Agenda - Council - 04/26/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Background On May 25, Associates (B', facilities. The (see attached), is the highest future. PRESENTATION OF FACILITIES STUDY By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator CASE # 1993, City Council hired the firm of Boatman Kroos Phister Rudin & g. PR) to conduct a space needs analysis for Public Works, Police and Fire original Staff projections for our needs in these three areas was $2,933,000 I believe it has been the consensus of Council, however, that Public Works ~riority and that any fire expansion or satellite facility be pushed off into the Several years I~go, a building replacement fund was created intended, I believe, to provide for the Publig Works facility. On December 31, 1993, this fund had a balance of $301,006. ~[ithin the 1994 budget is an .additional $59,450 contribution (total of $360,456 pluslinterest less any expenditures). Currently proposed at the Staff level for the 1995 budget i~ an additional infusion of $102,500. Council will ~ecall that, beginning in 1997, the Landfill Trust Fund will be contributing $31,000 per y.~ar to the building replacement fund. Further, that by recent Council action, 40 percent of any year-end excess revenues is allocated to this fund (highly dependent upon construction a~tivity, however). r If Council is[able to fund (on a perpetual basis) the $102,500 noted above with the assistance of ~e $31,000 umst fund allocation, a $1,414,300 project is possible within the existing tax lc' ry. We may add to that the replacement fund balance projected by year-end 1995 (assumir ~ the $102,500 budget and no year-end allocation) to achieve a project cost of $1,877,257 at 7%/20 years assuming no bond issuance costs). Attached are four construction options that Staff has been reviewing ranging in cost from $2,819,100 to $4,034,100. These projects all include the fire station as well as allowances for furnishing!;, site development and contingencies. There is a large difference between these proposa~s and what I believe we can afford without a tax increase. Therefore, the architects bar,been asked to prepare a fifth option which scales the project back somewhat and provides For an additional opportunity for phasing. This also is included for your review. Additionally, Anoka Electric Cooperative continues to be interested in building a joint Public Works facility or providing for some of our needs (such as mechanics bays) within their fal~ility. Mr. David Kr4>os of BKPR will be present at your meeting to review his report with you. This will start the process of determining the meeting point between needs/wants and the checkbook. C. urrently, we appear to be headed toward a 1996 construction project. I am hoping that by the completion of the 1995 budget process we will have verified or amended this time fram and provided a more specific project scope and budget. Staff Recon mendation: Staff recommends beginning the process of critiquing the Staff analysis of facility needs. Committee Action: ' Motion to be~n the process of critiquing the Staff analysis of facility needs. Reviewed bY: Copies also distributed to: City Adminis ,t~tor Finance Officer ~ City Engineer ~ Public Works Supervisor ~ Police Chief ~ Fire Chief FC: 04/261/94 David Kroos, BKPR