Ad Hoc - Building Facilities Vision for the Future Workshop September 19, 2013

Transcription

1 Ad Hoc - Building Facilities Vision for the Future Workshop September 19, 2013 The Building Facilities Vision for the Future Ad Hoc Committee Meeting met on Thursday, September 19, 2013 in the third floor conference room of the County Office Building. Chairperson Brian Vyncke called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM. Committee Members Present: Vyncke, Boyd, Wetzel, Hass, DeLoose, McCune, Harris, Fuhr, Banaszek, Weikert (representing Bierman), Callaway-Thompson, and Kavensky Committee Members Absent: Bierman and Grafton Motion by Wetzel, second by Wendt to approve the minutes of the August 21st meeting. Public Building Commission Couple of resignations from the PBC - Janoski and Gremanis. Appointed Tom McCune and Captain Dick Fisher. Both fill the slots with expertise - Gremanis with property and construction and Janoski with security; replaced with people with that same expertise. CGL Workshop Draft Data Guidelines of how we started off - where we are and going. Wendt didn't feel there were and surprises. Went right to the core and identified the issues. Need to determine which location. Probably have one more meeting and then come together for a recommendation and would like to have a recommendation for the County Board in October. Chairman Banaszek presented plans from Mr. Gremanis - had presented to PBC and the former Chairman some time ago. Claimed there was private funding for it and up until recently he was a member of the PBC which was a huge conflict of interest. Chairman Banaszek advised that would inform the committee, but it was never part of the options. Old school building and administration center; 20th Street and 6th Avenue. With that option, face with the same security issues. Just brought this in Wednesday morning. Motion by Wendt, second by Harris to disregard the option due to security issues and all the issues it does not meet. Carried unanimously. Harris stated that if going to make a decision in the next month or so, that there is information really need to have. Big piece is - what is the carrying cost if move out of this building, faced w/ looking at

2 rehabbing, doing nothing or building completely new. If move to Christiansen or sitting on this, what are the ongoing maintenance costs to leave structure here - how quickly find another use. Taxpayer has a right to know what carrying costs would be. Wendt felt logical if decide to keep COB, move courthouse in and then temporarily move COB into Courthouse while renovation and then move back here. Cost of renovation or comparable new construction and there is a hidden cost of what to do with this building. Vyncke added that structurally, this building is very good. Have to get buy in from the voters. Do we want everything to be located in the downtown area or not? Callaway-Thompson stated that CGL felt that should really be a consideration of this committee - do we want a civic center or move our COB to an industrial center? Hass stated that there is an argument that people who use the COB don't always use the CH Vyncke felt easiest sell to public is renovation of the COB - can't offer us our building in his location. Callaway-Thompson stated that it is cheaper and makes sense. So many variables with FF&E that are figured into the comprehensive plan. Wendt added that Scott is in a position where he can see the proposal and can always out bid. He can say it, but it doesn't mean it s true. Recommendation of renovation COB and new CH, it would be less disruptive to taxpayers and staff - still come down here and get their job done, but not to a different site. From a management standpoint, probably the best solution; rehab this building and new CH. Good steward of the taxpayer dollars - renovation will get over 100 years. Christianson has already said supports CH being downtown. Rest of it is up in the air, cheapest way to do it. Wetzel stated that he found a great deal of holes in his building presentation - parking, going into an old building there, many issues that could be encountered with LRC. Most public are used to going to a central core in the county seat. Need to put facilities as close to a central core as possible. Issue needs to be one complete building or one and renovate this. When look at numbers, renovation isn't that far apart, Wetzel stated. Big question will be which site. Wetzel is willing to toss out any location that is outside of 4 blocks of the CH. Motion by Wetzel to focus efforts on deciding the combination of improvements within a 5 block area of the existing CH. Second by Wendt. Carried unanimously. Fuhr mentioned that there is a drastic cost savings by combining efforts and locations of somewhere over $1.5 million. Has to be coupled with

3 the thoughts of carrying costs. No money to maintain a vacant building, then face options of demolition and potential community opposition. Callaway-Thompson feels would be contributing to urban blight if vacate the COB. Problem is County can't do anything about it; it is problems in the City. Hass asked if staff could be moved from the CH to the COB. Recommendation to look at floor loads in the COB and move the Recorder to the COB and move the PD to the CH. Wetzel added that there may be another way to approach the issue - plan that ultimately be under one roof, go ahead and refurbish this building and let it be known it could be available. Could be developers interested. Wendt added that if we buy a chunk of private property, what will be the next business, would it be conflicting? Everything was shared parking too. DeLoose stated that was never a fan of the Farmall site from the beginning. His original thoughts are that the CH should encompass everything unless remodel this COB saves money. If do the CH, needs to be connected to Justice Center for one entry. Sheriff Boyd stated that we have been lucky here in the COB with no issues. Harris asked if anyone disagreed that the CH should not be connected. No one disagreed. DeLoose feels it has to be physically connected. McCune felt that renovation was the right thing, with the ability to relocate in the future to the other site and then market the COB after rehab. Wendt felt that should accept the option to build new CH and renovate COB. What efficiencies/overlap are there in the COB and CH and how inefficient it is to run back and forth. Vyncke believes that COB should be renovated. Wendt - get that information and the carrying cost info. Wendt - motion recommendation CH build down here and stipulate connection to Justice Center and COB be renovated. Second by Harris. Discussion on the motion occurred. Page 37 of the packet was reviewed. Wetzel felt it was a significant move forward and would allow CGL to better look at the connection to the Justice Center. County North is our property. Can use the County South for parking. Could ask CGL to flush out other options for parking as well. DeLoose

4 added that don't know about the old CH either - may be green space or partial parking. Wetzel stated that one of the cons listed was blocking the view. Boyd stated that what we are voting for is that this is the direction that we want people we hired to give us more details, give them more direction. CGL had no desire for connection points. Narrow the scope for CGL. Vote was then taken. Carried unanimously. DeLoose asked about square footage - page 19 - ask for sq. foot now and sq. foot projected. Another location for storage would be the vacant Juvenile Court facility. Agree that no problem with offsite storage CH storage that is required, it is records that is accessed regularly. Going forward, more storage will be electronic. Fuel storage is an issue for us - may look at joining with another municipality. Information will be presented to the County Board. Make a presentation to the Board in October. Tweak a few items regarding connection? Harris felt that an informational session on where we are. Prepare the final report - use next meeting to expand an informal presentation and be prepared for the next CB meeting with your questions. Add CH to Justice Center and Renovate the COB, takes Dairy site off the table unless want to eventually put a campus site or to eliminate additional entry sites. Court standards have been met with the initial space needs. Harris has a caution to present to the CB - regarding the potential 1/4 cent sales tax - if want both questions to fail, put on together and really confuse the issue - put this issue on and not the 1/4 cent for the public safety. Must focus on this issue. If there are three tax issues, all three will fail. It is as simple as $52/$53 million over 10 or 20 years. Concerns about Economic Development and then when add another 1.25% sales tax and sending people to Iowa for purchases. People now know what the PBC is and that it could help. Should try to strategize to get one to pass instead of all 3 to fail. Got more and more support as the information was provided. Blank check issue is off the tale, defining a project, location and amount.

5 CGL feels can get the report to us by October 3rd. Could call a special session of the CB for this issue only. October 1st - 3pm discussed and then changed to Sept p; pending availability of CGL. There being nothing further to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 517p. Shelly Chapman