Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Makerspace topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council divided on Cauley Creek makerspace: retrofit, new build or pause for more information
Summary
Staff presented two options for the Cauley Creek makerspace — retrofit the old reclamation building or construct a new building — with a $100,000 to $300,000 tradeoff depending on HVAC and scope; councilmembers asked for more comprehensive cost, parking and end‑use analysis before committing.
Assistant City Manager Haggard told the council the design‑build contractor proposed building a new structure next to the reclamation building; staff estimated new construction would cost about $100,000 more up‑front than a retrofit but would offer lower long‑term maintenance and better flexibility. Haggard also said adding air conditioning to either option would cost up to about $300,000.
Why it matters: the makerspace is a community amenity promised in prior discussions. A decision affects construction budgets, site parking and the future use of the older reclamation plant building.
Council members split on the approach. One member urged pausing the effort to re‑examine end uses, parking and lifecycle costs, saying the project had shifted multiple times over nine months and that a comprehensive cost‑benefit analysis was necessary before further commitments. Another member argued a new, lower‑height building would reduce long‑term HVAC costs and increase operational efficiency.
A council member summarized a cost comparison for the record, saying the new building cost per square foot was about $235 while retrofitting the older building with air conditioning would be roughly $176 per square foot; that calculation suggested new construction could cost roughly $755,000 more than the retrofit once square footage differences were considered. Staff confirmed the existing design‑build contract would allow either renovation or a new building without issuing a new RFP, but any contract amendment would come back to council for approval.
Council asked staff to: provide an illustration of proposed locations, a full lifecycle and parking analysis, clarification on MRPA/MPA (permitting) requirements, and specifics on how the city might reuse or repurpose the older plant building if a second structure is built. Several members supported exploring the design‑build contractor’s new‑building option, but others asked for a short pause to collect the additional information.
The council did not take a binding vote on the makerspace; staff said it will return with more detailed comparisons and, if an amendment to the design‑build contract is pursued, that amendment would be presented to council for approval.
