Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that this project would <br />include exterior finishes. He stated that the CIP worksheet was done a few years ago and there <br />have been increases in the cost of construction. He believed this to be a reasonable cost. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that this is an update to a pump house. She stated that <br />while people inside The COR may appreciate an updated look, those outside of The COR might <br />prefer to have a lesser cost and funds to be spent on roads. <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that the funding for this <br />comes from the municipal water utility and therefore could not be used on roads. He stated that <br />he would not qualify the finishes as extravagant and is not a redo but finishing of the pump house <br />which is a raw concrete building. He stated that these architectural standards are what the City has <br />required that the neighboring property owners meet through their developments and therefore the <br />City would be holding itself to the same standard it places on others. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell stated that she will be voting against this action tonight. She stated that <br />the City has the water treatment plant upcoming which uses the municipal water utility. She stated <br />that this is a beautiful proposal but believes that the funds could be spent more practically. She <br />stated that perhaps this be revisited after the water treatment plant, as this is more decorative in <br />nature. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman asked if there were previous plans to include restrooms that had been <br />scaled down to exterior finishes <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that the restrooms would be <br />a separate building to the side and would be considered separately at another time. He stated that <br />this would only address the exterior finishes of the pump house which were originally postponed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman asked what the original cost estimate of $240,000 included that this <br />proposal does not include. <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood replied that the original cost was an <br />estimate as they conceived of the project which included a concrete apron that would have gone <br />around the building and other treatments such as a canopy for shade and turf irrigation. He stated <br />that the amount shown on the CIP worksheet are estimates. He confirmed that the remaining <br />estimate could be used to address the other items that are not proposed at this time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that he would like to see this get done as the building has sat <br />unfinished. He commented that the City made a good decision not to finish it 20 years ago, but <br />the time to finish this is now. He agreed that the price point is high and asked if there are any cost <br />savings that could be gained. He stated that there have been comments about the exterior of this <br />building from adjacent property owners. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that the City has a design standard that it holds others to for <br />development and the City should hold itself to the same standard. <br />City Council / April 27, 2021 <br />Page 10 of 17 <br /> <br />