Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Decorah council weighs $12M–$18M bond for new fire station and municipal building after ISG assessment
Summary
Consultants presented three options — renovate and add ($12M), demolish and rebuild fire station only ($12.6M), or demolish and build a facility for all city services ($17.2M). Council debated tax impacts, preservation, parking and timing and set a follow‑up meeting for more detail.
Decorah — City officials and consultants spent the bulk of the council meeting reviewing options and costs for the municipal building and fire station and whether to place a bond question on the November ballot.
City staff and ISG, a consultant team, summarized a facility conditions assessment and three high‑level options: renovate and add onto the existing structure (construction plus soft costs estimated about $12,000,000); demolish and build a new fire station only (about $12,600,000); or demolish and build a new two‑story facility to house fire, city administration and parks and recreation (about $17,200,000). ISG stressed the estimates are preliminary and based on square‑foot cost modeling.
“Today we want to make sure you truly understand how we got to these numbers,” said Sue Peterson of ISG, explaining the team’s space‑needs analysis and the tradeoffs between keeping portions of the existing building and building new. ISG’s summary said retaining some of the old structure can trigger modern code requirements and significant structural upgrades that increase costs.
Councilors focused on three main questions: the tax impact on homeowners, whether preserving parts of the 60‑year‑old building is feasible, and alternatives to placing a large bond now. ISG and staff provided an example tax impact: roughly $23 a month on a $250,000 home for a $12.6 million bond vs. about $31 a month for the larger option, a difference councilors repeatedly cited in debate.
Several councilors said a consolidated new facility (option 3) would be operationally desirable because it avoids leasing costs for relocated departments, while others warned the community is already facing a recent school bond request and urged caution about asking taxpayers for more. “For $8 more a month, we take care of all the city needs,” one councilor summarized when comparing the two price points.
Council members also pushed ISG for additional, voter‑facing materials if a question is drafted: box‑plan sketches, square‑foot allocations and a concise FAQ explaining what the bond would pay for and why it is needed. ISG said it would prepare such materials if the council directed staff to proceed.
City staff and several councilors agreed to continue the discussion at a special meeting; staff asked council members to email any specific questions by Thursday so consultants could provide answers for the packet. No formal decision to place a bond question on the ballot was made at the meeting.
The next step is a follow‑up council session to narrow options and gather more detailed concept drawings and Q&A material before the county deadline to place language on the November ballot.
