Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes_2008_03_18 22 Brookings City Council March 18, 2008 The Brookings City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday,March 18,2008 at 4:00 p.m.,at City Hall in joint session with the Brookings County Commission. The following city members were present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley, Mike Bardey, Ryan Brunner, Tixn Reed,Tom Bezdichek,and Ginger Thomson. City Manager Jefftey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present. The group discussed the following issues in a woxk session setting: Brookings County Rail Authority;joint space collaboration opportunities;and 34`�Avenue improvement project for an � overpass and intetchange plans. No action was taken by eithex govexning body. Rail Authoritv. Mark Ktatochvil,Deputy State's Attorney, said he reviewed the Brookings County Rail Authoriry statutes and finds them to be all inclusive and there are provisions for investments and expansions. It appears that there are powers and authority for the expanded mission. The City of Volga is a partner in the agreement with the County. There was discussion xegarding restructuring the Rail Authority to expand the membership. It was clarified that thexe would not be a net membership loss ox jeopardize a communiry's standing if the Rail Authoriry were expanded. Amending the cuxrent existing structure will be easiex than creating a new rail authority and no problems were anticipated with any of the communities. Munsterman said the City is very interested in proceeding forward and would be happy to be present at any meetings with the Ciry of Volga if that would be helpful. Don Larson,County Comrnissioner, said he was chaix of the Rail Authority and would be calling a meeting in the neax future to discuss the expansion. Toint S�ace Collaboration. Ciry Manager Jeffrey Weldon presented the following updated report on cost estimates regarding the 1921 building. JOINT CITY-COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER;build new City space needs; 21,000 sq.ft. (Ciry space needs report) Counry space needs; 19,000 sq.ft. (County space needs repoxt) Total space needs 40,000 sq.ft. Note: Tbe above.rquare footage.r repre,rent current department.c identified in each re.rpective r�ort(exclude.c fir�,police emergency management, county re.rource center o�rce.r). Cost of new construction: $173/sq.ft. x 40,000 sq.ft. _ $6,920,000 (joint city-county) County Administrative Building only: $3,971,480 (current pxoposal) 1921 BUILDING RENOVATION—JOINT CITY-COUNTY FACILITY (A) Cost of renovation of the entire 1921 Building: (McCarthy letter of 1/21/2008) $52/ sq.ft. for 7,000 sq.ft. balance of first floor = $ 364,000 $52/sq.ft. for 27,720 sq.ft. for second floor = $ 1,441,440 Total cost of renovation = $ 1,805,440 1921 BUILDING RENOVATION—COUNTY FACILITY ONLY (B) Cost of renovation fox a poxtion of 1921 Building: (County information at public meeting) First floor remodel (23,040 sq.ft.) _ $ 864,290 Project costs = $ 102,500 Total cost of renovation = $ 966,790 Rent rate for 2009: Owner has offered to rent xenovated first floor space at current rate; this assuxnes he will extend this offer to the second floor at a rounded up rate of$10/sq.ft. Renovation will take balance of 2008 so occupancy and rent payments would be for 2009. $10/ sq.ft. xental rate X 55,440 sq.ft. both levels = $ 554,440 per year for 2009 Purchase building in 2010: Owner has offered to sell 1921 Building on 1/1/2010 fox$3,108,000. Total cost of renovation and ownership of 1921 Building: 23 Renovation A ($1,805,440) + 1 year rent ($554,440) + puxchase ($3,108,000) _ $5,467,880 Renovation B ($966,790) + 1 year rent ($230,400) + putchase ($3,108,000) _ $4,305,190 The main difference between renovating the e�usting 1921 Building and new construction is the cost peY squate foot. Renovation of the 1921 Building provides more square footage (55,440 sq.ft.) than building new (40,000 sq.ft.). Sitework: Whether the decision is to build new or renovate the e�cisting 1921 Building, a parking lot will be needed. New construction for a 70-space paxking lot is $2,000 pet space, or$140,000. Summarv. County alone-new construction $3 971 480 > > County alone-renovate 1921 Bldg. $ 966,790 County alone-xenovate/own 1921 Bldg. $4,305,190 County-City new constxuction , $6,920,000 or$3,460,000 each County-City tenovate 1921 Bldg. $5,467,880 ox$2,733,940 each There are economies of scale to be realized with consolidated facilities. The most cost-efficient option would appeax to be joint occupancy of a renovated and purchased 1921 Building;assuming the buiiding meets the operational and progxammatic needs of both entities. As a means of moving this issue forwaxd, the City would like to know the Counry's level of interest in pursuing a consolidated facility. If so, each entity will need to undextake their own respective due diligence on the operational and programmatic needs. Weldon noted the potential rental income of the second floor of the 1921 Building is not included in the Renovation B plans. Emil Klavetter, County Commissioner,asked if the developer's xenovation estimates included an elevator, a vault, additional restrooms on the main floor and some fire sprinkling. He noted that the County's axchitect estimated a 15 percent contingency plus fees. Weldon referenced two letters from Steve McCarthy, the project developer;January 21,2008 and Octobex 1,2007. McCaxthy's renovation estimate is at$52 per square foot from the exterior to the interior coxridor and doesn't believe it includes an elevator. Weldon commented that the architect's fees and contingency axe"soft" costs and the numbexs he has presented are "haxd"construction figures. Klavetter felt a 7% fee rate was too low. The pexcentage is from TSP and not McCarthy. Weldon said there are economies of scale that can be xealized with consolidating functions,if this project makes sense relative to timing and finances. A combined project enables the city and county to pool resouxces and potentially give a bettex return to the taxpayexs. It is nice that the 1921 building exceeds the combined space needs,which would allow for more movement within the building and rental income. Weldon said that the City is at a juncture. The County has taken a position to build new,but offered to continue a joint space discussion. As a means of moving forward,he asked the County Commissioners their level of interest in pursuing a joint facility. Klavetter said the County's space needs have gotten worse and they need to keep pushing ahead with the new building. He asked fox an estimated timeframe from the city. Munsterman said the City could put more work into the feasibility of this pxoject for analysis,but doesn't want to go to that effott if the County isn't interested. Klavetter asked where this project was on the city's priority list. Munsterman said the Council will hold a sttategic planning session next week and will determine where this project lies as a priority. Weldon noted that the County will have two construction budgets;one for the new building and one for the couxthouse renovation for the court system. Klavetter said there won't be much remodeling in the historical courthouse building and the County plans to turn it over to the Court System as is. 24 Mary Negstad,County Commissionex, said there may be one area that a new door is needed for accessibility purposes. Ginger Thomson asked if all the Counry offices would be in one building and the Courthouse would contain the court system only. Yes. Mary Negstad commented that the formex"Sawnee Hotel,"which is currendy the Dakota Teen Challenge,would make a great location for a combined law enfoxcement center which would replace the jail on the courthouse square. She noted that the County will need to do a new law enforcement center in the future and suggested it would be a wondexful idea to use that area and buy it joindy. Weldon said the Teen Challenge Center is looking for better facilities and is looking to sell the propexty. Don Larson, County Commissioner, thanked Weldon,Munsterman and Stephanie Vogel for their work on this project. He said if there is anything to gain from this meeting it's whenever the County or City is seeking state or federal funds, those entities always ask if joint collaboration has been researched. Research shows there is a cost savings to the taxpayers when different levels of government work together to share facilities and programs. These discussions put both the City and County in good standing for grants. Deanna Santema, Counry Commissionex, said the big thing is timing and trying to get the City and County schedule to mesh together. The Counry needs to decide and then move forward and they can't wait foxever for the City. She also commented that the City can't rush their process too fast and a joint facility needs to be right for both entities at the same time. However, she feels confident that a joint law enforcement center would be something to seriously consider in the near future. In the case of the court system she felt the courts staying in the courthouse made the most sense, particularly from a safety standpoint. Timing is the key issue and the County can't expect the court system to wait forever. Thomson asked if mote input was needed from city or county employees. Weldon said the County has completed their review and the City only studied the City Hall administrative offices and Police Department. Thomson asked if the City employees had considered the possibility of office configuration in the 1921 Building. No, that would be the next step in programmatic analysis. Tim Reed said the City Council is at a critical decision point to determine where to allocate funds and how long would it take to figure out if the 1921 Building would work for the City's needs. Santema said there were pros and cons to the 1921 Building from County employees. Klavetter said another issue to consider is that the 1921 Building is providing affordable housing and office space in the community. Negstad said she had heard from tenants that the apartments are not very efficient and were cold. Munsterman said the City Council will look at this issue during the strategy session. If it appears that it is a project the city wants to move forward on, the city would do it and get it done in the County's rimeline. However, the City would need the County's okay before the City proceeds in doing the extra work. Klavetter said the County's needs were yesterday. The County is currendy looking at building in the courthouse square green space and some have asked to avoid that area. The County will explore othex oppoxtunities to build elsewhere than within the squaxe. He noted that the County has akeady invested a lot of time and money in this project. Munsterman thanked the County Commissioners for their patience and for having these conversations with the City Council. Larson comtnented that both entities have limited financial resources and each have several projects under consideration, all of which require funding. He suggested it would be a good idea for the 25 County to also do a strategic planning session. Perhaps a percentage of one pxoject could be levexaged to facilitate anothet project. Mike Bardey said a good point was made in that the 1921 Building is already in use for housing and office space and it could be assumed those uses would continue if the County built elsewhere. The savings of funds for a joint facility may not be that significant with the taking of a building off the tax roles. Maybe the County could take a different city block and make big changes with new construction for a joint facility and preserve the 1921 Building for community needs. Larson noted that there'd be additional costs for a new footprint. Baxtley said he wouldn't rule that out and liked the new construction option. Klavetter said he didn't know how compatible the county offices wexe with the city, other than with law enforcement. Bardey asked what the most immedia.te need fox the County was. Klavettex said court services first and law enforcement was second. Weldon said the city's greatest need is space for law enfoxcement. Bardey said the County needs to release space for court services, so the City and County need to make decisions soon. Klavetter said he didn't know if the time frame was such that the County could plan on utilizing that space for offices. Reed said the City Council will prioritize its projects on March 26 and could teport back to the Counry by the end of the month. The County was asked which was in more dire need;the sheriff's office or the jail. Both aYe in the same level of need. Santema noted that when discussing the combining of the City and County offices,the primary issue is the use o£the building together and not combining programming and offices. Each entity would require specific sections and additionally there would be shaxed meeting rooms and other public spaces. She commented that the cuxrent chambers aren't big enough for the zoning board and additional restrooms would be needed. The City officials agreed that the goal would be a shared space, but not shared prograinming. It was suggested that the Counry Commission could utilize the City's curxent council chambexs and televise their meetings. Santema reminded the group that the County at one time owned the 1921 Building and gave it away along with a$400,000 HUD grant. Renovations were done by a private developer in oxder to make it rentable;however, some people think the County still owns the building. It was clarified that the $400,000 grant was utilized for a revolving loan fund. Klavetter said over the last year in discussing the 1921 Building,he had identified 15 different concerns with that building. Thomson asked how much of the building is new. Klavetter said he didn't know,but assumed there were many things that were still 87 years old such as plumbing and wiring. The windows were replaced with originally sized large windows,but he had concerns about enexgy efficiency. He cited a study indicating there was black mold in the building and also expxessed concerns about the below ground garages. He said it's a wonderful old building and what it's now being used for is great. It's a historic building and now preserved into the futuxe. It's safe. However,if the County had voted to tear it down (and had succeeded) it would be a beautiful place to build a new office building. Thomson asked if the County had identified any other offsite alternatives that would work. Klavettex said yes, east of the Couxthouse thexe are sevexal college rentals that are not in the best shape. However,that is a historic district and he questioned if that would be allowed. He felt the County admuustrative offices should be located neax the Coutthouse and there are other pxoperties that could be explored. z � Negstad said if the County built a new building it would be attractive and not distracting from the historic district and in 50 years it would be historical. Munsterman said he'd be happy to attend any County Commission meetings to keep the group updated. 34`h Avenue Im�rovement Project For An Over�ass And Interchange Plans. The County was thanked fox their partnership on this project. Weldon updated the group that A1 Kuxtenbach had received favorable feedback from the business leaders about the private investment in this project and was cautiously optimistic. It will be very important to get this study into the state and federal funding pipeline. Weldon has the names and addresses of the Aurora and Trenton Townships and will keep them advised of this project. Once funding is in place it will take a couple months to complete the study and it should be done by fall 2008. Reed mentioned he tecendy met with the State's Federal Delegation and they were pleased to hear the two entities had come together on this project. Munsterman noted that this issue came to us fxom the private side and they dxove the issue,with the city and the county doing their parts. � Santema reminded the City Council to keep the Township representatives advised and notified, noting that they don't have any funds but these are their roads and they shouldn't be leapfrogged. Laxson asked as they pxoceed with the study,if the overpass would be designed in such a way to allow for on and off ramps or would the fedexal xegulations present that. Munsterman said the current design is an overpass and an interchange would have to be farther down the road. He also thought there was a"closeness factor" to the next interchange,but this is a good question for HDR to answer. Dan Hanson,Planning and Zoning Administrator,said the interstate has controlled access and there could be an interchange at any mile. Adiourn. A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted yes;motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m. CITY OF BROOKINGS .��Of BR� —� ` .S—= G\•'��WRa� �'fi A�•," °�''���, Sc . Munsterman,Mayor A S1'��s Q � =C�C SOUtt''�P�O �/, _ / " G v Y��`i(� Shari Thornes,City Clerk