Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Project Costs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

H‑Barn schematic design estimate nearly doubles earlier projections; city to weigh scope and funding

5455775 · July 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Schematic design for restoration of the historic H‑Barn returned an estimated total project cost of about $14.3 million; staff identified options to reduce the budget to roughly $10.4 million and outlined possible grant and lodging‑tax financing but said roughly $3.5–7.5 million remains to be found depending on final scope.

City manager staff presented a schematic‑design cost update for the H‑Barn restoration and renovation project on July 21 and told council the current construction and site estimate is about $14.3 million, substantially higher than earlier, lower estimates.

The estimate includes building work, site improvements, professional design and permitting fees, cultural resources studies, allowances for testing and inspection, furnishings, contingencies, bonds and insurance, escalation to mid‑2026 and sales tax. Staff identified a possible reduction of roughly $3.9 million by trimming scope (landscaping, site work, some security/IT features, roof or electrical phasing and limiting parking to ADA stalls), which would lower the estimate to about $10.4 million. A limited set of add‑back alternatives (3‑phase power, expanded site work) would increase the total to near $11.5 million.

City manager Krauss reminded council the earlier 2021 estimate used smaller cost assumptions (about $7.4 million total, approximately $6.9 million construction) and counted on private fundraising by Partners for Parks (campaign contributions previously in the $2.7–2.9 million range), a possible state capital request (illustratively $250,000) and lodging‑tax supported debt (a $2 million bond over 20 years would carry roughly $160,000 annual debt service). The current gap varies by scope: under the full $14.3 million plan the city would be roughly $7.5 million short; under the reduced $10.4 million plan the gap is roughly $3.5 million.

Krauss asked council for direction on next steps. Council members suggested a study session dedicated to H‑Barn and downtown park planning and recommended coordinating the timing with upcoming staffing changes (new parks director, incoming city manager). Council member Brandstetter suggested discussing lodging‑tax board coordination and LTAC when the city schedules deeper review.