Council begins feasibility review of KC (Casey) Building but delays decision pending more data

City staff presented the council with a preliminary feasibility review of a possible purchase of the KC (Casey) Professional Building at 20624 FM 1431 and outlined alternatives including building a new city hall adjacent to the police department or remodeling existing municipal facilities.

Charles (staff) said an offer to sell the building to the city had been discussed at roughly $3.5 million and that a preliminary appraisal was underway; he reported a preliminary appraisal figure provided that day of $4,373,203 and a taxable value noted in the packet. He described the building as a condominium-style property currently occupied by several tenants (Travis County ESD, the Chamber of Commerce, Farmers Insurance and others) and said current tenant rent totals were reported as roughly $21,000 per month in the packet.

Charles emphasized that staff had not made a recommendation and that the matter remained in a feasibility stage: “At this time, the city council and staff have not made any recommendations on decisions regarding this project. We are only in a feasibility study stage at this point,” he said. Staff outlined options and next steps, including completion of the appraisal, Park Hill Architects work on a new-building design and further staff analysis of remodel versus purchase costs.

Councilors pressed staff for more detail before any acquisition decision. Questions included: how many parking spaces (staff later reported 49 total, 37 in back and two handicap), which tenant spaces would remain occupied and for how long, the remaining lease terms and monthly payments (Charles said he would provide lease details at the next meeting), and the projected build-out or remediation costs to bring the building to the city’s standards. Councilor Benfield asked that the city determine exact tenant square footage and remaining lease obligations before moving forward.

Council members also debated financing and priorities. Benfield warned that financing $2.5 million would affect the city’s future borrowing ability and said citizens should have a vote if the council commits to long-term debt; Charles and other staff members said no debt decision had been made and that staff was collecting the data the council requested. Several members said the city must plan strategically for long-term space needs and that options — buying, leasing or building — should be compared with clear numbers and a decision matrix.

Council consensus was to continue work: proceed with the appraisal and Park Hill’s study, produce detailed lease and square-footage schedules and return to council with the requested figures before any final action. Several councilors suggested scheduling further study and a post-mortem/budget review to align a multi-year plan for city facilities and funding.

What happens next: staff will provide the appraisal result, tenant lease schedules and a break-out of available square footage and build-out cost estimates for council consideration at a future meeting; the council did not authorize purchase during this session.