04/26/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE PRESENTATION OF FACILITIES STUDY ~ By: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Background: On May 25,i 1993, City Council hired the firm of Boarman Kroos Phister Rudin & Associates (I~KPR) to conduct a space needs analysis for Public Works, Police and Fire facilities. Th~ original Staff projections for our needs in these three areas was $2,933,000 (see attached~,. I believe it has been the consensus of Council, however, that Public.Works is the highest[priority and that any fire expansion or satellite facility be pushed off into the future. #/ Several years~ago, a building replacement fund was created intended, I believe, to provide for the Publlc Works facility. On December 31, 1993, this fund had a balance of $301,006. Within the 1994 budget is an .additional $59,450 contribution (total of $360,456 pluti interest less any expenditures). Currently proposed at the Staff level for the 1995 budget/Is an additional infusion of $102,500. Council will ~'ecall that, beginning in 1997, the Landfill Trust Fund will be contributing $31,000 per ~ear to the building replacement fund. Further, that by recent Council action, 40 percent of~my year-end excess revenues is allocated to this fund (highly dependent Upon construction ~cfivity, however). If Council i~ able to fund (on a perpetual basis) the $102,500 noted above with the assistance of ~:he $31,000 trust fund allocation, a $1,414,300 project is possible within the existing tax lc ~vy. We may add to that the replacement fund balance projected by year-end 1995 (assumi~ g 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 furnishinl~'S, site development and contingencies. There is a large difference between these propose ls and what I believe we can afford without a tax increase. Therefore, the architects hav'~ 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. Ad~iionally, 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 f~ility. Mr. David Ir~oos of BKPR will be present at your meeting to review his report with you. This will star~ the process of determining the meeting point between needs/wants and the checkbook. Currently, we appear to be headed toward a 1996 construction project. I am hoping that b~ the completion of the 1995 budget process we will have verified or amended this time fran~ and provided a more specific project scope and budget. Staff RecoSmendatlon: 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: City Adminis[~ator FC: 04/26/94 Copies also distributed to: Finance Officer City Engineer Public Works Supervisor Police Chief Fire Chief David Kroos, BKPR /