Committee debates Brookens building’s future as RPC, ISERT seek long leases and major renovations

Champaign County Board Facilities Committee members spent substantial time discussing the county-owned Brookens building and whether to approve long leases and renovation commitments for two large tenants: the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) and ISERT, a program of RPC. Committee members did not take formal action; they agreed to a joint follow-up meeting with finance and to collect specific budget and capital-life information for a concise briefing.

The discussion matters because the Brookens building could be largely occupied by RPC and ISERT for a multi-year period, which would change rental income, capital contributions and the county’s role as landlord for a facility that will require ongoing maintenance and, in some cases, major capital repairs.

Michelle, a county facilities staff member, said RPC currently occupies most of Pod 100 and is seeking additional space in the north portion of the former administration hallway; she said ISERT wants the gym pod and other adjoining rooms. Custodian Jason, who manages Brookens operations, estimated RPC and ISERT combined would occupy roughly two-thirds of the building: “I would estimate that that combined is probably 30 to 35% of the building” for RPC’s new request and “another 30% of the building” for ISERT, leaving about 30–35% of space potentially available for other tenants.

Committee discussion focused on several financial details raised during the meeting: the building’s total square footage (reported as 93,000 square feet), sample rental-revenue proformas, and how rental income contributes to a capital fund. Michelle provided a pro forma figure — the county’s lowest price point fully covering estimated operating costs — that showed about $486,000 in annual revenue for a 33,000-square-foot block; she later clarified that the corrected capital contribution estimate was closer to $285,000 for the first year. Committee members asked for clearer, single-page documentation summarizing major capital items, life-expectancy of systems, and rental-income scenarios at low and market rates.

Several board members framed the question as a choice among alternatives: continue to provide space for RPC and ISERT at subsidized rent (keeping RPC’s programs in-county), bond and build/purchase alternative space, or seek private-market tenants. Committee members noted RPC is an existing county division and that RPC’s operating model (grant-funded administration) gives it limited ability to pay market rents; members said finding equivalent off-site, affordable space would be difficult. One committee member summarized the practical choice: if RPC must be housed somewhere, “we are subsidizing their rent” whether the county provides the Brookens building or pays for off-site space.

Committee members asked several operational and risk questions: how many tenants would need to sign to reach financial breakeven, whether the county should create a capital “nest egg” for unexpected repairs, and whether to hire a dedicated building manager whose focused priority would be keeping the facility occupied. Michelle said a dedicated building manager, janitorial and maintenance staffing are included in the square-footage cost calculations and crucial to operating the building successfully.

Several members urged putting a concise financial summary and risk comparison into one brief document for the full board and noted a joint facilities-finance meeting was scheduled to provide the necessary financial detail. RPC and ISERT representatives are expected to attend upcoming county meetings to answer board questions; no lease has been signed with ISERT pending committee and full-board direction on lease term length and capital responsibilities.

The committee did not vote on leasing terms at this meeting. Members said they want facilities and finance staff to return with a one-page summary that lists (a) major capital projects and their remaining life expectancies, (b) an occupancy breakdown showing RPC/ISERT share and remaining rentable space, (c) low- and market-rate rental scenarios with dollars allocated to operating costs vs. capital, and (d) worst-case occupancy projections so the board can compare the financial risk of subsidized in-county occupancy versus alternatives.