HomeMy WebLinkAbout[06] Facility extract
6
Council Agenda Item
MEETING DATE:
December 5, 2013
AGENDA ITEM:
Facility
SUBMITTED BY:
Administration / Finance
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The St. Joseph EDA
recommended the City Council keep the Government Center in the downtown to help vibrate the
downtown.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council hired HMA and RA Morton to help design a
community room or addition to the existing facility. During the discussions adding on to the existing
facility, the costs to remodel and add to the facility was just as great as constructing a new facility and it
would not be as efficient. On June 17 the City Council directed HMA to design a Government Facility
leveling the existing site to maximize the facility and property. Since that time the facility committee has
been meeting with the architect and construction manager to finalize the site plan.
In addition, the City Council has previously bonded for the improvements to the HVAC and roofing for
the City Hall. At the time the bonds were issued it was not anticipated that we would be adding on.
Circumstances changed, the City purchased the former credit union building and there was sentiment to
construct a community room. The struggle became how to best use funds without being criticized for
spending money and then tearing it off for remodeling or not having a unit sized property.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The facility has been planned with additional desk space for in
the future. The police garage has been reduced from the original drawings with the understanding that the
City has the existing police garage that would continue to be used.
As we discussed at the last Council meeting, the best bidding environment is in the first quarter; therefore
for the project to move forward the City would have to authorize execution of an agreement for design
and bid documents and that agreement is being reviewed by the City Attorney. It is a standard AIA
agreement which we have routinely used.
The financing for the project would be public project revenue bonds issued through the EDA. The City
has used this tool for the Maintenance Facility and City Hall. We did not use it for the Water Treatment
Plant as it the revenue stream is through connections and rates. If it would be been levy we would have
used it as well. Included in the material is the financial summary looking at the overall debt for the City
and projecting in the projects for the next couple of years. Since we do not know yet what the assessment
for Park Terrace will be, two scenarios have been provided. We are also not sure that the water levy will
be needed, but we illustrated just in case. The scenarios do not include any growth so it is a conservative
number.
As with any project that the City constructs, if the bids come in beyond what is planned or expected the
City does not have to award the bids and can re-look at what caused the difference.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:
The project currently is in the 4.4 – 4.5 range; however, the
project does include sales tax, and we will be able to reduce that
number.
ATTACHMENTS:
Request for Council Action
Financial Summary
Extract of Minutes
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Decide if the project will move forward.
D * p p W r W � W W (� W �� � o w � W W W W (� W
� �' �D �D o � O O O O o O �u m o � O O o o O o
r� � � � a a � n a n n o n � a n � n a a a o n
� � C � � N N N N N j N � � N N N N N j y
� .6 .0 O � O O O O N � .6 .a O � O O O O N �
� 3 �^ d � CJ1 � A A W W D O d � V7 � A A W W D O
N � O r�i � � N � i � i � � r�i � � N � � � � � OD
N
0 30 � � cn � c,nc,nm � j � � cn � tnc,n �m � o
� d -i � m �. m 'm c 3 � � m �. m m c 3
r+ aq v� A A .�. .�. � (D N ln ln .�. .�+ .�. N N
(D � N \ \ `� � .�. \ \ `� � .�-.
0 � �' � O O p � O O �
O
� w � D + rn D + cn
� " 3 m f ° m F �
N Q ^ cn a � N w
orD � � � �. � � �.
� v a m a
� � � � x � x
7C G N Ol N d
� � � fD N
ti �
� d � � �
�p r i' -p r
ti, � �G � C T N �1 N d C �1 N T N
O � � .� � � O ys � O '�' .�. < � O A � O
7 O 'O A n � l�0 d W 1AD l� A d W A � � lA0 d W lA0 l!� A d W
'O �y U'� y o�i W W O W U'i y � W W O W
d 3 �. I--� 7 3 lA N� O U1 1--` 7 3 U1 Y� O (!1
� (D !D ln 00 00 W W O W cn 00 0o W W O W
� ,�,' O (D fD O O O O O N �D O O O O
d
� o`�i O
Q x �
� N
oi
3 � O N O N O N O N
d
� Oo tn O F�+ Y� A O N Oo ln O N V� A O N
� p F+ O � A O tn tn O � A � O �-` O � A O tn ln O N A
� y w w O� N Of A O N �D w w O� � O� A O N �D
a ,.. N Ap O ln �' in O O in a N p O cn �' V� O O in �'
�p O� A O W W O O W O� A O W W O O W
� O � O O O O O O O o O O O O O O
d
C
�
r^p m m m m
n
n
� oo ln ln y F�+ tn A y !�+ Oo ln ln y h�+ tn A p3j F�+
� V 1� A t0 A .* Y� 10 ln W tn ln O .� �n V 1� A lO A .o � �O ln W ln (n O .* !A
� �n W l0 l0 N `O O pO Oo cn O O� N � �n W t0 l0 N �O Op O Oo vp� O 01 N
�7 A � O O O a O O O O O O O a ��` A � O O O a O O O O O $ W a
S O O O O
C ,a;
� 5:
O
3 N N �� m m
N N
� 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
� oo rn m a r m r r.� a f+ co 0� u, � f+ �+ r� r.i d r+
W r.� rn rn N .y rn o� tn � n� f+ ln ln io .� o� oo r A A �o .* o� tn � i-+ r cn tn t0 .o O�
,.�.' O Q� Q� Oi fD O� O ln 00 O V O Qi N O Oo Oc Oo N S O ln O O �I O O� N
rD O O�i A N N Q N O O O O O O N a O O A N N a N O O O O O Q N a
�'+ � N O W W W O O O O O O W A W O W W W o O O O O o W
p A o O O O O O O O O O O O �A � O O O O O O O O O O O
O
�
^ m m m m
_ = = .�
(y N N N N
d W V 01 y F+ V F+ F-� N p3j F�+ �X�'���j� W V 01 p�j F�+ V F-� F+ N y 1�
� F� � A V ..' V A N V l/1 W F+ lJ1 l0 .y V Op �..+ (!1 N t!1 .e V N N V (n 1-+ F-� l!1 lD w V
O A (n O fD V� V ln O O N l0 N fD O A J N fD V V ln O N N `D N N
7 O 0�0 N Vt l!t a fA O O O o O O tn �' '.� O p�o N l!t tIt a fA O O O O O O u+ �'
�n A �n V O O O O O p O O O e��. � U� V O O O O O O O O
i� o O O O S O O O O O O O A o O O O S O O O S O O O
��'-.
m m "�" m m
00 V Ol y F+ V N F+ F+ y O 00 J Q1 y N V N F+ I--� p�j IJ
W O M-� W Ol e� 00 W N V W W F+ Ql l0 .r 00 00 O F-� F+ A e�r 00 F+ N V W F+ F+ Ql l0 .r OD
O O tn O fD �n V tn tn n� A N N N O O V N N V � v� cn ? A r � �C
o ,-`'". o in v+ a w o 0 0 0 o in a o � o v+ in a in o 0 0 0 o in a
A \ O O O O O O O � O O O � o O O O Q� O O O � O O O
i� O O O O O O O O O O A o O O O O O O O O O
N N �.'Y^�x, N V1
= N = N = N = N
00 �I Ol y F�+ V F+ N F+ I--� y F�+ �o Ol l!� y F+ 01 F+ N I--+ 1-� y F�+
Oo f-. A N N .�r 10 F+ N O A W N O� N ..r tD Oo f-. A l0 l0 .� �O 10 N O A f+ F+ T N ..r t0
O l0 `--� �--� fD Ir V O (n pA V O Oo N O l0 W W fD W V O (n 0p1 V O Oo (D
O N O V� l!� a O $ O O O O O O a A fN-. O O O a g O O O O O S O n
1� f-. O O O
A o O O O O O O O O O O O ii � O O O
�
N N �;N'... M M
Co V Ql y N V 1-+ N 1-+ I-+ p�j N �°.,";y. 0o V 01 p�j N V F+ N F+ F+ y N
Oo O N W W 'r O W N O ln W �-+ Ql A .� O Oo O N N N ..' O N N p ln f-+ F+ Q1 A .r O
O Q� V V fD V V O ln `ln lD O `--� fD O V O O fD O V O tn 00 ;O O ;--� N
0 0 o cn v+ a cn o 0 0 0 0 o v+ a o w o v+ u+ a v� o 0 0 0 o u+ a
a � o 0 o S o 0 0 $ o 0 0 +� o0 0 0 o g o 0 0 $ o 0 0
3� � O O O O O O O O O A � O O O O O O O O O
i--+ r
A A W N
A W i0 �
O � N �
� O o O
This page intentionally left blank
Extrat City Council Minutes
June 17, 2013
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in regular session on Monday,
June 17, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Mayor Richard Schultz, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob
Loso and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
City Representatives Present: Police Chief Pete Jansky, Police Chief Joel Klein, Finance Director Lori
Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene and City Engineer Randy Sabart
Others Present: Murray Mack, Tom Peck, Shane Vernier, Lindsay Vernier
Facilities: Wick stated that upon receiving direction from the City Council to continue the process to add a
community room component and new Council chamber, the facility committee has been met with the
architect. First, Wick stated that a distinction must be made between a community room and center. The
facility committee has been charged with planning a community room and a separate committee will look
at an active recreation center.
For over a year, the facility committee has been discussing whether to remodel the existing facility or start
with a clean site. Based on a recommendation of the St. Joseph EDA it was determined that the City
Facility needed to remain downtown. Therefore current planning efforts are focusing on the existing land
and building owned by the City. Wick stated that it is estimated to cost 3.5M to remodel and expand the
existing facility. Some concern has been expressed if the City spends 3.5 M on remodeling is their
sufficient room for expansion or will the City be in the same situation in ten or fifteen years. It was
suggested at the facility committee meeting that if the City moves forward with constructing a stand-alone
community center, the community room space at the government center could eventually be converted
for staff use.
Murray Mack, Hagemesiter Mack Architect, stated that the facility committee has been on break for about
eight months, not rushing the process, allowing the City Council to determine the needs of the
community. Mack reviewed the different options previously reviewed by the Council to include: a) using
the existing facility adding a portion to the north; b) using the existing facility adding a two story portion to
the north; c) adding a second floor to the current facility; d) utilizing the former Kennedy School; e) a new
facility on a site not located within the downtown area. The process stalled when community functions
were discussed in tandem with the City facility.
The most recent discussion have been focused on option 1 which is a schematic that used the existing
building, basement, upstairs, and included building around it, and option 1A also used the existing
basement but tried to expand building square footage to meet functional needs. The first option was
lacking, especially in the police department area. Two stair towers and one elevator would likely be
reused, but are not accessible to the public off the main public corridor in the design. A lot of decisions
affect the overall budget and building functionality for years. Schultz commented that a facility needs to
meet the City’s needs for the next 50 years. There are cost savings for using the existing building, yet
some functional drawbacks of future opportunity. In all the committee meetings held, the decision has
leaned toward removing the upper floor, reusing the basement as much as possible, and maximizing site
use. There is some debate of the value to reusing the basement functionally. If it was removed, the cost
increased $ 200,000 - $ 300,000. They looked at rebuilding the basement from the police department
garage and support area over to the middle of the main circulation corridor for new basement, making the
elevator and stair shafts more available to the public.
Mack discussed potential scheduling. If the Council decides to move forward with a budget and rough
schematic at this meeting, there is still three to four months of additional design work and preparation of
construction documents before getting into the bid phase. Construction start would then be November or
December 2013. At that point, they could just wait and start construction Spring 2014. During
construction, police department and city staff would have to relocate as there would be too much
Extrat City Council Minutes
June 17, 2013
renovation and demolition to stay and work around employees. There is $50,000 in the budget for staff
relocation at this time.
Option 1A was difficult because of the small additions on the building exterior to make it functional; it got
more expensive to build footage in little strips. There were functional deficiencies, compromises, and
additional costs in working with the existing building, so the committee suggested demolishing the current
structure. There was an additional 1,150 SF in Option 1A vs. Option 1. Subtracting the project cost,
there was a $50,000 premium between the two options to clear off the upper floor. Option 1A was
recommended with possible basement changes. Frank asked if the City can put off the Community
Room until they find out if there will be a Community Center. Mack responded that the cost to eliminate
the Community Room would be minor. If you subtract it from the plan, you would have to put exterior wall
in its place including an exterior finish that works with the rest of the building, replacing the exterior the
North and West walls and moving them to interior. The facility committee discussed the possibility of
having police department locker rooms in the basement along with storage, and if the Community Room
was eliminated, staff offices would likely be there, moving the main corridor to the South and keeping the
police department garage and everything to South of the main corridor.
Loso asked if the new building would be engineered to accommodate a second floor. Mack responded
that the building didn’t seem to justify a two-story option and it would take careful consideration. The roof
of the initial first floor building gets to be more expensive with an idea that there may be second floor
expansion. Is it a flat or pitched roof? The committee didn’t discuss it - probably flat. There needs to be
enough room for parking. It’s hard to make any judgment calls so far into the future but they did the best
to balance the dollars, function, and possible reuse of current structure. The Highway 75 plan certainly
provided more flexibility for expansion.
Mayor Schultz doesn’t believe anybody’s in a rush to spend money. The committees and staff have been
diligent in finding the right mix after the recommendation of staying downtown, having a downtown
footprint, and a portion of the balance was the Community Room (200 people vs. 100 people). In looking
ahead, when they initially acquired the building, they spent a fair amount to buy and remodel. Now we
are out of space and functionality and not working to the most productive means, and the City doesn’t
want to come back in 15 years doing it again, so we need to take a long broad look at this. If we vacate
the building, would it make sense to build a basement under the entire span or isn’t that necessary?
From the line of the sally port to the left-hand side of the main corridor, there’s a nice space to
accommodate storage and possibly a meeting room. However, if the public had to get to the basement,
the elevator would be only available through the police department office. Schultz mentioned that the city
will be basically land-locked so he wants to allow room for growth. What is the cost difference to expand
under the council chambers and Community Room, but not under the garage? Frank encouraged space
for the mayor’s office and a storm shelter. Would the shelter need to be basement low grade with precast
deck above or FEMA compliant like an Emergency Operation Center? The vault is used in the current
building.
Wick advocated for a schematic that starts clean slate, top to bottom, bigger basement, and configure
elevator and stairs to allow this area for emergency situations. Taking the first floor off would essentially
ruin the basement area and it would need to be gutted anyway. Loso is concerned about moving staff for
a 2014 construction date. Schultz asked the occupancy of the council chambers to which Mack
responded it is about one third larger than the current facility; however, the new chambers would be
located in an area that could allow for overflow when large meetings occur. Loso wondered how long
would construction take? RA Morton answered roughly ten months to one year.
Wick suggested that the committee is ideally looking for a budget and an answer to keep the existing
basement or start from a plain site. Budget could be from $ 3.9-4.3M ($ 300,000 difference to start from
scratch or keep the basement). If replacing the basement, what is the cost to the project? Could the
precast plant be reused? Starting from a clean slate, the building could be moved to the West where
parking now exists, eliminating the walk-through feature that’s there to accommodate the walk up parking
and walk-ins off College Avenue. Committee recommended having more building frontage off College
Avenue with parking in the back. With regard to financing the facility, Weyrens stated that City Hall debt
Extrat City Council Minutes
June 17, 2013
will expire in two years and that levy for the existing facility could be placed towards the new facility
lowering the financial impact. In addition Weyrens stated that at one point Stearns Electric indicated that
the city could have access to rural development funds, which carries 0% interest. Loso questioned if the
facility would sales tax exempt, to which Weyrens stated the recent law change only applies to goods the
City purchases. However, if the project moves forward the City could request the legislature to authorize
an exemption, which is commonly approved. Weyrens stated that the staff will provide a financial
summary/impact for the next presentation.
Loso stated that in talking to the public he has heard residents say that the City should demolish the
existing facility and start from scratch as it does not make sense to put additional money into the facility.
Loso asked about gutting the basement or constructing a slab on grade facility. Mack stated that since
the site is limited, a basement under a portion of the facility makes sense and can be used for police
accessory use so that upper level space is not consumed. Loso thought about the parking lot: getting rid
of the green curb, making the alley wider, and improving traffic flow to where the entire downtown could
use it. There are other things to work through such as where the electrical transformers and garbage
refuse area will go. Mack stated that the Council needs to make a decision as to whether or not it makes
sense to demolish the existing facility and then approve a preliminary budget for the facility committee to
work within.
Loso made a motion directing the Architects to design a Government Campus Facility on the
existing site, demolishing the current facility, including basement and provide a budget of $ 4-
4.6M. The motion was seconded by Frank and carried unanimously.
This page intentionally left blank