremely important because it's instrumental to make Phase 1 work,” Soelberg said. “We've got a plan to get by, but hopefully not more than a year that we have to get by.”
Phase 3 is for training and conference space with a budget of $13.8 million, though Soelberg said that is a standalone estimate when that part likely would be part of other projects, bringing the cost to this project down.
Soelberg said that phase can wait longer but will eventually be needed for the advocacy center to have its full effect.
The advocacy center is meant to address violent crime, particularly domestic violence and sex crimes, Soelberg said. The center aims to streamline the process for victims and centralize resources.
Such centers employ a multidisciplinary team approach in law enforcement, bringing together law enforcement, child protective services, prosecutors, mental health professionals, medical professionals and victim advocates in one place, rather than having victims transported from place to place and having to relive their trauma multiple times, he said.
“Everything we have done has been trauma-informed design,” Soelberg said. “Making sure that when we do the flow of the building and how everything from the way the building's constructed, the flow of the people, how they enter, how they exit, making sure they don't cross paths with others — that is what has been driving our design.”
That approach has a multitude of advantages, Soelberg said, including:
Reduced trauma to the victim by avoiding multiple interviews;
Forensic interviews and medical exams are expedited and more readily available;
Improved communication and collaboration between teams;
Reduced travel time for victim and family to obtain services;
Reduced travel time for investigators;
Increased prosecution rates;
Increased community awareness and interaction with police.
However, the increased scope of the advocacy center, coming from the addition of second and third phases to the project, in tandem with costs from explosive construction inflation has made the price tag balloon from $16 million for 19,000 square feet to today’s $85 million for 60,540 square feet when completed.
That gave sticker shock to some council members. Councilmember Jim Torgeson pointed to Phase 3, which calls for a 6,000-square-foot building at the $13.8 million price.
“It might be able to be shared, but the cost will be the cost, whether it's just police or police and fire, whatever,” Torgeson said. “That's $2,300 a square foot. That's an amazingly high number. How are we getting to $2,300 a square foot in building something?”
Soelberg reiterated that was a standalone cost, and that it would certainly come down as some design and administrative service costs are packaged with other projects, as well as picking up efficiencies in a value-engineering process.
In a separate discussion, council members considered a combination of sales-tax increases and bonding as possible ways of funding a multitude of desired capital projects, including the completion of the advocacy center.
We would like to invite our readers to submit their civil comments, pro or con, on this issue. Email AZOpinions@iniusa.org. Tom Blodgett can be reached by email at tblodgett@iniusa.org or follow him @sp_blodgett on X.
Meet Tom Tom Blodgett joined Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA, in 2022, when the company acquired Community Impact Newspaper's Phoenix-area properties. Raised in Arizona, he has spent more than 35 years in journalism in the state.
Community: He has served as an instructional professional in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication since 2005, and is editorial adviser to The State Press, the university's independent student media outlet. He also is director of operations for an 18U girls fastpitch softball team from Gilbert.
Education: Arizona State University with a BS in Journalism.
Random Fact: He lived in Belgium during his freshman year of high school.
Hobbies: Tweeting enthusiastically about ASU softball (season-ticket holder) and grumpily about other local sports (pessimistic fan).
By 
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here