HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 [02] Feb: Consideration of St. Joseph's Facilities Taskforce Results
\\ Memo Report 11062014.doc\\Final Reccomendation\\Mahtemedi\\Case Files\\Desktop
engineering planning environmental construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH MEMORANDUM
To: Judy Weyrens, City Administrator
From: Phil Barnes, St. Joseph Facilities Community Taskforce Facilitator
Date: February 5, 2015
WSB Project No. 02845-000
Request: Consideration of St. Joseph’s Facilities Taskforce Results
RECOMMENDATION
The taskforce believes the best solution is to move forward with a project that shows how money
is being used for community center needs first. The taskforce also recommends that the city be
efficient as possible managing less visible, high-level needs. If needed, the taskforce
recommends a phased approach that will ensure the community’s quality of life is not exposed to
undue risk over time due to overspending on government services in the short term. The
taskforce also wants to ensure public safety in the community, and other government functions
work effectively in the community. The taskforce recommends a risk and budget analysis is
updated to ensure affordability levels. If the City sees that there is budget for everything without
increasing taxes or risking the community’s quality of life, it may be possible to fulfill all
community and governing needs identified by the taskforce in the short-term (3-7 years).
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
For approximately two years, the City of St. Joseph has been in the process of planning and
discussing future City facility needs. A “Facilities Committee” has been working with an
architect and construction contractor on options to remodel or rebuild the existing City Hall
building. Additionally, a five-member citizen-based “Community Center Committee” has been
appointed by the Council to research a stand-alone Community Center that could be used for
active recreation of various types, special events, and other community activities.
A series of public meetings and Council discussions have occurred regarding these City
facilities, which would potentially be funded through the City’s pro-rata share of a regional half-
cent local option sales tax and state capital investment bond funds.Throughout these discussions,
there have been varying opinions regarding specific facility needs, priorities and a common long-
term City facility vision.
At the May 15, 2014 City Council meeting, a citizen petition of 997 residents was presented
requesting that the existing City Hall building be kept. After some discussion, a Council motion
was approved at this meeting to not proceed with plans to rebuild a new City Hall/Government
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
Ms. Judy Weyrens
February 2, 2015
Page 2
Center on the existing site, and to instead, explore a different option that better meets the needs
of City residents.At a June 24, 2014 meeting of the St. Joseph City Council, a Council motion
was passed to solicit Request for Proposals (RFPs) for citizen participation and professional
facilitation services for the City Hall/Government Center building and the Community Center
building. Shortly after WSB and Associates was hired.
Working with local citizens and stakeholders to build agreement around key public decisions can
be challenging work, especially when there are competing interests. Stakeholders and citizens
often come to the table with firmly entrenched positions and little information. Decisions that
are perceived by the public as “legitimate” are more easily arrived at when citizens’ interests are
taken into account.
The general issues that typically stall public projects include:
Confusion about local benefits, impacts, and costs.
Not defining and engaging relevant citizens groups and stakeholders.
Perceived illegitimacy of the project.
Ideological issues.
Despite the challenges associated with engaging residents of the St. Joseph area, the City
initiated a community collaboration process. A goal for the process was to have parties who
disagree come to understand why others hold the position they do. Understanding the “why” can
greatly help the journey toward common ground from which solutions are more easily attained.
The collaboration process had the aim to define the communities mutual interests, define
alternatives, and then look at the concerns and strategies associated.
TASKFORCE PROCESS RULES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND AGREEMENTS
The collaboration process and the identification of potential concerns occurred in an open and
transparent manner to ensure awareness. The taskforce made assumptions to create a common
vision about the city’s future. The rules, assumptions, and agreements that developed included:
1.The taskforce agreed upon a vision for a successful decision for St. Joseph facilities.
“St. Joseph’s facilities align with the City’s needs, and are successful because they support a
growing and diverse community and tax base, while providing an engaging, sustainable, and
affordable way to enhance community interaction and communications between citizens and
government”.
2.The facilitator’s goal was to enhance public trust with the process through allowing the
government and citizens to collaborate in a safe environment. It was made clear that Phil
would consider the process successful if the taskforce could agree on a “vote-able”
recommendation. The facilitator also created a ground rule about being neutral, and asked
the taskforce to help enforce this rule.
Ms. Judy Weyrens
February 2, 2015
Page 3
3.Ground rules were developed that included:
• Participate with openness and transparency
• Trust and participate with integrity
• Respect each other
• Have patience with each other
• Use expert knowledge effectively
• Ensure we are not one-sided, ensure all sides are discussed
• Be good listeners
4.There was a facilities committee that was working on options to remodel or rebuild the
existing City Hall. There was also a Community Center Committee that was working on
options of a stand-along community center. Several public meetings and Council discussions
were held. Varying opinions of needs, priorities, and a vision for success included 23
variations developed by the facilities committee and presented at a Special Session. The
eventual preferred option included demolishing the current City Hall and rebuilding on the
site. The new building would include a “Community Room”.
5.Time will be given for non-taskforce comments and discussion not on the facilitator’s
agenda.The setup of the room and broad distribution of taskforce members around the room
resulted in some non-taskforce members participating respectfully.
6.Taskforce Participants included:
Phil Barnes, Taskforce Facilitator
Bob Lyon, Resident
Bridget Cummings, Resident
Daniel Aschnewitz, Resident
Derek Larson, Resident
Emily Jensen, Resident
Frank Osendorf, Resident
Jason Pekarek, Resident
Jen Warnert, Resident
Jim Graeve, Resident
Judy Weyrens, City Administrator
Kathrine Tillman, Resident
Kathy Doyle, Resident
Katie Spoden, Resident
Linda Butenhoff, Resident
Matt Loehlein , Resident
Michael McDonald, Resident
Noreen Loso, Resident
Renee Symanietz, Council Member
Rick Schultz, Mayor
Ms. Judy Weyrens
February 2, 2015
Page 4
Steve Olson, Resident
Tom Gustafson, Resident
Ellen Wahlstrom, Resident
Lori Barlett, Finance Director
Joel Klein, Police Chief
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO TASKFORCE RECCOMENDATIONS
Overview.
The taskforce believes the best solution is to move forward with a project that shows
how money is being used for community center needs first. The taskforce also recommends that
the city be efficient as possible managing less visible, high-level needs.
The taskforce was able to talk to experts, learn from packets of information, and high-level cost
estimate quotes for facilities. The identified concerns in the options were complex, but the
taskforce was able to synthesize these results into 7-major interest areas.
.
1.Public SafetyThe taskforce considers the lack of facilities for the police department as a
high-level concern. The police lack evidence security, interview confidentiality, a safe
environment for victims, and will likely need more staff in the future. An upgraded facility
will enhance interaction between citizens and government.
2.Gym.The taskforce considers not having a gym facility as a large problem for young
families and the diverse community of St. Joseph. There is overwhelming support for a gym
that could be used for multiple purposes. This is defined as an open space for basketball,
volleyball, walking around a track, etc. and there are currently no good options for this
healthy function.
3.Multi-purpose Room.The taskforce is concerned that we will not reach our vision of success
if we do not have a gathering place for adults. This space could be used for lectures, dances,
clubs, senior activities, small concerts, etc. This space is needed to enhance community
interactions.
4.Library Function (Book Exchange). The taskforce is concerned about not having a library
function within the community. However, the taskforce acknowledges that a library may be
an amenity of the past with improvements in technology, the internet, etc. The taskforce
would like a book exchange function, and this could potentially be folded into the
multipurpose room space in an efficient way. There should be minimal space dedicated to
this function.
5.Teen Space and Day Care. All ages should be able to enjoy the community space. Because
the community center has a goal to meet the interests of young families, a day care function
with supervision would be of interest to enhance the ability for an entire family.
6.Transportation Access. The taskforce would like the community center and government
services to be accessible from multiple modes of transportation, including walking on trails
and sidewalks. It’s important that any facilities are accessible to citizens without motor
vehicles.
7.Limited Green Space – There is interest in having a small area outside with picnic tables
would be of interest for picnics, and limited outdoor gatherings.
Ms. Judy Weyrens
February 2, 2015
Page 5
Taskforce Recommendations
1.Taskforce Recommendation – The taskforce believes the best solution is to move forward
first
with a “Community Center Facility” project , that shows value to the community. A
phased approach may be needed to meet all needs. If affordable after budget and risk
analysis, the City can consider moving other government administration needs forward
simultaneously.
2.Taskforce Recommendation – The taskforce highly recommends a Gym space for basketball,
volleyball, a walking track and other sporting and non-sporting events as part of the
Community Center Facility.
3.Taskforce Recommendation - The “Community Center Facility” should include a Multi-
purpose room for community gatherings that includes a limited kitchen and functions for
Lectures, Dances, Classes, Fraternal Clubs, Small Concerts, and other purposes
4.Taskforce Recommendation – The “Community Center Facility” should include space for
Book Exchange that serves as a library function. This space may be included in the Multi-
purpose room and should not require full-time staffing.
5.Taskforce Recommendation – The “Community Center Facility” should include space for
young families to be able to congregate. This includes space for pre-teens and teens, and
space for children under the age of 8. This will provide greater usage of the facility and
allow adults to more easily use the facilities.
6.Taskforce Recommendation – The City should ensure the location of the “Community Center
Facility” is accessible to those with disabilities and without motor vehicles.
7.Taskforce Recommendation – The “Community Center Facility” should include limited
“green space”. This is envisioned to include a few picnic tables, and space for small outdoor
gatherings.
8.Taskforce Recommendation - The city should consider a phased approach for meeting
“Government Services” needs and consider whether other facilities can be completed in the
short-term. The City should complete a risk analysis that helps the community understand
the affordability of meeting all needs identified by the taskforce.
9.Taskforce Recommendation – Another very high priority for the taskforce is the ongoing
needs of public safety professionals. If a phased approach is chosen, facilities for the public
safety should immediately follow fulfilling community needs with a “Community Center”.
This facility should include space for evidence security, rooms for interview confidentiality,
safe victim space and processing, and future staffing needs.
10.Taskforce Recommendation – The taskforce recommends sound financial decisions for
fulfilling all facility needs. The taskforce recommends the investigation of utilizing existing
buildings for government services functions. The interest of the taskforce is to utilize the full
life-cycle of buildings. For example, the taskforce recommends assessing whether the
existing City Hall can be renovated to meet the needs of Government Administration.
Ms. Judy Weyrens
February 2, 2015
Page 6
Preferences
If the budget allowable to meet other “wants” without additional levies or putting the current
quality of life of the community at risk, the taskforce would appreciate consideration of the
below preferences for St. Joseph facilities:
11.Taskforce Preference – Based on expert testimony on government efficiency, the taskforce
prefers that government administration and public safety departments are co-located in the
same facility, with separate access for crime and administration functions. If less expensive
options exist that include renovating existing buildings or building a separate building for
public safety, then the co-location preference should not move forward.
–
12.Taskforce PreferenceSpecial attention is paid to the aesthetics of any new facilities. The
taskforce recommends a public process that engages community stakeholders in a
collaborative fashion.
–
13.Taskforce PreferenceAvoid adding features that are expensive functions, especially those
that compete with other options in the community. For example, exercise equipment would
compete with the private sector and is considered an added expense for operations. Pools are
considered expensive and are not a priority at this time because of other available options.
Other water amenities, like the splash pad concept, should be continued to be investigated by
existing collaboration groups.