Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances $867,050 design modification for municipal building projects after debate over reserves
Summary
The Finance Committee voted March 17 to forward Contract Modification No. 1 to Contract No. 8267, adding $867,050 for design of the old senior center ($439,550) and municipal court second-floor ($427,500); members debated use of general reserves and the relationship to a six‑penny ballot fund with mixed votes and the chair breaking a tie.
The Finance Committee on March 17 recommended that the City Council approve Contract Modification No. 1 to Contract No. 8267 with Plan One Architects to fund design work for two municipal renovation projects.
Adele Bartell, public works staff engineer, said the modification requests $439,550 for renovation design of the old senior center and $427,500 for design of the municipal court second floor, for a total of $867,050. She said the intent is to have these two facilities renovated so they can serve as temporary office space during renovation of the municipal building and as permanent locations for city functions including council chambers.
Committee members asked for contract and fund-status details. Council McMoody asked how much has been paid on the contract to date; staff answered $165,000 has been paid so far. Councilman Moody said he would vote no because the original six-penny ballot funding was intended for the municipal building design and he cautioned against using general reserves for new projects; he suggested the $867,050 might be better spent on stormwater mitigation. Councilman White said he supports proceeding so the city is ready if the six-penny ballot measure passes and noted the senior-center opportunity emerged after other projects.
Craig Lavoy of Public Works clarified that the $2.5 million approved by voters in 2021 was for design of the municipal building; the senior center and municipal court second-floor work were not on that ballot and so require general-fund reserves. Staff reported $94,771 remains in the six-penny fund and the city plans to use that for a construction manager (CM) and construction for the municipal building.
The item was moved by Councilman Moody and seconded by Councilman White. During the roll-call-style responses the committee produced split votes; Councilman Moody recorded a no vote while Councilman White recorded a yes, and the chair cast a deciding vote in favor. The committee's recommendation will be to approve the contract modification at the next meeting of the governing body.
Recorded figures from the meeting: total contract amount referenced $2,341,600; $165,000 paid to date; requested modification $867,050 (breakdown as above); $94,771 remaining in 2021 six-penny fund. Staff said if the six-penny fails, the city would still have the plans but would rely on reserves to proceed with construction.
The committee forwarded the contract modification to the governing body for final action.
