|
 January 25 2010 Work Session Minutes A Special Meeting of the City Commission for the purpose of providing a public workshop session to review and receive comment on the City Hall Study conducted by Abonmarche Group out of Benton Harbor, MI was held on Monday, January 11, 2010. Mayor Pro-Tem Cole called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. Commissioners present: Carla Cole, Patricia Moore, William Norton, Warren Weaver AbonMarche Group Design Engineer Kenton McAndrew described the purpose of the study. Comparisons of project cost between the Fifth Third Bank Building and the existing City Hall Building were included in the study. After a brief summary, he turned the presentation over to his associate, Jeffrey Saylor. Written information on the study was handed out. Jeffrey Saylor described the requirements of the study, followed by a general summary of the study and addressed the specifics of floor plan adjustments, the suggested uses of space, conditions issues, cost considerations, safety and security, storage, energy efficiency, compliance with Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and other important factors. A drawing of the existing city hall building with a floor plan was displayed. Mr. Saylor described and pointed out various features and suggested changes. Comment: Concern over reducing the amount of space available for meetings. It was recommended that the original builders of the current building Richard Gault and William Felden be contacted. Comment: If we don’t own the building, why waste time on all this? Response from McAndrew: This study is just a start point. Nothing has been determined. Comment: Agreed with the analysis that the current building is a sound building. Name of the original architect was mentioned with a suggestion to contact him before doing any modifications. Response from Saylor: The city did not have in its possession any of the original blueprints. Response from McAndrew: Questions will be taken when the presentation is concluded. Mr. Saylor continued to describe a review of the bank building pointing out that the square footage is less, age of building is newer, and energy cost is less because of being better insulated. Drawing of a floor plan for the bank building was displayed. Comment: Please outline the existing bank building on the plan. Response from Saylor: Pointed out the existing building outline. He then showed a site plan drawing of the bank building. Comment: Will the bank building have sprinklers (interior)? With the building being a frame building it would seem that it would be important for it to have a sprinkler system. Response from Saylor: No Comment: It is a type 510? Response from Saylor: It’s type 5B. Because it is a small and building codes wouldn’t require anything beyond the minimal fire treatments. Comment: So then you’re telling me it will have no fire sprinkler system? Comment: Code doesn’t require it. Comment: For the public safety, do we or don’t we need them? Response from Saylor: The cost for a sprinkler system adds two dollars per sq. foot. In a small building the ability to exit is generally not a problem. Response from McAndrew: The cost of a sprinkler system was not included in the estimates. Comment: Concern is for public safety. The bank being a frame building could burn down do the ground. The current building won’t. Comment: Isn’t there a large concern to protect the public records? How will records be protected? Response from Saylor: A fire proof room will house the records. The bank building does have an area planned for fire proof safety of records. Comment: $99 thousand for ADA upgrades in the existing building. What generated that number and what’s involved? Response from McAndrew: All the doorways will have to be widened. That number includes about $25 thousand to relocate staff during construction. Comment: What triggerd the need to do all these upgrades now? Response from McAndrew: Very good question! There is no requirement that says upgrades have to be done. Comment: A unisex ADA bathroom could bring this building into compliance. Comment: Is there a breakdown of cost without all the extras? Is this the right time to invest in such an eye popping extravaganza? Comment: Considering heat loss calculation; 50 % of heat loss is through the roof. Have other ways of reducing energy cost been considered? What are the current mechanicals? Climate zone issues of current building could be addressed. There was a brief discussion on ways to reduce energy cost of the current city hall building between audience members and Mr. Saylor and Mr. McAndrew. Response from McAndrew: In considering the analysis of the comparisons, perhaps a closer look at the energy cost of the current building needs to be made. Comment: Regarding the cost of the buildings. The current building is owned by a city entity and could be given. The other building would have to be purchased at a cost to the tax payers. Comment: The study doesn’t really provide a financial analysis. A ball park number is provided but no provision for contingencies is included. Need versus want is the core issue here. It’s important to use dollars intelligently. Response from McAndrew: Situation of the economy was taken into consideration by this study. Response from Saylor: We are comfortable with the numbers for renovation cost. Comment: What are the energy costs of the current building and what would it be with renovations? Response from Saylor: Around $17 thousand with renovations done. The current cost is around $24 thousand a year. Comment: What is the purchase price of the current building? Response from Mullendore: There is no accurate price. Negotiations are still in process. The appraisal came back at $229 thousand. Comment: A single purpose facility has a much lower value. Comment: What are taxes on the Fifth Third Building? Comment: Size of council chambers is important. Meetings need to be held in City Hall. Concern was expressed over having a smaller building that may not be able to accommodate larger crowds. Comment: Is the additional parking area at the bank part of the parcel? Response from Saylor: Yes Comment: Since the current building is owned by the DDA, what will they do with this building if City Hall moves up to the Fifth Third bank building? Comment: Is a garden roof possible on this building? Response from Saylor: Green Roofs cost about $30 per sq. foot. The building has to have the structural capacity to handle the added weight. It would not be possible with the current building. There was a brief discussion between council members, audience members and Mr. Saylor and Mr. McAndrew that covered ways of improving the energy efficiency of the current building, partitioning rooms, relocating the storage area, providing a room to secure AV systems and fixing the electrical problems. Comment: Is there any consideration being made by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to trade off giving the building for the debt they owe? Response from Dr. Moore: There has been no offer and nothing formal has come forward from the DDA. Comment: Why wasn’t the cost of building a new building part of the feasibility study? Response from McAndrew: It was not part of the task assigned. Comment: Renovation would extend the life of the current building 30 years. The Bank site has a 15 to 20 year life. So any cost put into the current building will last 30 years. The cost into the existing bank building would last 15 to 20 years. The addition portion of the bank building would be 30 years. Mr. Saylor pointed out the zone comparisons between the two buildings. The current building has three functional thermostats. Comment: Recommend looking at what the real needs are and conserve our capital. Give greater consideration to retrofitting the current building based upon real needs. Comment: Question for Meg. What is the plan for the building next door? Response from Mullendore: A Homeland Security grant was submitted that would provide for a fire station and 24 hour EMS. That building would be demoed for that project. We are waiting on announcements from this grant application. Comments: Several questions and comments were made related to the taxes being paid and the savings over the next 10 years. Comment: Retrofitting the current building would save cost over the years. Local contractors would benefit from doing the work. Comment: What is the time frame involved in this? Response from Commissioner Weaver: There is no time constraint. Comment: Do you plan to have more meetings like this? Response from Commissioner Norton: I think we should. I would like to see other options. Comment: This is just a starting phase. Mr. McAndrew asked the group for ideas on other options. Comment: Why not lay out some of the changes in phases? There was discussion on what the public wants the commission to do and how to move forward, keeping in mind that there is a cost to consider additional options. The consultants have completed their assigned task. The council needs to determine what we might want the consultants to study. City Manager Mullendore stated her concerns with the conditions of the current building and the need to provide for a healthy work environment. The purpose of the study was to help determine what the public wants and what the feasibility of making any of these changes is. This work session’s purpose is to invite the public comments so the commission knows what the public wants. Comment: Why didn’t cost to renovate get considered first before going ahead with this study? There was a brief discussion regarding the objectives of a new commission, the economic changes that have also contributed to this consideration and the relation between the city and the DDA. Comment: Could the detail of the costs that have been provided in the summary be made available? It would be helpful to have this information in order to understand where these costs came from. Response from McAndrew: Need to use caution and recognize that there is some play in the numbers. The information is available. Most of the costs were pulled off of average construction cost. Comment: This is a rent free facility. Where does the rent money go? Is there a pool of money out there for maintenance on this building? Response from Mullendore: There is a reserve fund that gets tapped into when repairs are needed. This is a city fund and not a DDA fund. The city takes care of the maintenance on the current building and not the DDA. Comment: Is the reserve fund balance high? Response from Mullendore: No, we’ve had a lot of significant expenses. In the last four years, there has been around $35 thousand spent on HVAC, parking lot seal coat and other expenses. Comment: Can the HVAC be replaced? Comment: The boiler would require a portion of the roof to be removed. Comment: Is there an inventory of all the city properties and facilities with a projected cost plan for the next 10 years? Response from Mullendore: Yes and No. We have to address the need to replace the fire and police facility within the next five years. When we consider major expenditures on facilities, those are the two that we need to focus on. For police and fire we are looking at anywhere from 1.7 to 2.2 million. Comment: We need an adequate financial analysis on both a move and a retrofit of the current facility. Commissioner Cole thanked those who attended. The commissioners have listened and have taken notes. With no other questions or comments, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 pm. Jane Lano, Bertrand Township Clerk Carla Cole, Mayor Pro Tem |
||||||||||||||||
