 Okay, at this time we don't have a quorum to call City Council meeting to order. So what we're going to do is have Chairman Wolf come up and conduct a meeting for the public works committee. And if in the ensuing time we do get another two aldermen to attend so we have 11 present, then we could still hold the City Council meeting after the public works committee meeting. So, Wolf, the chair is yours. I'd like to call to order the joint meeting of public works and finance and personnel. Right now it's just going to be public works so please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, thank you for that. All right, I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting. So moved. Second. Thank you for that. I guess we'll go right into 6.1. Nope. 6.1. We'll have to go to 4.2. Because it's all. I want to keep going. In this one. Into adjourn. No. Right here. Confirmations. All right, so we're going to go into 2.1 and I apologize for the confusion. We're going to discuss the confirmation of City Hall project plan and budget. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, John, we are going to vote. For the motion to approve the minutes, there was a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Now we'll go to 2.1. Confirmation of City Hall project plan and budget. Dave Beal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have Steve Goonan from Bright Architects, our principal architect on this project. Give the committee and those in the audience an update on where we've been so far with the project plans and where we're at today and have them go over those details with you. Okay. Thank you, David. Again, my name is Stephen Coonan. I'm also joined here with my associate, Stephen Yeager, who is in the audience, but we've both been working on the project. The last time, the last direction we had was to proceed with the design that you see up on the screen and that is essentially to add a new addition to the north side of the building. So what you're looking at up there is the north side of the building. The idea being to open the building up, bring a lot more natural light in, a north light, and then create kind of an atrium space in the center of the building which would vertically connect all the departments. And the ultimate goal is to provide, I think, a much better work environment for the city employees and also a very kind of customer-friendly atmosphere for any of the city taxpayers who are going to come and do business at the city hall. So really we're creating a whole new entry, a formal entry on the north side. The existing entrance, which we're kind of looking at as more of a kind of historical entry, would still be there and that's the one off of... Center Street. Center Street. Thank you. I should know that. And so anyway, my intention is to go through the plans, show you where we've been working hard. We've met with all the departments a number of times. We have come up with a floor plan that I think works for the most part for everyone in the building. We're going to continue to work with each department as we move through this. We have got all of our engineers engaged. We've done a lot of work with our structural engineers, as you can imagine. We've had meetings with both public work staff as well as our electrical engineers, plumbing engineers, our fire engineers. And we've really got a good handle on what it's going to take to kind of take this to the finish line. We've also got a meeting set up with the State of Wisconsin to get an initial review. So we're really on track to move this forward and go out to bid, as we hope, in the spring and then start construction. So with that, maybe we go to the next page. So these are plans of the lower level, the basement, on the lower half of the sheet, and then the first plan on the upper half. And maybe I'll start with the first floor. That's where the majority of people will be coming into the building. You can see up at the top of the plan is the new entryway, which would come off of a plaza with those plazas. The plaza would be equipped with handicap ramps so anyone in a wheelchair could get up there without an issue. And then we've got doors going into a major kind of the main lobby space. Anyone entering the building would then immediately see either the city clerk, which is on the left-hand side, or we've got finance and human resources on the right-hand side. And the idea would be that there would be some open counter space, similar to what you have now, but the majority of the business being done would be done from these three departments. The other thing we've done is we've created conference rooms that can be accessed by either the departments themselves or, for instance, if someone came into a meeting, they wouldn't necessarily have to go into the department space. They could go right into the conference room. And the idea of the conference rooms aren't necessarily owned by each department. They're really owned by the entire building and they're to be used by community groups or for whatever business is happening during the day and open to anyone. So again, we've got human resources on the right and finance and then city clerk on the left. We're also showing additional toilet space, all upgraded toilet rooms, handicapped accessible. And we're also showing two stair towers. These would replace the existing fire escapes. Those would be fire and clothes added for safety. A new elevator shaft that would go from the basement floor level all the way up to the fourth level, which we're going to talk about, which is mechanical space now, the proposed mechanical space. And notice that we're keeping the stairway, that historic stairway, and that would be refurbished and kind of taken apart and put back together to refurbish the marble and the railings and really restore it to what it was earlier. In the basement or lower level would be the IT department. We've located them, that's the green area. We've located them in the portion of the basement that has natural light. So they would get natural light. The intent would be to re-glace the openings down there or replace any of the grates that need to be replaced. And they would have all of their office space there. The server room itself would be up on the fourth floor, and I'll show that again. We've also got the appraisers down here. The appraisers are part of finance, but they really have their own space. And so there would be room for them down in the basement. And again, they would be located so that they get some natural light down there. The intent would be that this would be completely renovated. We've also got a lot of storage space down here. It probably wouldn't be renovated but not finished to the level that the other spaces would be because it would be an occupied space. But we have a training room down off of the technologies that would be used primarily for the IT training, but open to anyone. So I'll move up to the second floor. So at the top of the second floor, if you came into the first floor and you weren't going to do business with finance or human resources or the city clerk, they would say, well, just head right up the steps. And you would head up those main stairway there and you would immediately hit the planning and development department. And that, again, would be an open shelf there, very inviting. But you really wouldn't be able to get into, it would be secured from the public, the offices and the workers. And so, again, you could be directed into any of the conference rooms off of that main area and the staff could meet you in those conference rooms. I should point out that the gray area here is sort of the open corridor space, an open space. And you also notice that white area in there, that's where we intend to open up that floor to above. Again, there would be this atrium that would serve to connect the spaces vertically but also to bring natural light into all of those, all of the internal spaces. Finally, up on the third floor, we propose turning the council chambers kind of back into the space that it was. So that wall back there would come out. The ceiling would be raised. There is a skylight underneath here that is intact. As part of the roofing, we would bring a new skylight in, bring natural light into this area, kind of restore it to the way it was back in 1916 when the building was built. Also, these windows would all be replaced here. That third set of that palladium window would be also part of this space. So if you can just imagine this being a lot wider, open up that space and then kind of a glass wall over here that would just welcome people in. And then the layout of this room would change as well. The dais would be up in front of these windows. And the audience would be facing that way towards the City Council dais. And then to the right side, we're showing the Mayor's Suite, the Mayor and Administrator Suite. They have a conference room that would be connected, similar to the one they've got now, that would be connected to both the chambers and their suite. On the left side of the plan, we're showing a space that would be used for the staff for their lunch needs and kind of a staff lounge, any training needs that would need to happen there and just some place for the staff to go and decompress and relax. And then again, we're showing a larger toilet space here on the third floor that would accommodate if you had a full house in the chambers. And then do we have the fourth floor? Yeah, okay, the next plan would be the fourth floor. And right now there are two spaces up there, not real usable space. And we don't need the space. We accommodated all the departments we need to and the other floors. But we do need new mechanical space because this space would be now air conditioned and heated and we would need space for our air handlers and boilers and such. So the idea would be that this fourth floor would be enclosed. The main stair would no longer go up to that. We would access that via the stair on the left. But the elevator, which is on the right, you can sort of see it, would access that fourth floor. So it would be for any kind of maintenance and such. Plus we're showing the server room up there, the server room for the computer racks and such. So that space becomes necessary and very usable mechanical space for the building. So again the idea is that this would be essentially a brand new building because we're looking at gutting the interiors for the most part, taking all the asbestos out, taking all the lead paint out and then rebuilding it in a contemporary office fashion with really the heart of the building being the stairway and this room kind of paying homage to the historical nature of the building. And of course the exterior as well would be restored, new windows, new roof, any energy efficiencies that we can put in there, additional insulation and such on the roof. That would be brought back to the way it was back in 1916 and hopefully last another hundred years. So what does all this cost? I think that's the next... By the way I think I mentioned we're about 30% done with our work. There are a lot more drawings. We didn't want to bore you with all the kind of engineering drawings and that sort of detail although it is available for anyone who might be interested. Right now we're showing the general construction cost and the cost that once this went out to bid it would be the cost that we would expect to see from a general contractor who would hold all the contracts for the subcontracts and right now we are looking at a budget of about 8.8 million dollars to construct that and that again would be a total gut and renovating it to the plans that you saw above. We went through this with our... We did actual takeoffs of the building and we spent a lot of time going through the previous reports that were done with the building. We called in some experts to talk about things like brick reconstruction and some of the stone reconstruction, tuck pointing, roof needs, all those kinds of things. So we feel really confident about this budget. And then below that line we've got, oh by the way that 8.7 that contains an estimating contingency. At this point we always like to hold a little bit of contingency because we still have things that we just don't know the final numbers on and so there is a contingency that we're holding of about $250,000 which is about 3% of that construction cost. As we get closer and no more that might come down although we can't bring that down to zero because again we need to hold some for construction. Below that line then are the soft costs, the things that need to be accounted for but aren't necessarily part of the construction. Things such as the architect's engineering fee although that's a great bargain. We do have a construction contingency there about 4% and that again as we want to hold that, that's really for the city to hold during construction. So if anything we open up a wall and there's some things that need to be taken care of that we didn't anticipate that you can use that. Our goal would be to not have to use any of that but that's pretty much an impossibility. I know that every construction project, especially one with so many unknowns is going to need some additional funds. And then we've got things like geotechnical services. Some of that actually has already occurred. We're getting some soil warnings and things like that. Environmental engineering services, that is the abatement of the asbestos I mean lead paint, we have a report and I know that I think the city is working on getting harder numbers on that right now. We're carrying about $100,000 for that. Various permitting fees, plan approval fees. Builders risk, we've put in numbers for moving and relocation services, furniture and fixed equipment. It's showing $850,000 and we just got after this was done, we got a much better estimate from a firm for about $600,000. So there's $200,000, I guess you could call it savings at this point that we see that is not reflected in here. And then things like furnishings and fixed equipment. Those would be things like televisions and, you know, anything that would be required beyond casework and things like that. A telephone system, the council chambers, audio, video, legal insurance, technology, switches and such. And then if you continue to go down, we just listed a lot of things that aren't included that we see. We just do this as a format. And typically we would see some of these things. On this project we don't anticipate a lot of these. Obviously you've got land. We don't need that design of non-conventional footings. We don't see a need for that. So anyway, we just wanted to list some of the things that aren't included just for clarification purposes. But those soft costs come in at about $2.1 million. So the total project sort of turnkey cost, we're looking at about $10.9 or if you take off $200,000 from that updated furniture, about $10.7 million for the entire project cost. So that's kind of where we're at to date. And I'm happy to take any questions that you might have. Yes, sir. Yes, Henry. Just two questions pop into my head right away. Number one is what is the logic with putting the service up on the fourth floor and the IT in the basement rather than having them in close proximity? Then the other question is, I think I noticed on the second floor you don't have bathrooms anymore, is that correct? No, we have bathrooms on the second floor, but they're sort of single-hole toilets because we don't see a lot of, it was just the office workers up there. We don't see a lot of, like up on the third floor, we've got a lot of public there. So that was the rationale behind that. And as far as we just, in talking with our HVAC consultant, we need to get air throughout the whole building. If we have it on just the lower level, our chases need to be much larger because we have to get it to the third floor. Steve, did you want to? I think the question was about the server room. And the server room too, yeah. And the HVAC was because we wanted to get some above and below so that we can feed from both ends. A little bit more efficient that way. Any additional questions? Jim, please use your mics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would be some of the reductions that you got, the $200,000, would that be from the type of finishes that are going to be used or where did that, do you know exactly where the savings came in? Well, what we did, as architects, we don't, we do some, it's from the furniture estimate is really what it was from. And we actually, we've done a plan, but we thought it would be a good idea to go out to a vendor and ask them to get a better handle on that. So we took our plan, sent it to a vendor, a local vendor here, and asked them to put a reasonable cost to what it would cost to furnish this. And that's what they came back with. We were a little bit high there because we're not as adept at estimating furniture as they would be. And then just to follow up, would you consider this plan to be a Rolls Royce, a Chevrolet, or a Volkswagen? And I'm talking about, you know, the various finishes. Are we talking about, you know, quartz countertop, granite countertops, laminate, you know, where are we on the scale of finishes and where does that figure into the cost? Yeah, and that's a great question. We haven't selected all of our finishes yet. That's still to come, but I think the strategy we're using is to look at finishes that are going to last a long time. We would not anticipate putting plastic laminate. Maybe on the casework we would, but for the service counters, we wouldn't do that because you'd be replacing them in five years. So the areas of heavy traffic, like on the first floor, we would like to use terrazzo floor in there because we know if we're looking at this lasting another 100 years, you know, with maintenance, it could do that. I just have to put that caveat in there, but terrazzo floor will last forever and but we wouldn't do that up in the upper floors where maybe they're not getting as much traffic. We'd put carpet in there, you know, which is more reasonable. But at any of the counters where there's going to be a lot of use, we'd probably look at quartz or something similar to that. So that, again, so that maybe a little bit more cost up front, but certainly it's going to last longer. Thank you. Alder Donahue. Thanks. I just had a couple of questions about this kind of ancient history. When we were looking at the original space that we either had or we thought we would need in City Hall, for some reason, and maybe David Bebel knows this, I have 26,000 square feet in my head as opposed to 40,000, 41,000. Is that about right or are we at 40,000 now and we're not really expanding anything? Yeah. Well, right now we are at 40,900 and that's with this new addition that we put on here, which is about 6,100 square feet of that. And when we originally programmed a new City Hall, we thought we could get all the people in there in about 26,000 square feet. What this shows is that, and you can see, we've got some space for growth in here. We've got a lot of space in the basement. We're probably only using a third of the basement. So the rest of that is either future space or storage. We've got space up on the third floor that could be moved into. There's additional office space up there. And so I guess the answer is because we have an existing footprint here, we wanted to use as much as we could. And so it's showing more square footages to build a brand new building where we could make it really, really efficient. We could probably do that closer to 26,000 square feet. Okay. So I think it was $267 a square foot. That's substantial. Substantial addition. Okay. Just a couple of other things just on the soft costs. And this I guess would be a question for David or maybe Darrell. Are we contemplating a hope or I would assume a construction manager or an owner's rep? I can address that and Dave can supplement. That's been discussed internally as an option. So a construction manager would be hired to augment a break architects to value engineer and then ultimately to be the owner's representative as we go out to bid. You as a common council could decide whether you want that construction manager to be eligible to bid themselves for some of the work. Or whether you want to restrict their services simply to being our representative or a construction manager. Typically that comes at a cost at roughly 2% of the overall project. And ultimately I guess we need to decide whether we think this the scope of this project whether we think will recoup our the 2% cost and hopefully some more by adding that that extra sort of element to the overall project. A good news for us is that we have a couple firms in our backyard so to speak that could perform this role. But also these same companies we hope will have an interest in this project will sharpen their pencil and give us a great bid price. And then they in essence would take on the responsibility of not only in essence being construction manager but overseeing all the subs and finding the best subs and hopefully at the best price. So we have looked at that based upon the idea coming up in the last month. At this point time I'm probably more inclined based upon I guess I'm not confident at this point that we would recoup that 2% or more by having a construction manager. My hope is that going the more traditional route again especially with having a couple contractors within the borders of the city of Sheboygan will ultimately get a better price. Sometimes the construction manager is difficult to separate out the different work. And sometimes you get some finger pointing as to who's supposed to perform certain roles but having one contractor in charge and having to coordinate all the subs and ultimately take the risk that would be the more traditional route as opposed to construction manager. And so I'm just and there may be a couple of these not included costs that we'll probably add something on as well as our relocation costs and so forth. And I think that's it for now. Thanks. I was wondering about security on the first floor level plans. We seem to have an entrance from the north. That's the main entrance and then we get a couple doors from the south that are still going to be open for people to come. There isn't any real security kind of situation and it's pretty it would be just pretty open. Are we intending that there just be a staff person in the desk that's kind of by the north atrium area. Can we get back to that plan. Maybe we could talk through that. I you know it's a great point and we did talk about security and I think we sort of talked about a card system. Right. You know where the where the employees would each have a card access or there would be card access. Everybody have a card. They couldn't get into these into the staff colored areas without that card. And so the the the open area. Yeah it would be unsecured in that anybody could come in there but but they would be there would be a sort of a security barrier between the public and the people in the office. And then how you would you know if you had an active shooter or something I guess that's something we need to talk through as to how we how we would address that. That would be a whole whole another discussion. I think there are certain new things we can do to mitigate that. You had a statement. Yeah I wanted to follow up to Alder Donahue who brought up the issue of what our minimum square footage needs are versus what's being programmed in this plan. Some of the as Steve alluded to. We're working within the existing square footage the size of the existing structure and staff met a couple times to discuss our concern for that inefficiency as well. And a lot of it centered around the fact that we have this historic stairwell and it takes up a lot of room. So we actually asked Steve and his firm to do a redesign where we basically eliminated the historic stairwell and came up with a brand new set of stairs kind of pushing it a little bit further north turning it sideways to again really maximize the square footage. And ultimately the management staff who are based here at City Hall express concern that whether it be you as the Alders of the community really are anticipating that that stairwell will remain intact and in essence sort of embellish it as really the only as one of the key linkage linkages of the interior of the structure existing to its future. So staff recognizes you know the question that you raise and ultimately our recommendation is to incorporate it I guess embrace it. It does allow as Steve mentioned light to flow up and down to allow sort of a visual connection but cost wise yet there is there is an essence of cost to keeping it intact. I guess I just wanted to add to that one of the concerns I had when it comes to City Hall. I've been an advocate as it has you guys know for a new construction. Correct me if I'm wrong but originally the staircase was presented as the focal point because of its grandeur and that and some of the questions that came up originally were why are we turning the front end of the building to the back end of the building. And your focal point was to change the back end of the building to glass and open it up because of the staircase correct me if I'm wrong. And then later you guys talked about well the staircase is too big and it's going to be very costly. So again we're spending a lot of money trying to maintain or fix and turn this into something even better. Dave. I'm going to go back in time a little bit which really why we're here and the reason was is we had some structural issues with this building. The reason the north wall is being opened up is because we're having quite a bit of failure of the mortar and the rust pack and the windows and it's going to require regardless if we stay here or not. There's going to be significant structural work that's going to be needed on this north facade. Me scenery work that was one component the mechanical system in this building we have a steam boiler we have really no forced air as you can tell with air conditioning with window units. I'm not very efficient we have we need a new roof. So just the structural and mechanical type of issues was anywhere from three and a half to four and a half million dollars for this building. So that started the discussion. What do we do. Where do we go. So we looked at options should we stay here or should we build new. And so we looked at those options and building use committee had about eight different options to look at building new sites versus remaining here. And through that process. Yes. If we build a city hall for today just today it's 26000 square feet. But are we going to be 26000 feet 25 years from now. So when we build a new building we really need to think beyond just what we're today currently occupying this building. So that was one of the limitations. The other limitation is if we build new what do we do a city hall. If we vacate it. It's still going to need three or four million dollars worth of improvements to get it back structurally sound and usable either for repurposed or some other function. So if we sell this building knowing that it's in that condition and that's we know that already and we've been discussing that is that type of incentive that we're going to have to give to a developer to take this over. So when you start weighing that cost from building in a new site which can be more efficient and maybe more cost effective. But then you have the backside of it is what do you do with city hall most costs so that you have to add those two costs together. You can't just separate them and say let's build new. It's only going to cost us six million dollars and we're good. Now what about city hall. And now we're going to have another vacant building potentially if we don't have a developer lined up. And we may have those potential costs for future development and incentives to get this repurposed and get it back in the market. So through all that type of discussion. Building use committee went round and round way to all these decisions and the decision was and the council made the decision that you know city halls 100 years old. And the community has some real sentiment to this building and it has some historical value to the community. There's there's recognition of this building in the community. So the decision at that time was to remain in this facility preserve the exterior facade keep that history but do it interior in the interior in a more modern efficient manner. To conduct city hall business. And that's how we got to this point. So what we're looking for tonight is happy to answer a lot of these questions but I guess we're at a stage that we continue along this path. We're a 30% design. And in order to continue on this path we need some basically getting some feedback from you that the concept is good. We support this. We'd like to see this further refined because we're engaged now with the architects. And if we're going to continue this process we're making commitments along this along the way. And if we don't we got it we got to just step back and hold the brakes. And then we have to think of other options but timing one way or the other. There's there's structural needs at this facility that are going to have to be addressed. And in a lot of cases they're going to be very disruptive to the occupants of this building if we want to put central air in this facility. And get rid of the window units or even replace the windows. We're going to have to relocate offices on a temporary basis and it's going to be costly costly to do that. And if we'd want to do that piecemeal. The cost are just going to continue to escalate because you're doing it instead of all at one type of project over 12 to 16 month period. You're going to be doing it probably over a three to four year period. Your costs are going to escalate and it's going to be more cost effective to do it all as one project versus the piecemeal project. So just wanted to provide that background of how how do we get to today in these plans where we where we came from I guess. Thank you. Just one more one more question for Darrell and then I'll go to older sorenson. Darrell in this in this list of costs. We don't have any costs do we that are for the movement of personnel as far as equipment set up because we're looking at the old the new building that we purchased the Social Security building and then possibly another location to be able to fit everybody in. Is that in this 10 million nine hundred as Steve alluded to. There is a basically a footnote in here as far as the size of the allowance. It's only $10,000 expectation is the cost to set up in essence new new offices in another location as many of you are aware the city has in essence asked itself are there any existing city facilities that could accommodate us. We have sort of an opportunity. The council took the opportunity when the social security administration building as you alluded to opened up we think at least two maybe two and a half to three departments could be located there but the vast majority will not fit in that building. So in addition to looking at other existing city or municipal facilities. We're looking at we've been in contact with Schwoig County see if they have any facilities. We had hoped earlier tonight to maybe take a tour of one of the options unfortunately. The legal open records or open meetings requirement it got just to unmanageable so will set that tour up for another time. The cost to relocate some of our file you know locate files regardless of where we go will need to occur again we we've had offers from other cities. Managers who are willing to at least provide us with storage and other existing government facilities but actually housing staff for roughly a 15 month period of time. We will you know we will need to go elsewhere that cost is not in here. Some of the advantages of looking at other municipal facilities or other county facilities. We at least are able to take advantage of the ring of fiber. So from an IT perspective at least the connectivity will have minimal costs there. Again some of these facilities they do have some phones and existing offices already in place that hopefully will minimize the cost of retrofit but 10,000 will will need to we will we will need to add to that price tag. Thank you Darryl. Alder. I know you excuse me. I know you alluded kind of through your presentation about kind of the conference room set up and I'm kind of looking at the basement right now I know that there is currently there's a meeting room in the basement and are you feeling like the replacement for that for that meeting room space would be you know one of the conference rooms on the on the first floor. How would you accommodate those extra meeting spaces are you are you thinking those meeting committee meetings can be held in the council chambers. Right the first floor conference space to the left is a pretty large space it would be very similar to what we have on the third floor. Okay. Because I'm just thinking like for a larger the council chambers will be set up multi purpose. Okay. So if you can go maybe to the third floor the concept is is that the older persons will be at the dais along the windows. So the committee members could use it for committee meetings sit in their normal seats and then the public could be out in the gallery but those the chairs will have chairs and it'll be stackable. We'll be able to use it for open meetings and other public presentations and public hearings so we'll be a little bit more multi purpose. We're currently as you're familiar this room is pretty fixed and it's not very conducive necessarily to other public meetings. Okay. Thank you. Alder Donahue. Just a couple of follow up things. Thank you for that was going to be one of my questions because when I was looking at the plans. I couldn't see where you'd put the elders. I thought maybe we would just be hanging out the windows or something so so I do appreciate that and and the fact that that that will be a multi purpose room. I think is is is a really good idea and more modern and democratic and small D Democratic setup. I think will will work very well for us. I'm also really happy in the original plan from my perspective in people's opinions about this building very some people are very attached to it. Some people think that in terms of historicity it really doesn't present much. I'm sort of in that latter category but I do love that staircase. I mean I think that if there's anything in this building that's worth preserving it's a staircase. And so I'm really glad to see that your revised plan really opens that up so much because in the first plan it really from from my perspective it would have been very closed in and very claustrophobic. So I'm happy to see that. And I'm sure that some of the increased square footage really does include some of that extra space. And I'm not objecting to the 40,000 per say I was just surprised at that large increase. And I would take I think that in 25 years city government will have shrunk considerably. I think we'll have fewer staff people. I think our space needs are going to be reduced dramatically. So I don't think we need to plan for expansion but there are always things that you can do with a you know what I mean we can lease space out and that sort of thing. So I don't think that's the end of the world either. Like Alder Wolf I had really strongly felt that either new construction or looking at other possibilities was a much more financially viable piece of this. And I've kind of given up on that. And I think with Governor Walker's very tragic decision to essentially do away with historical tax credits. If we had decided to go into another building or construct all of our plans about being able to use this building and turn it around into into housing which had seemed to me to be such an excellent idea really dependent on those historical tax credits. So going forward not only Sheboygan but all communities are really their historical buildings are in much greater danger at this point because there will be no incentive or money available to repurpose buildings. So I think we're here. I think as I look at it probably ultimately the cost when everything is added in is probably 12 to 12.5 million. And that seems like a lot of money and it is. But this again from my perspective when my parents died you know we sold my brother had been living in the house we sold the house we didn't sell it for anywhere near as much money as I thought it was going to be worth. And then I realized we really hadn't taken care of it. It needed a roof. It needed a new furnace. It needed new windows and all of those things would need to be done by the ensuing owner. We didn't take care of this building. This is a classic example of either not taking care of your roads or not taking care of your facilities and just putting your head in the sand and saying you know people don't want to pay more money. Well I'm just looking at this as a forward payment for all the times in the past when we didn't invest like we should have and we didn't take care of things like we should have. Now we're paying the price. It's like when we didn't take care of our roads and now we're paying the price but we're doing it and so I think that's fine. And so I'm not losing sleep on this one anymore and I would support going forward. I just think you know eyes open it's certainly going to be somewhat more than 11 million dollars. You know one way or the other and we just need to take that into account and I think now's the time to move forward. Thank you. Darryl you had some statements. That's a great transition into wanting to begin the discussion regarding the finances or the budget itself. One second Darryl. Mr. Bellinger. I've just got a question on the timing and I think this plan is great. I commend you and your company on the work that you did and thank you for that. You mentioned that putting it out to bid in the spring and getting started to work and that kind of you know took my breath away a little bit. It seems like a long time ago the Building Use Committee made this recommendation. We were going to move forward. The council approved it and now we're 30% design and I'm just wondering if there's anything we can do to you know speed this whole process up and get this thing. You know I mean could January February get the I mean I don't know I'm not this is your this is your business that you're in and I'm just you know caught off guard by this whole thing. It just seems like it's taken a long time. Well yeah and I guess it has and we we've been we've been working hard since we since we made this decision and I think that was it took a while to get to that point where we said where everybody felt where we got to go ahead to and we had to actually go through the with this and earn us and that was I think this summer. And I guess that's why we're here tonight because to get to this point takes a lot of effort. There's a lot of back and forth making sure the floor plans and meetings getting some of these the preliminary engineers and and after tonight if we get you know your approval to continue the design things are going to happen fast looking at it and if you look at the IFC we're looking to finalize the big documents in February. We'll go out in March good time early spring to go out for bids contractors are looking for work over the winter. We we we don't want we want to do the work after the April election so we want to make sure the clerks office all the functionality of of that for the election in April is is not disrupted by having to move out so we can ensure that that transaction with the clerk's office for voting is seamless. Once that's done we're looking to award in May and construction start very soon in May. About the day after the election. It'll be a little hard but I understand I understand I understand what you're saying. Okay, I would make a motion to approve this preliminary and get things moving forward. Thank you for that motion and support. I just have one quick question. Did anybody want Daryl to just review some of the financial portions? Absolutely. I got a question on that one. Okay, well technically we have a motion in a second and we can go into discussion. So older born. Yeah, you're probably going to cover this but I see where you're planning on recommending borrowing $5 million out of the 7.5 and using 2.5 from fund balance looking into your crystal ball over the next year. So do you think the fund balance would allow more? We would be able to take more out of fund balance and maybe borrow less. Where did you come up with this idea of 5 and 2.5 so far? Just to go through the numbers one more time. Assuming a $11 million price tag. I'm going to begin trying to keep the numbers simple. In the 2018 budget I identified 7.5 as a phase one recognizing it's going to be a 15 year construction period. So there will be an essence. Thank you. With a phase two being 2019. So with the $11 million price tag it would be 3.5 would be the remaining costs in phase two 2019. So 3.5 plus 2.5 is going to be $6 million that I'm recommending that the common council support using applied fund balance. Between the city's general fund, between the city's capital project fund we could easily accommodate this amount. Again we've been in discussions with our financial advisor Carol Worth. We need to be sort of strategic when we take money out of our fund balance to not cause concern by Moody's credit rating service. As we want to assure you the citizens that we're not going to jeopardize our current bond rating. As the city has put together its borrowing plan consistent with the latest five year cap improvement plan. We worked hard to provide some capacity for additional debt. And trying to minimize the financial impact of the taxes or tax levy associated with making that debt service. So we think that we've again during my short time here in 2016 2017 as we structured our debt again. Good news most of our debt is paid off in a in a 10 year time frame. Ultimately this similar to the decision you made with the police station. We're looking closer to an 18 to 20 year for the long term debt service for city hall projects. The state has some restrictions so it may our debt ultimately may involve doing a short term debt. And then doing a refinancing and maybe a year period of time to ultimately get up to that 18 to 20 million dollar debt service. So the the just get a little bit into details here. So in the 2018 budget there's a recommendation for a 19 cent per thousand. 19 cents per thousand assessed increase assessed tax rate increase. That is anticipating basically the full implementation of the five year cap improvement program specifically adding debt in 18 we will already incur some additional some additional interest cost. And then again we we've looked at gosh close to eight nine years of what the debt service will look like with the borrowings that are projected in that five year plan. And we think again we built capacity in for the next several years that other than this 300 and roughly $10,000 which is equivalent to that 19 cents per thousand. We don't anticipate the need even with this project being roughly five million potential borrowing. We don't anticipate for the next five years a need to raise the tax rate associated with debt service. Going back to your comment. Do we need to borrow the five million is is there some flexibility in that number. And my initial comment is we have very solid financial status in our as far as our reserves in our general fund and our capital projects fund. And if you as a council decided to limit the borrowing to four million, we could accommodate the rest of the project with using fund balance. We're in a very good position. Thank you. Were there any additional questions? I guess I just wanted to follow up. One of the advantage, one of the reasons why again, I think Moody's credit service, our financial advisor, our own director of finance, you know, is supportive of the use of the fund balance is that it's a it's a significant project, a 100 year project. If it was something that was going to gain the city benefit for maybe five, 10 years, then maybe not not so supportive of this concept. But again, we've gotten 100 year use out of this existing building Moody's and others recognize this is a significant investment, but for a very long term facility for the community. Thank you, Darryl. Any additional questions? Seeing just to follow up on Darryl, one would we have to make a final decision then on the financing? What would you bring that forward? As I mentioned in the 2018 budget, sort of the framework for at least the phase one is alluded to. And again, based upon when we open bids sometime of the winter months, then we'll know the total cost. And then it's simply plugging in that number in 2019 to sort of finish the full cost phase two. We'll know, you know, in toward the end of December where we're at as far as additional savings, maybe beyond what was projected as far as our operating budgets to at least give most up to date information to the council as they make that decision, whether to go with 5 million or a different number for borrowing. We typically would go out to borrow in May or April or May because we're we have a lot of projects, including our utilities that are looking for key infrastructure projects. We may be over that normal $10 million mark. Again, not all tax levy supported somewhere user fee related. So it's possible that there may be two borrowings in calendar year 2018. That's it. Thanks. Any additional questions? And seeing none, we'll take a vote. Correct. Okay. All right. Sorry about that. The next, the next topic is going to be three. Just take a vote from public works. Okay. Okay, so don't I have to adjourn and go into public work? No. So there need to be two votes, one from finance and personnel, one from public works. Okay. So we'll, we'll take a vote from public works. The motion has been made in the second. Correct. So then we'll wait. How many members are here? Public works? Well, there's John. There's four. Yeah. So you just need to ask the four people that are here. Okay. All right. Brian, your vote. I guess cause we're going to do it verbally. Yep. So we're back to. Public back to public works according to the motion and second motion was to. Quick to. So could you read back the motion? The second she's not. That is correct. Sorry, Marilyn. Your, your second isn't, doesn't qualify because we're in public works. So John, you made a, you made a first. It was a joint meeting. So yeah, it's a joint meeting. I'm not sure why we're not acting as a joint committee, but. So either. Sure. Okay. So you're, okay. So we have a first and we have a second. From public works. So then we need to take a vote. So you wanted a repeat of the statement. To have it read back what the motion was. Read the motion. He, it was a John's motion was to support. The moving forward with the, uh, with the Bray, Bray architect. John. Chair also votes. I know Andy's on. The other member. Andrew's not here. And Andy Ross is on, on finance. So that was everybody. Okay. So a motion, a motion is approved. Any, any, any against. Seeing none. Again, it's approved. All right. I'm looking for a motion. Now we need a motion from finance. I would move that the. I would move that the resolution. Is approved by the public works committee be approved by the finance committee. Second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Ron. Hi. Andy. Jim. Hi. Todd. Hi. Chair votes. Hi. There are no dissenting votes. Yeah. Looking for a motion to adjourn the joint meeting of public works and finance and personnel committee. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. All in favor. I. Any opposed. I's have it. We'll take a three minute break. We're going to reconvene as public works committee only.