All right. Good evening everyone. Uh we have this is a workshop we have. We're in council chambers a little bit different here. It's just the audio video for the presentation is just much better here for the public. So that's why we're in council chambers tonight. uh join if you could note roll uh and then if everyone could uh join 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. As mentioned before, uh this is a workshop. Uh anything any formal decisions will come back in a council formal council meeting. Uh the next item is open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to come to speak to the council. Uh please state your name and address for the record. >> Anyone signed up? Anyone here to speak tonight? All right, we will go right to discussion items. First item is uh highway 61 kind of road 50 intersection project and it looks like uh Ryan which I don't see. Oh okay Ryan the wrong the different Ryan I guess. Yes. So many welcome. >> Yeah. Uh good evening mayor members of the city council. Um my name is Ryan Haves um project manager for the county road 1561 intersection improvement project for the county. Um joined tonight with commissioner Mirron. So I'm here tonight just to go over the county 1561 intersection improvement project. We're kind of at the point now where we're looking to take the next step forward and really further the design um and kind of focus in the details. Um so there's no formal action tonight, but we're just looking to get some any last direction here before we um look for that resolution of support on the project. Um so I was just here back in November. Um, so I'll kind of buzz through the first few slides here just to um, give you guys a quick update, but we'll talk project background, go over some of the feedback, talk about the alternatives, u, cost estimates will be new for you. Um, and then finish up with the project schedule. Um, so on this the little star on the map here, Cono 50 is in the southernish portion of Forest Lake. Um, just north of Headarters Parkway and, um, north of the new environmental center there. So that's the intersection at hand. U, some quick background. Um, Front Highway 61 is the main north south highway here with a 50 mph speed limit um, with high traffic volumes. The intersection is currently side street side street controlled uh, which can make access onto 61 very difficult, especially for those vehicles wishing to make a left onto 61. Uh, there's an existing rectangular rapid flashing beacon at the intersection to help facilitate pedestrian crossings, although there's been a history of crashes um, involving both pedestrians and vehicles when those lights are activated. Uh the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail um is on along the west side of the intersection and that is the county's most visited um and wellused regional trail. So we've got it's a really a three-way cooperative project here u with Minnesota Department of Transportation, City of Forest Lake, and Washington County. Um as we mentioned last time, we've been busy seeking outside funding opportunities to make these intersections um possible. Um to date, we've secured two grants and are working on a third application. Um, previously I noted we secured that $2.67 million between some regional solicitation funding as well as through MindDOT's local pay or local partnership program grant application for improvements on 61. Um, so the third item we're currently seeking is an additional uh $2 million through the community project funding program through Congressman >> Department of Transportation. >> Oops. Through uh or Congressman Stabber's office. So that's that third chunk um that we're really striving to hope to secure. Um quick project goals reducing frequency and severity of crashes, provide safe, clear and accessible crossings for multimotal users um and maintain acceptable vehicular operations um well into the future. So quick refresher on public engagement here. Um we held our first open house in July and second in September of 2025 um down at the Headwaters Parkway Service Center. Uh we had good turnout um and we received a lot of good feedback both in person and online and really what we learned is that 61 is a barrier um between the east and west corridors at this intersection. Um the first open house really focused on those existing conditions. Um we heard a lot about the difficulty making left turns um how dangerous pedestrian crossings are even with that rectangular rapid flashing beacon that's currently there. Um as well as just a lot of excitement for improvements at this intersection. In September, we brought forward um two alternatives between a signal and a roundabout um to solicit some more public feedback on those two items. Uh during this engagement, uh we heard a lot of support for the roundabout um largely due to their ability to maintain that side street access onto 61 during those off peak hours. Um as well as minimizing um the vehicle speeds um through that intersection for all users, not just um the the folks that hit those red lights at the signals. Um, so that's kind of what I have for background public feedback. Any questions from city council on those two background items? Okay. Hearing none. So, uh, with the roundabout addressing the needs of this intersection and being largely supported by the community, uh, the project team developed several options for the roundabout at this intersection. Um, so on the screen here are two same but different, um, layouts here. Um really the difference is how that roundabout is centered or structured within the existing trunk rightway. So on the left image the roundabout is shifted to the east which puts um part of the roundabout the circulatory partially outside the Mind DOT's um rightway. But what this does is allow proper approach lengths on the west side of the intersection. Uh the image on the right shifts that roundabouts back center um within the mind right away which to maintain those appropriate approach lengths here um obviously shift Forest Road to the west slightly as well. So the option on the left results in shorter turn lanes um for the future um potential public work site on the south side um on the east side of the intersection um and it also causes a couple complications with some existing city utilities out there. Neither of these alternatives are perfect in that sense. Um but one of the benefits of centering the roundabout is it provides a little more flexibility to shift the roundabout location north and south to really avoid Ryan can correct me if I'm really avoid the sanitary sewer crossing here is kind of the I think the key piece because of the existing grades the size. Um so I think from the city standpoint we'd prefer not to have to impact that or realign that. Um but if on the east option so the left image you know shifting that north it causes it's possible but it just causes a few more rightaway impacts. um in particular would be to the northeast corner there. Um so both of these options accommodate pedestrian crossings the same. Um though as I mentioned last time, MDOT and Washington County um would not be recommending rectangular app flashing beacons at this location. Um but as we talked about in November, if council desired the system to be installed um in coordination with Mindot and the county here, we both agencies would support that action if that was a desired by the city. U we would just look for the city to fund those and then maintain those um into the future. Um, so as we move forward with design, we'll obviously focus um and doing what we can to lessen impacts on those city utilities. Uh, but before I go any further, I guess I know these are probably kind of small. Um, but I guess any questions or discussion here regarding these two options? Again, they're pretty much the same. It's just where that roundabout is and how that shift impacts certain elements. Ryan, what's the on the one on the right, how much wider or longer, I guess, is the uh the forest road to the 61 is obviously a little wider. How much wider or I should say longer rather than wider. How much longer is that compared to the one on the left? >> Yeah, Mayor, uh, Council Member Larson, that's a good question. I don't have the exact numbers. It's obviously longer and it is, you know, it is a larger cost. um you'd be building, you know, a new embankment, new sand upgrade aggregate. Um whereas the other one kind of can use that existing framework, so to speak, of that road. So, I mean, it it's probably a little more than double the length. Um but obviously with that new alignment, it it >> I see there's numbers there, but I can't read. >> Yeah, it's a little too small. Apologize for that. >> That's okay. >> Questions? What's the effect for the future public works facility in regardless of which one we were to go with? >> Yeah. So, between these two on the screen, obviously the left where the roundabout shifted to the east, that shortens that right turn lane into the site. Um I think um it's about 137 ft of storage on the left image and it's about 190 ft on the right image. Um otherwise both options would um really be right in of that site right in right out of that site and I believe the intent is to connect down to Headarters Parkway to the south there as well. >> So just a shorter right turn lane >> right. Okay. >> Which isn't isn't a large or huge deal but you know 137 ft when you add in public works vehicles it takes up space pretty quick. But council member Erikson, uh the concept that you see in front of you too also uh places that future Headwaters Parkway connection to the county road in the same location with both concepts. You can see then the purple color that the trail is being continued to that intersection because with the ultimate buildout of Headarters Parkway up to this intersection, you'll have trail going all the way through that public works site and future commercial site and past the Washington County hazardous waste center too that will connects all the way back down the Parkway south of here. So you would have a continuous pathway with the trails and then the interconnectivity with the roadway too. >> Thank you. Ryan, so you mentioned just before before the end there about the rapid flashing. Is that like considered a hawk crossing or is or >> No, mayor. So the existing is it kind of mimics a hawk, but it's really rectangular rapid flashing beacon. >> Ryan, I think you have slides on this. >> Yeah. And I'll talk more on the rect well that's more on the cost side of it, but these would be similar. I guess the rectangular repation beacons on these roundabouts would be similar to what's on good view at 97 up here. >> Okay. And so you're saying the state or the county is not willing to fund that. That would be additional, >> right? >> What was done up here? Did we pay the additional to have that one added? >> We did. Uh but we got a big grant with that project. >> Okay. >> And state and city state aid funds funded that project. I I just think I mean these these roundabouts are are challenging for pedestrians and so I think that has to be an important component of of whichever uh one year we choose. So I and is that just a policy that state and county won't help fund that? I mean this is a state and a county road and we're talking about pedestrian safety and that's why we're spending all this money and there's just no willingness to to fund that. >> Yeah. Mayor, members of the council. So at these single lane roundabouts, um it's been Washington County policy to not put them in, but it's also been, you know, MDOT policy as well, just due to the fact that they add they can add more complications to the crossing. Um you know, you'll get users, pedestrians coming up that hit the buttons, some that come up and don't hit the buttons, then the drivers can are they going to hit the buttons or are they just going to walk out? So it's one of those factors. I'm not saying that they don't improve safety, but if this was a multi-lane roundabout, u for example, then they would be um recommended. So, it's not that they're not supported or they couldn't be done as, you know, almost optional, but it's just not something that we would recommend or put in if this was purely a county or purely a mindot decision, I guess. Mayor Roberts, the rectangular rapid flashing beacons at Good View and Highway 97, that project was the request of the council at the time and that was the first project in the state of Minnesota to install that those devices in a trunk trunk highway crossing on a roundabout. >> And and how the how often has it been used? Do you know is it is that somewhat common then since then? mayor, members of council, that's not my project. I did. >> So, it's it's not very common to see them on single lane. Um it's not you they're they're there, you know, if there's a huge pedestrian driver and pedestrian counts are really really high. Um you know, they can be implemented. Um but out here, while there is a lot of crossings here, the main crossing is on the West Lag, which you know is the lower volume highway, I guess. Um, you know, and I don't want to speak for for the whole group, but you know, we do have that grant out there. Um, so I mean, it could be something we we keep in our back pocket um as staff and on the project team um about that possibility to lower that um in the future to lower that financial burden on the city to put those in via that grant. Um, >> mayor, city council, we'll get into more specifically about this later in the slides, but you know, one thing that's should be considered is, you know, these will be owned and maintained by the city and public works is going to tell you they spend a lot of time on maintenance on these this infrastructure in that particular location because it's right in the hit zone of vehicles, snow, salt, you know, all that stuff is it's in that footprint, right? So, that's something that we would have to consider going forward. Obviously, the letter or the uh support of resolution of support for the project that the county's looking for at the next meeting or city council meeting is not going to say yes or no, you want this right now. We have time to talk about this uh uh see how it falls within the budget and or maybe if you need more information on maintenance. Uh but so it's just part of Ryan's presentation. So, you know, it's a component of the project that can be added during the design, final design when they get to that point. >> Okay. Blake. >> Oh, sorry. Um, question for you. Have we ruled out stop lightss? I mean I mean is to me as I look at this and I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud here, but especially if that public works building goes on that east side, cars accelerate through these roundabouts versus slowing down and actually stopping. And with all those crosswalks that are in there for the walking trails, the biking trails, and now potentially throwing in city works trucks and and vehicles, and to me, this doesn't sound like a great plan. I would much rather see two lanes on each of those with turn lanes uh and stop lights with pedestrian crosswalks for safety than this particular plan here. I swear somebody's going to get killed here. That's my personal opinion >> I guess. So is that we've moved be beyond that? I mean this I'm wondering do we give direction or kind of our blessing to move away from a signal to more of a roundabout at the last back in November >> kind of felt like there was direction to pursue the roundabout and that's where the county pursued it and now they're back presenting kind of the two concepts that they have to date that they've dialed in on how things would fit within that uh footprints and how it would connect to the future Headwaters Parkway extension how the trails would be interconnected. So, that's kind of where we're at tonight. >> Yeah. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a good plan and and it's not that I'm 100% against it, but I think what the mayor was saying is if we don't have something for pedestrians to use to cross in those 1, two, three, four, like 10 different areas. Are we putting stop signs on Forest Road uh before you get to the round before you get to the right turns or the left turns to go to the roundabout? There would be there'd be stop signs on Forest Road. So, when you come out of the roundabout, you wouldn't you wouldn't have to stop there. >> But none on 50th or Connie Road 50 or or 200th Street and none on 61. >> Yeah. I don't know. It's It scares me just a little bit. I mean, I know there's only one or two options, but >> Well, I hear what you're saying and um but I do remember our last meeting, we talked extensively about the two different ideas. I >> um question I have if if we went with the option on the right, which is going to reduce the infrastructure costs, correct? But it's gonna add to the project cost from shifting like what which one gives us the most savings or which one's what's staff recommending and >> yeah uh mayor council member Ericson. So obviously the one on the right is going to be a little more expensive just because there's a little more road. It's brand new road. Um but as far as operations I mean they're they'd be anticipated to operate the same. Um just there would be a little more cost with the option on the right. >> Right. cost for putting the road in. But how does that because we're not spending money on the um sewer line underneath the road? If we want the option on the left, we got to spend money on the sewer line. Like you can >> which >> Yep. No, I forgot to address that part. So the one on the left with the roundabout shifted the east. Um you it's hard to see here, but the existing sewer line runs right basically on the south side of that red circle there. Um, so it's possible to shift that roundabout north in this scenario, but you're just it creates more rightaway need in that northeast quadrant there. Whereas on the right, when you shift it to the center, you bring the center the mass of the roundabout towards the center of the rideway. So shifting it north to avoid those impacts, it's less rightway takings and less rightway impacts there. So there's there's rightway needs to reduce or eliminate the sewer crossing. Uh Mindot's guidance here has been, you know, we don't the city doesn't need to relocate the utilities assuming that um you know, you're accepting the risk and if there's a break or you need to fix it, you know, the the repair costs would be on the city >> much like they would be today, too. >> Y >> mayor, city council, just so you guys are aware that both the sanitary sewer and the water man that run through this and underneath this trunk highway are in existing uh casing currently. We will probably have to extend that casing in both scenarios just to make sure we're outside the foot footprint of the roadway. That's a requirement. INDOT is always required. Plus, if something were to be bad with the pipe, then we can go fix it trenchless, right? You know, we can get in and out of that casing on both sides with pits if we really really had to. Um, so with that being said, the concept on the right takes the center of the roundabout north of the sanitary sewer. But then we still have that water main. We'd have some minor relocation to do too. But the thing about that sanitary sewer, we consider that trunk line. That's a 24in sewer line. That's at minimum grade to relocate that. We're chasing that a lot longer than this project, right? because the grade is less than a half percent. And 24-in pipe is huge. What we put in developments to serve 500 homes is an 8 in. So that's going to be taking all the sewer all the way up through Hawthorne Heights, Amberly Woods, Chestnut Creek face one and two eventually uh KJ Walk and all the way back up to 97 and some properties east of Harrow are going to all flow right through here. So that's why it's very difficult to have to deal with that 24inch pipe that's in there right now. >> Thank you. Yeah, I guess the only other thing I'll say I mean you know they are project impacts. So you know if we get this future grant money it again we'll talk about this in the next slide too but you know we could look at applying some of that grant money to the utilities because that is you know it's a project impact. >> Go ahead and continue on and then we'll see if there we can circle back through on that. >> Um so here's just project breakdown for costs. I mean the thing to focus on here is um obviously the city of Forest Lake columns the third one over the orange column is total project cost without any grants being applied. Um so the city share here I just put a range because we're still kind of early um between 800 and 1.1 million and that would be your all-in cost. So engineering any rightway needs construction administration um and then construction itself. the green row there. Um I took a best guess of approximate construction cost share per agency that we have on our preliminary estimates and split out um the 2.67 million um through the through the breakdown here. Um so that 300 to 600,000 is an approximation of what I think is is a decent attempt to get you guys ballpark of where you'd land after those grant figures um get divided. As I mentioned, that doesn't include that future $2 million ask. So, if we get that funding, you know, that it's kind of applied in the same fashion, everyone's cash come down. Um so then, as we just kind of discussed and um talked about quite a bit, um it's, you know, if the city desires to install these, we looked at some costs and it's roughly $165 to $200,000 for construction of these. Um and obviously then there's maintenance, vehicle maintenance or vehicle collisions, vandalisms, replacement of solar panels, um lights and the like. Um so any other questions on that? Otherwise, that's kind of the estimated cost which was not included in the last slide here. I kept them separate. Um so this would be kind of additional costs. Does staff have recommendation yet on this part of it? I was just trying to add up the math with how many times that that other one got hit. Sorry. Uh I I'm half from 22 up till I haven't finished it. They have eight different times on that so far and about 36 >> about $30,000 worth of damage. That's not including public works when they go out and fix it. This is just contractor when it gets into the full poles knocked down or electrical work. So it's >> 30 per per occurrence or total >> total. So it's about between 2500 and $3,300 per time when one gets knocked down and they have to rewire and set a pole. There's one that's about 9,000. And I think that's when we couldn't just put the pole that got knocked down back up. I think we had to buy a whole new pole. >> So maybe this is a silly question, but we don't have insurance for that to cover those those >> We do now. So it was I think going forward. Before they weren't listed as covered, so now we do. So that the insurance would cover that going forward or minus the deductible. But >> that's good. >> So we have time to decide on this. I don't know if it has any anyone wants any weigh in on this part of it. >> No, I like them. Uh Dave, could you tell me when one of these poles gets knocked over? Can you tell me is it like all of them or which one usually gets run over? >> The one in the center. >> The the one in the center that has the control panel and the solar panel and stuff. >> Uh the one right in the center med. >> Oh, the center median as you're turning. Okay. >> Right where the crosswalk is. coming in too fast out, you know, the day it snows and hit the brakes and right over top of the crew. That's usually the one that gets hit and it's usually on, for some reason it's the be on the east side. That one's got knocked down more than anything else. For some reason, people coming into town, I suppose, coming from a high speed. >> Morning. >> Morning. Yeah, I these catch my attention every time I go through there when they're lit. You you see them. Um, so I just personal experience I it does catch your attention when they're lit. So talk about that later, but Okay. All right. Then real quick, just reminder on the project schedule. So obviously tonight, no action. Um, but really what we're looking for is just resolution of supporting the project. Um, as Ryan Goodman pointed out, you know, this it it allows us to move forward with this roundabout design, but it doesn't necessarily lock in like we don't need to lock in these RFBs right now. Some of the finer details um can still get worked out over the next year and a half. Um, but it just allows us to kind of take that next step forward knowing all agencies are kind of on the same page in terms of our alternatives. Um but then here um hopefully this spring we'll have to develop a level two layout which is basically a 60% design slapped on a big piece of paper that you've probably seen in the past. Um then we'd work through um final plan development through 2026 um and 2027. Um this is fedally funded. So we do have a lengthy environmental process that takes you know 6 to 8 months for some agencies to get back to us with their reviews. Um, so there's a timeline constraint there, but we've got we've got some time here for planned construction in 2028. So otherwise, that was it. Um, that's all I had. So I guess any questions, thoughts, departing words for us to take back. >> So maybe highlight some of the positives, cost, maybe safety isn't as much of a concern on these roundabouts as a traditional intersection with signals that led us to get to here. um trying to remember that conversation. I guess I don't. But if there's some highlights there that that you could point out as to why and I agree with council member Miller that looking at that looks intimidating with all that um crossings, but clearly it seems like the county has this is this is the plan. I mean, you're doing more and more roundabouts than you are signaled intersections. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Mayor, so we've not even just the county, but you know, roundabouts offer a few benefits. That is I mean, speed. I mean, we talk about fatalities and traffic. It's related to speed. U roundabouts, they're going to slow every vehicle down. Signals, you come up to it, it's green, you kind of start speeding up as you get closer, then it turns yellow. You kind of start speeding up in hopes to make it. So, you know, you're not not everyone's slowing down at a signal. They're obviously they're safe, but on the county side of things, we see our pedestrian accidents, not fatalities, accidents largely at signals. Um people turning right, you know, you're looking for cars, you go to take that right, and there's a pedestrian right there. Um, so in in the county's experience, the roundabouts have been safer for I mean all users. Um, you know, the average speed maybe is as high as a 30, but largely the average speed through those is about 20. Um, you start seeing fatalities really ramp up at around 45 miles an hour. So that's I mean speed is the biggest factor as well as those you know 11:00 a.m. times when there's not a whole lot of traffic on 61. You want to get on to 61, you're going to be waiting, you know, a minute, minute and a half, two minutes for that light to change. Um, so there's some operational efficiencies that the roundabout does offer as well. >> Mayor, city council, just a couple things to add. Uh, the roundabout takes away the chance of having a T-bone accident, right? So, that's one of the number one uh, safety improvements that are with the roundabout. Also with the roundabout and related to pedestrian crossings, the crossing distance is much shorter that they have to cross at one given time where if it was a signal, they would have to cross the through the turn lane or the shoulder, the through the turn lane, the through and the shoulders. So think of that width is that and oftent times pedestrians will take chances if they don't want to stand there and wait till that light turns and vice versa with vehicles. Do they always stop at a light? You know, that's the chance that you take. With the roundabout, you would have the, you know, the ped ramp to cross the one through lane and then you have a refuge area to rest in the median if you needed it. Uh, that's pretty wide. Obviously, you can see from the diagram here, much wider than it is the downtown roundabout that we have here to be more related to what you have at 97 and 61. So, those are two other key points just to point out for you too. Does that make you feel a little better, Kevin? >> Yeah, they're single lanes, right? Like you said, they're not the big double lanes. And what other ways can you reduce speed on a roundabout besides posting a sign that says 20 m an hour? >> Yeah. Uh, Mayor and Council Member Miller, that's that's part of the design. That's why you see these deflection curves coming in and out of the roundabout, the extended medians, all those are factors that try to get people to start slowing down. you know, we have the advanced warning signs for, you know, the roundabout ahead, the little circuitary with speed signs on it. Um, but really it's the medians, it's curb narrowing up kind of as you enter these areas is is really the key to help reduce speeds. Obviously out here there's mind plows, there's county plows, there's city plows that need to make through it. So we can't get too small with our cir circulatory paths or incoming lanes, but um largely those curbs, medians, um just kind of making it feel a little congested go a long ways there. >> Well, it's definitely needed. I mean, with all the housing that's coming in there and the developing we're planning on just scares me. >> Any other questions or thought? Council member Meler, just to expand on that, the county just solicited proposals for the quarter study for County Road 52. So, there'll be a lot of that kind of stuff to be looked at part of that study with the growth in that area. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Mirron. Thanks. Always great to have you here. Anything you'd like to add this evening at all? >> Thank Thanks for attending. >> Anything else? So, >> perfect. >> That's it. >> Enough direction then. So, I appreciate the time and um as mentioned, we'll we'll talk with staff here and get back in front of you with some kind of resolution of support. >> Thank you, Ryan. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh 5B, public works facility sematic design presentation. Dave, I think you're going to start on this and then the W team will probably take over. >> Yeah, some familiar faces out in the crowd. Uh W is here to present uh the schematic design. Um kind of a lot of months since about August, we've been working on since the space need study kind of told us what we what we needed for space for office space for warm storage, cold storage, all that. Um staff, uh Wenderson, public works staff, council members, um and steering committee have all kind of been putting this together. So um I'll let those guys take it away and kind of show you what we've been up to so far. >> Welcome. >> Glad to be back. Thank you, Mayor Council. Um because this is a schematic design presentation and we're going to go from kind of the beginning of the story. Um so try to go pretty quick. Um, I think you've kind of seen the presentation, but I think for the benefit of the public too, we wanted to start from the beginning so that they knew that there was all this leg work that's um, gotten us to the point where we're at today. Really, it was just to see um, where do we go from here? Um, so there's some goals and objectives that we'll talk about. Um, the recap of the condition assessment and needs analysis that we did, sort of that pre-esign work. Um, and then we'll really go through in more in depth the kind of schematic design where we're at. Uh, talk about a couple different options there and cost estimates and then just look at what we're going to do next. Um, so really the project goals and objectives that we had I think were developed with the public works group with other city staff um, as well um, trying to develop a site and building that efficiently maximizes use of the site for public works operations while still maintaining flexible space for future growth. city recreational needs and outside commercial development opportunities. Uh the second one is implement a long-term plan that unifies public works operations at a single primary location and provides opportunities for phased construction both for initial site development and for future expansion. Next one, prioritize modern, safe and equitable spaces for all staff spaces. Uh especially safety and workshop and maintenance bays with heavy equipment and appropriate locker room and amenities for female staff. And lastly, define the role of the facility within the context of the greater municipal network or other city departments and as a community resource. So those are really the four I think things that from the very beginning we've tried to sort of focus on what we're trying to accomplish as a part of this. Not just say ah the building's bad, let's just replace it. I think when we're taking such a long-term view and and such an impactful project for the city, it makes sense to look kind of big picture at what you're trying to accomplish and that helps set the stage for whether or not solutions that you're looking at um really are appropriate or not. So, um, as you're thinking about some of the options that we're still looking at, um, I guess I might point you back to these a little bit as just a reminder of does it work here? Does that option meet these? Because that's usually the measuring stick for, um, whether or not we're doing the right thing. Um, so just to go through the um, facility condition assessment and um, sort of needs analysis, I'll let Dustin Phillips from K talk about that facility condition piece. they were pretty instrumental in leading us through that process and really kind of exposing the existing buildings. >> Thanks, Jonathan. Mayor, council members, thanks for having me in tonight. Um, just to give you a high level overview, these were the findings from the facility condition assessment that was done in late 2024. And then approximately a year ago, I had a working session and ultimate followup on the findings from that study last February. Um, as you know, uh, the public works facility is spread out currently across six different facilities at four different locations. Ultimately, through the do nothing plan or deferred maintenance plan, there was over, uh, 4.6 million in deferred maintenance needs. Um, when we talk about a facility condition index or how we score these, this isn't an index that was developed by K. This is a nationally recognized index that you grade facilities uh with the deferred maintenance costs over the replacement costs uh of a given facility. Here's a breakdown of what that 4.6 million looked like across all of those projects. Ultimately, when you see in the red there for the north shop and the old fire department, which makes up the bulk of your square footage of your existing facilities today, you're in both the critical and poor conditions, which then is a recommendation to divest. It's easier to replace the facility than it is to try to go in and do the repairs that are needed. It's also important to note that in a facility condition assessment, you're not looking at adequacy. You're looking for that like uh like forlike replacement within those facilities. Uh these next couple slides, and I'm going to skim through them and just give you the high level, but they're photos from that facility condition assessment across all those facilities. These photos really highlight that the current facilities that you have, you're making as much use out of the space as you possibly can. the way you're fitting vehicles, equipment, materials within these spaces. Um, you're really cramming inch for inch within those spaces. Um, as you saw on the recap slide, the dates of these facilities and original construction, some of them dating back to the 1950s and60s. You can see that on the exterior on some of those lower right photos, structural concerns. Um and really uh as you've uh fitted out these buildings, you can see in that lower left corner, uh the staff is really doing a really good job of reutilizing things that they find across the city, whether that's uh park benches or tables or uh washer and dryers that they find. Um really they've been making do with what they've had for quite some time. So that is a highlevel uh recap of the uh facility condition assessment unless there's questions. Otherwise, I'm going to give it back to W and we're going to talk through space programming. questions. >> Okay. Um, prior to just transitioning over to SD, I think as a part of that sort of pre-esigned study, you recall that we did go through some programming exercise and look at the actual space needs. Dustin touched on the condition of the facility. That's kind of one big piece of it. The other piece is the, you know, effectiveness of the facility and whether or not it has not only the right types of spaces, but are they adequately sized, are they organized the right way? And I think we exposed a lot of different um shortcomings of the existing facilities. So from there, we kind of took that overall square footage and said, "Here's all the spaces that we need. here's the general square footage that we need to meet to hit um sort of not just today's plan for public works but kind of out in the future too. And so that kind of sets the stage for going through schematic design and showing you what we have here today. >> So I'll do a quick kind of run through of the progress and where we've landed with SG. Obviously we are just at the first stage of design, right? So none of this is set in stone. um it's all malleable, but this is the um with the feedback of the core group, um this is kind of where um we're at at this point. So, from a site plan perspective, um hopefully you can see my cursor here. Um here's the new proposed public works facility. We'll go a little bit more in depth on the floor plan um here in the next couple slides, but um we are contending with, if you remember, the air um airport flight zone restriction. So, that's this red um triangle here. Um that's essentially we cannot locate the building in that footprint. So we are trying to stay outside of that zone. Um and another restriction just around the site are the wetlands that exist there today. So those are all dashed here in this magenta color. Um so working around those we've established the headwaters parkway extension um here on the west side of the site. Um to maximize efficiency of our site, we are looking at um splitting the storm water retention. Um and that has been sized for this what we're calling the future commercial development here at the northwest corner. Um we've left a zone available there and also a future connection up to um up to the road that um to the north there. Um, we've got off of Headwaters Parkway, um, the proposed, uh, proposed parking lot. Um, that would be both for public and for staff vehicles. Um, and then, um, circulating into the site on the north end, we've got the cold storage building. Um, we've dedicated a zone for future expansion. Obviously, that's left unbuilt for now. Um, but just to make sure we're not locking you in long term in something that's that's not usable or um can be modified in the future. Um, along the back half of the or back portion of the site, um, we've got the salt shed and material bins. Trying to keep that as far away from as possible um, from the public view. Um, go back one there. um ju just try to keep all the back of house more concealed as much as possible to to make sure we prioritize that public facing component with proximity to the street. And then as we dive in closer to the site plan, I've got zoomed in views for each of these, but just as an overall um we're looking at the north side of the building being our main office area. um just knowing that has more prominence there um closer to the street and trying to give an attraction or attractive view um for those driving by. Um along that front two um as we move further south, we've got the division workshops and maintenance bays. And then the um largest portion of the building obviously is the vehicle storage. So that's our our garage and um vehicle parking component. And we are looking at a mezzanine space just for added mechanical and storage. um over a portion of the offices off the mechanics bay and over a portion of the parking spaces. Um the office area um we do have two separate entries planned. A public entry um on the northwest or yeah the northwest side of the building and then a staff entry just for ease of access as they come in daily. Um off of the main lobby we are looking at a training room. Some of the feedback we heard from our steering committee was pri prioritizing that as a public component or amenity um that other city staff or public could utilize. So that's located off the lobby. Um there is a functional component to that though obviously day-to-day just making sure that's usable as a break room um for public work staff. So making sure we can access that conveniently from their primary work area. Um we've got an office component here with the division uh superintendent and then um workstations as well as we expand into the future looking to bring more staff into the building. And then the locker room space. We are looking at a um non-gendered locker space that just provides some flexibility for the future. Um obviously don't have a ton of or any female staff at this point. as that changes, it allows you to kind of be flexible in how you assign those and you're not having a completely unused um locker space, at least um in the at the current moment. Um and then as we move south, um I mentioned >> Can I have you back up just one go back to the slide? Sorry, maybe I misses, but some of this >> quiet the missed laundry mud room support. Can you go through that? >> Yeah. Yep. For sure. So the quiet room um and the mother or yeah quiet room and a mother's room, lactation rooms, those are common amenities you see in a lot of modern work environments today. Um those are completely missing right now in the current facility. Um right now there isn't even um we we kind of showed a a photo of the locker facility which is a couple lockers in the mechanical space. Um so this is definitely a step up for staff amenities. Um replacing a lot of what just doesn't exist today. um conference rooms are not something they have right now in any of their buildings. Um so making sure we can provide that amenity to them as well and having a a modern workplace um with similar amenities to other city staff. And then the mud room and laundry room, just acknowledging that that this is a a dirty environment, right? We want to make sure we keep the office area clean. So providing that essentially a vested will they can clean up as before they enter um back into the facility. >> Then building support Um that's just a placeholder for mechanical or electrical space. So we've got a lot of um utilities and um water heaters, air handling units. We're trying to locate a lot of that on the mezzanine, but there are some services that do have to come in at grade like the water service or electrical um that as we continue to move forward, those will develop further right as we get equipment sizes and all of that. But um just trying to leave a placeholder for now so we make sure we're not losing sight of that. And then what is the total square footage of this part of the building? >> Um, we don't have >> the office area around 11,000 square feet. >> Yeah. And I'll say um from that from that 11,000 square feet. I mean, I think some folks from the steering committee have seen this that over the course of time, we've actually cut quite a bit out of this space. I mean, we originally had a separate training room and a lunchroom and break room space, too. And I think there's other areas where we've kind of trimmed down to in that locker room area as well. But I would say that that sharing of that kind of cafeterium and training room space was a big um shift. It got us down quite a bit in terms of square footage. So, um, wouldn't necessarily go through all the, you know, ins and outs of that, but it probably important to know that, um, you know, with the support of the steering committee and staff that we're able to continue to look at ways to get this done efficiently. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. >> City Council. Um, so I know we don't have very no women staff right now or no women employees right now in the public works. How would you in the future, let's say we have all of a sudden three or four ladies, how would we divide those showers in that locker room to accommodate them? >> I guess we don't often see that they're necessarily assigned. Those are all individual occupant rooms. So, as people need them, if you need to jump in the shower, you would just go in whichever one is open or available. >> Sure. But if you're changing your clothes, are you standing in the shower or are you standing out in the locker room? >> Uh, we've got changing rooms included in here. So, there's two shower rooms, two changing rooms, which is essentially just a bench, a glorified closet space essentially, and then a couple of toilet rooms. >> Yeah, maybe I don't know if we can zoom in on that. Is this a PowerPoint or a PDF? >> I can see them fine. I I just >> Yeah, just just to note, I mean, if you look at like above the R, >> that's like where the actual shower is. Y >> and then the rest of that space is like this is a single use space, so there's a large area to sort of change. There's still a bathroom and a toilet in there. So, these are all individual use spaces. >> And that's sort of the benefit of doing it this way is that yes, people store their stuff in their individual lockers out there, but they're really changing showering, going to the bathroom in those sort of single-use spaces. And so, I mean, I have seen it where often times females feel more comfortable if something's assigned. And there's nothing stopping, you know, public works from saying, "Okay, this left one is for females only." I would say there's still adequate space for the men to use the rest of those facilities without feeling like they're stacking up on each other. So, um, as of right now, it's meant to be flexible, um, for those changes in staff. I think uh 25 30 35 40 years ago whatever I think that public works employees would come in their street clothes they come to work they change into their work clothes work then change back and that's kind of changed as time has gone on I mean most pe most at least all my staff just show up ready to work and when they leave they go home in those those clothes so this is more of a locker room where we have rain jackets or snow pants or car hearts or stuff like that where you're coming in to change into something different or if you do get soaked doing a job then you can change out. So having that oper open open locker room is just more efficient because if you have two separate locker rooms, a men's and a women's, I mean right now you have more men than women, but you might have a time where you have more women than men and all of a sudden you have a whole room that's just empty where this is, you know, it'll flux with men or women. It it really doesn't matter that count. It's, you know, grabbing that count. So I think this is way more efficient. And even the tours we took, you know, we heard those comments from some of those uh superintendents or people giving the staff that they kind of wish they had something more set up like this. I think we did go to one that did have it set up like this. It's so I think we put some thought in. I think originally it did have separate and then um separated out to do it like this just just for that reason. >> Perfect. Okay. >> All right. So, as we move further south, um we are going into division workshops, um essentially a a working area, a garage stall, um with space for parts storage, tool storage for each of the divisions so that they can work outside of the mechanics area um safely on whatever projects they have going on. Um we've also um made this multi-use and also locating some of the shared amenities. um they're kind of coll-located with shops that use them the most, but really those the wood shop, sign shop, and parts are all kind of a shared amenity across all divisions. So, um trying to locate those close to the mechanics area and also close to the office so they're accessible by staff. Um but obviously they're just more um of a functional space outside of the office zone. Um and then as we move south, we'll start transitioning into the mechanics area. Um, so we've got the lube room with all the fuels and um, storage tanks that we'll have located in there to disperse out through um, the MA mechanics bay. Um, we've also got a general building storage, hazardous material storage, and then more just um, building support, mechanical, electrical that can certainly start to to um, trim up as we as we get further into design. Um and then as we keep moving south, those open into our large um open mechanics area. Um so we had started with initial programming of having two small maintenance bays with another small um flexible staging bay of a similar size. Um at the very north end, we've got our welding and fabrication bay assigned there. Um, and the flex and staging bay, I should say, that's kind of I mean what the intent of that is if you've got a project, maybe you're waiting on a part for a while, it doesn't take up a whole operating bay, right? You've got some flexibility um to kind of leave that there, not have to tow it elsewhere out of the site um until that part shows up or if something kind of comes up last minute, you've always got a bay open there. Um, and then we've also got three large maintenance bays. Those are drive-thru um or have the ability to drive through into the main vehicle garage. And then the last um stall here at the south is the wash bay, which similarly you can drive through from the exterior into the interior. Um off of those um small maintenance bays, we've got some of the supporting um small equipment areas, parts, um storage, and then the mechanics offices. So, they've got direct view into the um into the maintenance bays. And then, oh, I'll go back one. Um, and then obviously the last remaining area, just that vehicle storage. So, we're looking at two main drive uh drive lanes through. Um, we've got in the center or center row um oversized vehicle parking so they can kind of drive through pulling in um and then pulling out as you move north. and then spots for smaller trucks or pickups um on the east and west sides of the the garage area. Any questions on floor plan before I keep moving forward? >> No. Okay. >> So, um we are in schematic design, but we have started looking at some um thoughts around mater materials massing what this starts to look like. Um we're very early on. So, um this is all subject to feedback, but um we have kind of gotten feedback from the steering committee on looking at this building here as kind of a baseline of inspiration for materials. Um trying to create a cohesive kind of identity around municipal buildings. Obviously, we know with public works, it's a very hard environment. So, we want to make sure we're looking at really durable materials. Um but also still want to maintain an attractive front, right? if we are receiving public here for training or um services here. So um we are kind of looking at pre-cast as the main structural um component. It's really durable longterm and then also looking at how we can accent that in certain key areas with metal panel, woodlook material, brick um and looking at different glazing components that we can um we can insult around the building um to prioritize daylight to these spaces as well. So this is a view um we are standing northwest of the um proposed building. This is looking at the main public entry and the staff entry is here just tucked behind. Um and this would be the large conference room and the staff offices as we move further east. Um so here um obviously this is your primary public component. looking at a little bit more materiality with the wood elements and the canopy to help um kind of direct and help with wayfinding to um from people entering off of the parking lot. And then as we move um this is moving further southwest but looking towards those maintenance bays um and the division workshops uh we are exploring different options for glazing. Um in one of the first slides we have um what we call a cow wall. It's essentially a a translucent um glazing unit. It's a little bit more per better um performance-wise, but it allows some daylight in without the direct glare um that would come in off from just a clear glass um element. So, looking at ways we can bring the daylight into the the maintenance spaces. Um even looking at glazing too on those doors um just to help bring some of that light in. And then as we step back, um this is just kind of an overall view of that west facade so far. Um like I said early on, but just kind of giving you some um notions on materials massing too, right? We're looking at obviously the larger volume for the uh mechanics phase just to help with lifts and whatnot in there. Okay, >> so just kind of going through a recap of where we're at um costwise. When we went through that pre-esign exercise, um we were at about 110,000 square ft. Again, that was pretty early on just looking at the different pieces of square footage and components. Um project costs, if you kind of escalate that out to 2027, we're at about 48.9 million. Um, so through schematic design now we're at about 119,000 square feet. Um, obviously the cost is actually a little bit lower and so that tells me that the balance of um, sort of more expensive office space and mechanic spaces probably went down as compared to um, storage areas. Um, so again, currently we're at about that 48.8 million. Um, and I'll let KA kind of walk us through where we're at from a pricing standpoint, maybe more specifically in this. There's questions ahead of that >> questions. N. >> Thanks, Jonathan. Uh, mayor, council members, maybe I'll start with a highle overview of how you can read the sheets that were handed out to you um, prior to the start of this meeting. You have a detailed overall budget sheet that maybe has a two-pager, a little bit broken out. Just for my ease of reference tonight, I've got it printed on one, but I believe yours is printed on two. Ultimately, we're going to walk you through and and share with you where we landed at the end of schematic design and then we're going to do some comparison against options. As we walk through this, as you can see up on the screen, uh we do a breakout between construction costs, which are like the bricks and mortar of the facility, and the soft costs, which are I take it as if you were to turn this building upside down and shake it, what falls out of it. Those are all the different soft costs. That can be furniture, it can be design costs, um testing and inspections, all those different pieces and components that are needed in order to build um the facility. Uh on this sheet, you'll see a pink line that's roughly a quarter of the way down. That is a summary of construction costs. Um below that, if you go all the way down, it's a lighter orange or a little bit lighter pink towards the bottom, you'll see a soft cost total. It's about like 90% of the way down. And then in that green line at the very bottom is total project cost. That's the combination of construction and soft cost just as it's added up here on the screen. And then far down below we have escalation factored out yearbyear. U 2027 should be highlighted in a little darker color which is where you get to the 48.9 million and 48.8 million escalation just by rule of thumb in the industry as you go to the midpoint of the project. Um, so we're pricing it in today's dollars and escalating it based on when we factor construction's actually going to take place. And we do that by a factor of 4% per year. Um, until you get to the midpoint. It's just a general again rule of thumb as we go through this. Uh, but Jonathan hit the nail on the head. When you look at pre-esigned to schematic design, while the building increased in square footage, there was a trade-off in more expensive square footage to lesser expensive square footage. when you look at the reduction in office space, um more vehicle storage, more vehicle maintenance, which again are reduced costs, um compared to some of those other square footage. Another big factor, um was the reduction in site costs. When you're looking at pre-esign and highle concepts, you don't have the level of detail that you just saw here today. Uh you're going more so based on historical data and what these facilities run. Um, what I will point out is that at the at the point of schematic design, not only did we do our own internal in-house estimating for every component of the project, um, but there were consultants underneath the design team that also looked at the site and then we internally took all the critical pieces of the project from our standpoint and put this out to over 15 different contractors that provided input to the unit pricing that you see here before you today. And I only put that so that you can have a level of confidence um in the pricing that we're reviewing together um as we go through this. But from a schematic design standpoint, again, really good news is that we are right on track with where we were projecting things to be from a pre-esigned square footage even with the square footage increase that you saw here, which is just something that happens uh as you go out through the iterations of design. Any high level questions from there or any questions before we jump into the comparison of options? So, the schematic design is the full 20-year buildout, and we can talk through if there's things that you wanted to hit on the plans. Um, Jonathan or Jordan, feel free to jump in. But, uh, option number two is just the removal of the cold storage facility. So, that takes you from 48.8 million in uh, total project costs in 2027 to 44.32, roughly a savings of $4 million. All right, we're going to go down and feel free to um to to tell us to hit pause here if there's questions on any of these. Then we're going to go into multiple different variations for option three. Um this is a reduction in maintenance phase. This is a reduction by uh roughly half. Um I know that we've had those conversations on what that means in in prior sessions. Um but if there's a desire to to to recap that, we certainly can. Yeah, I mean I I I'll just say the the the biggest factor there is sort of an agreement to not maintain all city fleet. Um this building would just be for public works then. So instead of taking on fire, police, others, it's essentially just public works. And so that allows you to um probably maintain the current staff um or thereabouts that you have um but have adequate maintenance bays for the vehicles that you'll um continue to maintain throughout the years. So if you take that as a given across option three, the difference lies in the cold storage. 3A is a pre-cast cold storage which uh is in alignment with your building ordinances. Uh when you go to option 3B that what the acronym for PEMB is pre-engineered metal building. Um, I believe that would require a variance with the city uh in order to construct, but we did want to provide that as an option uh for you to consider just because of the reduction in cost that you can see from a pre-cast uh to a pre-engineered metal building based on the sizing. And then ultimately option four here um is not only the reduction in the maintenance phase, but it's also removing the cold storage in its entirety, which gets you down to roughly a 40.62 million. And yeah, I think that's rest on here. >> As we go into option five, it's a reduction in maintenance bay and it also is reducing uh the size of the pre-cast cold storage, which takes you down um to a just shy of 44 million in option 5A with the pre-cast cold storage and takes you down to just over 42 um for the pre-engineered metal building. And there will be a summary slide at the end with all these options tied together. And really for 6A, it's a simplified footprint um of the facility itself. Um ultimately that results uh this is looking at a two-story office condition which is bringing us to a $43.5 million total project cost. Yeah, I I'll say the the difficulty in a a two-story option is adding square footage because you've got, you know, essentially stairs and elevator that you have to add to that. And so, while you can reduce some of your exterior shell costs and roofing and exterior walls, um, a lot of the foundation costs, elevators, stairs, um, kind of offset that a lot of times. So, um, when we're in like pre-esign phase, usually if there's a question of whether to do twotory or single story, um, we don't usually view that as a big cost difference. It's not until you really start to get further into the design that you understand whether or not there would be implications depending on the site adequacy or just adjacencies and whether or not you could even have a stair in a certain design. So >> right now, um, we're suggesting that there's probably not a huge delta. Um, if we to go to a twotory solution, um, then to go to the next piece, um, looking at sort of just a squared off building that was all a singlestory. Um, I'll say that we didn't really have anything to go off of there. um only because um we didn't like redesign the building and all the adjacencies that that office space took. Um so if you looked at the previous floor plan, you know, we kind of have that office as an appendage to the rest of the building. And some of that has to do with it just being a quiet sort of work space as opposed to maintenance bays and vehicles moving in and out. Another component of that has to do with daylight and trying to make sure that you get a good exposure to that space and have areas for the public to traverse around the office area. Um, if we were going to square it off, it sort of challenges where the um adjacencies are within all of the components that we've designed already. So, we could, you know, continue to walk down that path. uh but we'd really be going backwards and sort of looking at how to design it in such a way that um didn't meet all the criteria that we had now. Um so again, I I know that that was sort of a question that was put out to us. I would say that if we took the exact same square footage and just arbitrarily said, well, let's just square it off and make it rectangular and use the same square footage you're at now for a squared off building. um you know, you're probably saving, you know, 10020,000. And it's only because you can probably work through the building progress a little bit more efficiently. Um but you're still building all the same amount of square footage. So it looks a lot simpler. Um but you're still putting all the same stuff into it. So that can be true for a lot of different facilities. Public works facilities in general are boxy by nature and a lot of them uh utilize pre-cast for construction. So really the pre-cast cost versus what you see on the left versus the right. Yeah, you're going to save some to Jonathan's point, but it's not a significant amount that's impactful based on you can see on the lefth hand side for the most part that's a fairly box facility. >> Jonathan, what what how much square footage are we losing on the office and the division workshops on the right hand side of the simplified one? Do you have an idea? Um, no, no. I mean, actually, if you look at the diagram that we have, it's actually 121,000 square feet versus 119 because we essentially just took the boxes we had and squared them off without trying to cut back. So, we actually grew a little bit to do that. Um, >> I got to take off right here, Jonathan. It was roughly about a just shy of a thousand square feet, it looks like. >> Okay. and vehicle storage that increased by close to 10,000. >> Yeah. I mean, I think >> you hit the box. >> That's essentially if you kind of the footnotes at the bottom like maximizing the vehicle storage and trying to square it off, you really kind of lose that training room. That's kind of what we assumed would have to go to be able to get all the components to fit with the puzzle pieces that we currently have. Right. >> So, if I can just give the rest of council a little bit of background on on this last part here. Um so in the process of of when uh the committee was done with schematic design you know the number cons continued to concern the the the committee at least the the appointed and elected officials part of the committee and so when you look at these large commercial manufacturing buildings throughout the north especially the north metro that you're running up 35 that's the new that's what they're building um philosophy and used to be called team bantage That's pretty similar. It's a tip up, my understanding, the most efficient type of construction. So, the ask was, can we do something like that? Still add some features that make it look cosmetically appealing, but potentially some savings with not having, to your point, an appendage separate with this office space. And so, this is the first time I'm seeing this feedback is to to the to the question. Um, and I don't know if necessarily it have to be a square box, but if that office space as it sits now, if that could be more of a tip up type construction design as opposed to brick and mortar or whatever, if there's some savings there at all. >> Pre-cast is by far going to be your most efficient from a cost perspective. We're starting to see a little bit of a turn in the market with all the data centers that are going up. Pre-cast costs are starting to uptick from where they were in years past. Um, but it would, as far as we're pricing right now, masonry is still a little bit of an uptick in costs, uh, compared to pre-cast. You're right, there might be variations in between here that could save, you know, between, you know, 100,000 to a half a million if you're looking at maybe not a complete box, but shrinking down vehicle storage. But it gets into what W's team would have to do to playing with numbers on uh, clearances and aisle widths and things such as that. So that that's that. The other the other part I guess is um although the messages were we're fortunate because the price really hasn't gone down much. It could have likely gone up. I I don't know. Just my opinion is we need to push back on price somehow. I'd rather do it on type of construction than cutting out spaces. I wouldn't want to cut out spaces, but ultimately I think we might have to do a little bit of both to get this where we're all comfortable because I just continue not to be comfortable with this price range. And if that is figuring out what a budget is, a dollar amount that we are comfortable and going back and saying, hey, this is what our budget is, what can you do? That might have to be the next steps. >> Yeah, looking if you could go back one real quick. I mean, looking at the diagram on the right, those maintenance bays and wash bays, that's still the five that was originally talked about or is this reflective of a reduction to the number? So, it's just focused on public works building because it still looks pretty big. >> Yeah. So this is still a reduced footprint of the maintenance bays and then we are carrying um just because it seemed to align with the path of that this option was suggesting we are still carrying pre-engineered metal building for the cold storage that would be still the full 16,000 ft I think was the original size. Um, but yeah, there are it's kind of a mishmash of a few >> and I I don't know that this is necessarily on here or not, but I think if I go to the summary here, I think where we landed with these options, at least with our core planning group, um, the recommendation is really 3B that we build out the full cord cold storage, we go for the variance for pre-engineered metal building, and we reduce the maintenance phase. seemed like those are the two things that we could balance out to reduce the cost as much as possible without compromising really the the operational aspects of it. So from 3B, that's where we kind of took that and started to modify option six to look at what else can we do here to to cut back a little bit. Um but I mayor, I appreciate, you know, sort of your dialogue a little bit. I think for us too it's sort of tough um to continue to work through options especially at the end of SD when we don't necessarily know what the target is um because we can keep you know kind of you know skinning things here and there but if there is that budget number to align with and the goal is to still meet a lot of these program needs um I think that's something we can be successful with um without necessarily compromising and say well you might like it square and I don't but it doesn't come down to the aesthetics necessarily. I think it's really about what's best for operations and what's going to work for the city at the end of the day. >> Dave, can you remind me what what role does the cold storage play? >> It's uh for our seasonal changeover majority. So like right now our e-hanger or South Pole barn or underneath our water tower or name your other weird places we store stuff is all the spring stuff is in there. The winter stuffs at the shop and right now we're starting to switch over. So all your snow blowers and attachments from skid steers with blowers and brooms and all that would go into cold storage and then you bring the seasonal stuff back the moors and all that. So, it's it's more of right now we have it in 10 different places, but it's it's just a spot where you can keep all the stuff that you're not using seasonally that you keep out of the sun and keep out of the cold and just mostly just basically protected, but you don't need it heated. It's not something that's full of water that you have to keep warm and all that. >> If we went with option two, what what would what would you guys do? Uh the option would be either keep some of these buildings yet. You keep some pole buildings. You still run out of the e-hanger until that falls over or keep the pole building by the south building. Um or where where M Health is. Um you know, so your option would be just or that or just keep it outside. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I think part of the steering committee conversation around that too when we developed this option was build what we need like right now and we would still develop the site in such a way that cold storage could easily be added later because it's just pretty simple building that doesn't have a lot of effect on the other site components if we kind of left the little block. But you know if you think long term about that and you take option two and you add cold storage 10 years from now it wouldn't actually overall be less money. It would just be less money right now. Right. >> Right. >> It's hard to believe that that building's a 4 million $4 million building. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. It's a And remind the square footage. Is it 12,000 15? >> I believe it's 16 >> 16 >> at least at the full buildout. >> That's correct. >> 165 16. So, um I I to to some of your points, sir, Jonathan, about a budget, I I the the work that was done with the steering committee was great. We had a lot of uh uh participation by staff. Um I I think it lacked a little bit participation by by even though there were two council members and um some commission members on there, it it lacked a little bit of discussion around price. Um and and Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong. And there was there was two committees. There was a more uh involved committee that did met much more often and then there was this committee that that Jeff and I were part of that um I think we met three times through this whole process. >> Correct. So I I think maybe a more you know I don't know what the next steps would be but I just think unless I'm out speaking just what I'm thinking about as far as price I really think kind of a candid conversation with council and the public. I mean where do we want to be? What is the number? What can we stomach on this? And so I think that has to be next steps and needs to happen relatively soon um before we close out this process of of design. >> Mayor, council members, too. I I know it's noted at the bottom and that we discussed this at a prior workshop, but I I just wanted to point it out some of these decisions too that you do you do not have to make today. Like for instance, the cold storage. These are something that our teams do both old clay um as alternates for a lot of our clients just because right now these are budgets. These aren't bid values. At some point in time, your construction management firm in conjunction with your design team is going to take this project as it's designed and go and publicly bid it out to allow local trades and contractors and contractors from all over for that matter to actually bid your project. Um what's nice is to strategically set up. Nobody wants 10 to 15 alternates, but if you can come up with a handful of alternates, cold storage is an easy one. That allows you to make that decision on bid day. Let's just say an industry standard again, if you look at most is that you want to be within plus or minus 5% of your estimate when you go to bid day. If you have a great bid day and you're sub 5% on a job like this, it could all but make up the cost of your cold storage. So, that's just something I want to keep in mind is that some of these might be things that are like if we can afford it, we want to do it, but we don't know if we can afford it till we get to bid day. Um, so those are things that you can do um and consider as you move forward uh in a design development. That's usually where the decisions get made and locked into from an alternate perspective and then you carry those forward through bidday. Any other any thoughts council? Maybe maybe your own price. I don't you know budget your comfort level with where we're at. >> I would say it depends. Mhm. >> So, we we were made aware of um Lionel Lakes similar just down the road from us doing a project um and that developed numbers anywhere from 28 to 31 million and kind of similar size and I get that they're on a site that's pretty much prepared. >> Um but that just this just seems a much higher and and kind of trying to wrap my head around how that could be. And if memory serves, we we uh were not the chosen CM firm for Lino Lakes. Um but if Memory Serves off of that RFP, and I don't know if they're still going down the same path, they had existing pieces of their facility that they were going to keep and renovate and then expand onto. So from an instance on I know specifically on that one, they had existing office administration, I think, which was built on an addition to their uh existing facility probably within the last 10 to 15 years. um as part of that facility, they're going to keep that section and then they were going to build an expansion um onto that project both to the north, I think, and to the west. So, I think that's more of an expansion renovation. Um I don't know how much of the cost results from that, but it's just something I remember from the RFP and they could be doing something different today uh than what they were doing back at the time uh of RFP. Uh but I also do Yes, you're I hit the nail on the head. Yeah, you do have a a fairly expensive site compared to most. >> Yeah. I mean, you're you're really starting from from ground zero, too. That makes sense. I mean, >> we're not we're doing all new fuel island material storage. All the every single site component is not there right now. >> So, it's like you're >> you're starting from no public works operations at all and you have to build everything in one spot. So it starts to add up each a little component like that, not just the building itself. >> I did want to take a moment to maybe hit on this side because it goes to the line of lakes comment too. One of the things we look at when we're doing our estimates is we don't just look at um okay, you have a public works facility. What's a general cost of a public works uh facility like you see up here cost per square foot basis? Because you have to read between the lines on a lot of those numbers that are up on the screen. Um, as we mentioned before, office space is looked at differently than vehicle maintenance space than vehicle storage or even cold storage for that matter. So, we have to all the makeups of each of those projects on the screen. Some of those we have built, some of those we have not. That's a a broad brush of projects we're involved in and not involved in. Um, we have to look and break down each of those jobs to compare their individual components against your job. So, when we look at the cost of vehicle storage, I only care about what was the vehicle storage cost at Rosemount. I don't necessare ne necessarily care that it was $357 a square foot. And the reason being is on Rosemount that's a combined police and public for uh police uh and public works facility. Their economy of scale is just much much different which is why you can see that that cost per square foot is down. Now on the flip side, you go over to Oakdale and you'll see that that's up at $445 a square foot. Oakdale has a completely different makeup when you look at square footages that you're dealing with uh here, but also that was a super fun site that had a ton of contaminated soils uh just as even a next step up uh as it relates to site costs uh for that job. So you you can see there's certainly projects that are a little bit less expensive than where we're currently sitting at uh from a schematic design budget, but there's also ones that are more expensive. But I can tell you that when you break down those individual components from those projects, you're in alignment when you look at the individual pieces and parts uh of those jobs. >> Dustin, were these projects all projects you guys did or just random? >> Uh random. So um in Grove Heights is currently in design. We are on that one. Um Swift County we were not involved in those risk cost histories um um that we were able to uh get our hands on. Um Oakdale is currently just wrapping up construction. Uh they move in I think next month. Cottage Grove was a project that uh both our teams completed here about a year ago. Um and uh Rosemont was one that we did. So all but Swift County I think up there were the ones we were involved with. >> Did was the the coal storage was that a $4 million building basically? Is that the difference on the one option where we weren't going to do cold storage? It was for I think that's what you mentioned. >> Yeah, if you look at option one to two. >> Yeah, it's about 4 million. >> So, I mean >> for pre-cast, I will say that. That is for pre-cast gold storage. >> That's for the pre-cast. >> Yes. >> Yeah. But do you really want a metal building across from a future? >> No, you I mean so there's a new newer building 97 and Forest Road. the the cabinets or um countertop which is to look at it is not doesn't look like a typical steel building. It is really nicely done. Um I guess either way with pre-cast but there's no FFN that's that's 250 bucks a square foot for a warehouse. That just that just does not align in the private sector. It just doesn't. 200 if I'm doing the math right $4 million at 16,000 square feet. It's like 250 bucks a square foot. I it just doesn't >> expensive. >> I don't know how that adds up. >> I should mention too, I think what came out of so the at 16,000 square ft um there is a requirement to have it sprinklered um for the S the S2 building type I believe. Um that kind of influenced what we looked at for options um five in that reducing that square footage. So if we go below 10,000 square ft, then we do not need to do that sprinklering. So that is maybe a complicating factor too in that in that cold storage. And very similar to pre-cast, there's I think four or five uh different pre-engineered metal building types that are out there. And usually in the metro, there's about three to four installers that tend to bid on that work. Um I believe uh I go back to Rose Mount, and I'm almost 100% positive on this. It's a pre-engineered uh metal building that they use for their outdoor cold storage. And some of it is how you uh do the detailing. Are you doing metal panels all the way down the grade? Are you staying up above with uh concrete four or five feet just from a maintenance and durability perspective? There's all sorts of those things that can be looked at. There's also even another option that if you were to go against a variance for pre-engineered metal buildings to go with more of a pole uh building style facility. Um, I know those are something and I just was reminded of it when I saw Commissioner Mir not out in the crowd because we've done quite a bit of work for Washington County over the years and they put a lot of those facilities up uh in their parks just for uh general vehicle storage uh and maintenance out at their park facilities. But again, um that could be another reduction even from the pre-engineered metal building option that you could look at that's up on the screen if a variance be approved. We've talked through this and the the committee that we really want to hold the same standards that we ask that our developers and build, you know, commercial property builders have. So, but I would be open not just there, but anywhere to have, you know, a variance for building similar to what's out on, you know, on 97 and and Forest Road. I I think they're sharp, still attractive looking building and not the old school pole barn look. So, All right. Um, just real quick. >> Hope, did you want to go back to that one? >> Yes, please. >> Right here or the one before? >> Um, I think it was an option five. >> Option five. >> There we go. So, 5B, you reduce the maintenance bays and you're reducing the cold storage to 10,000 square feet so you avoid the sprinkler system. >> Yep. >> Is that the case? Yeah. 5B cold storage goes down to 10,000 from 165. Yep. >> How much cold storage space do we have today? >> Scattered about >> I would say around that if you add it all up usable. >> Yeah. I mean, if we went with 10,000 is that >> hamstring you guys versus a 16? I mean, it seems like it saves some decent money. I think a lot when that and I have to remember back but I think that 16,000 a lot of it was you know even putting trailers and stuff in there right I think if you'd reduce that and you just strictly put equipment in there and and and put that in I think you can always get creative of what you you put in there I >> think it's valuable to to get everything in one spot and then you can get rid of all these other spots too you know so I think >> half would be happy with 10,000 versus 0,000. >> Yeah. >> You add that, too. >> I don't think so. >> Okay. We think you're at 7,600 right now. If you take the hanger, M Health, and >> the South Shop, 7,600 square ft. >> A little bit of the water treatment, but not too much. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Don't forget Dave's garage. Um, >> so you're still getting some increase to that and >> and I should say that doesn't account for like Dave mentioned all the ancillary sites, random water tower, things like that too. Mhm. >> So the goal tonight, I mean, is this kind of a blessing or what is the idea here to to sign off on schematic design, not ask for some more? like what what is the goal tonight or what's the >> I I mean either consensus that you like one of these options and uh you know blessing on that to basically approve the schematic design or direction of we want you know old KA staff steering committee to go back and do something whether it's a price point or we want to see it uh We all we for sure want to see a a building that's boxed off or in a rectangle shape or we really want to see something different. So I think either I mean either yes we we want to go forward with excuse me one of these options or we want this group to go back with direction of how we want to you know change these and come up with a new option. Basically saying we don't want any of these options. We want a new option that is A, B, C, and D. Either a set price, a set design, more square, I mean less square footage, you know, something. Yeah. I mean, I guess to that point, we are feeling confident in that sort of 3B recommendation from the core planning group at least. Um I know that there was some agreement amongst the steering committee certainly want to respect the discussion about that budget piece of it that is a huge component of it. Um so if the direction were well we want to try to maintain that 3B sort of heart u but go forward with X budget you know that's something that we could move forward with pretty easily. Um my fear is that there's this cycle of you know design and options that we don't ever actually hit the exact piece. Um but if we do know what the budget is then we know what the target is. Um because we can keep kind of going in circles on different options and not that I'm opposed to showing more trying to work through um some other concerns that you might have. Um, but if there's a goal to continue moving forward with that, you know, sort of like I said, the heart of what we think at least 3B or something something like that would be, um, we could see what that looks like in terms of a proposed budget to continue forward. >> And I think to be fair to council, staff, Wald, and K, I don't think there's ever a number, right? was we did the space needs. This is what the space needs said that we needed for square footage and office space and vehicle storage and all this. So then schematic design took that and designed a building and and really it came up with eight different options now of how can we get to that square footage with what we need or what the space need space needs study is saying. This is you know the result of that. So, I mean, if if there is a target cost, I mean, that can be presented now and say we want a building for $5 million. We're not going to do anything unless it's that, right? Then, like Jonathan said, that's something that you can work to and try to still hold as much stuff as a space need study said that we can try to keep in to hit that target. I mean, like, you know, that's basically what he said to, you know, and it's no fault of anybody. It's just there's never been a number. It's just here's the space needs. We designed this. This is what it's going to cost to build what the space needs study said. >> I I think that the number that and that's what caught everyone's surprise. The number has always been especially for those been on council for a couple years and what we've been budging for the 10-year plan was 20 or 25 million. That's what has been the sticker shock piece of it because that's what we've been told for years and it's going to be I get there's reasons why it's not that. Um, so that you know, I don't know, council if you're comfortable tonight on landing on a on a number or want to Well, I'm not opposed to continuing the conversation, but I think where I'm sitting today would either be 3B or 5B. Um, the difference, as I understand it, is 6,000 square ft of cold storage and about $900,000. So, is that enough of a savings to do 10,000 versus 16,000? >> Maybe that number maybe that 42 million is still too high, but I mean of what I've seen tonight, that's the direction I would lean is one of those two. >> Yeah. Not to cut you off, but I think as Dustin said too, that cold storage could easily be that alternate piece at maybe even two different sizes. gives you the flexibility to say if the cold storage is sort of the wild card here and we feel pretty good about everything else, you know, maybe that's where you land and we use that as an alternate piece. So, we're designing it still, but you don't have to decide it until you get those bids back and say, "We didn't we didn't fare as well as we thought we would on bid day, so we're going to punt on cold storage for the time being." But, at least you've hit sort of the mark in terms of schedule and trying to not get hit with inflation by dragging it out and waiting. um you know trying to trying to keep the pricing the same as the numbers we're showing you today rather than having to come back 6 months and say oh well are you guys still seeing really seeing 4% difference from last year to this year. Is that really a number that I know coming out of co everything that was a probably a three to four but are we still seeing that? >> It was about 3.8% last year so it's close to 4%. We've just held tight just because you've heard uh I mean it's a double-edged sword. We've heard everything about, oh, what happens if the tariffs are, you know, put into effect and what do you see in regards to pricing? Well, we haven't seen that make a huge market index that, you know, the threat is always out there. So, for the 02% that it was last year, we've just left it at 4%. What um knowing cold storage is about 250 a square foot. Do you have a breakdown of what price per square foot is like of just the office space versus the vehicle space? >> It's a good thing I rated Ken's estimate piles before he took his kids to Disney. see what's in here. So, and these are high level. These are just construction dollars per square foot. This doesn't take into account like on the overall budget. You'll see contingencies and uh things like that. Let me get to office. There we go. So, office space right now as part of the schematic design budget was uh about $344 a square foot. Okay. Now, how about the vehicle storage area? >> So, I'll actually give you vehicle storage was at about $200 a square foot. >> So, was it the maintenance base that drive it up? >> Maintenance is about $300 a square foot. I'm just rounding for you here off the budget to make things easier. and cold storage that was factored in uh as part of the estimate was um about 218 per square foot before you have those contingencies and escalators. >> Sure. >> Um factored into it. >> Okay. >> I know this isn't ideal but but what is the number to I say everything is contemplating current plus 20 years. What is current? Do we have a number on current? like the total square footage need >> just the cost and square footage need that was like 90,000 wasn't it? >> I'm just going back to that original FCA that had the numbers listed on there. >> That's not the first option for me to start. I'm just want to know if that just conversation for the public and >> 110 for 20 years memory serves me. >> Oops. >> Oh, that's fine. 20,000 ft >> at two. >> Yeah, we're at 18,000 plus cold storage. >> 18,000 squared. >> No, >> what was the current space need? >> That's just >> That's not speed. >> Oh, what's your question again? Sorry. >> You were asking what's the current need for square footage? the difference in what that price would be. >> Yeah, I think it was only the difference was maybe like 20,000 square ft and it had more to do with uh vehicle storage than it had to do with office space because the office space you're only going to add a couple people maybe. And so that was a pretty small component of that increase in square footage over the course of that 20 years. It was more about as we start to buy more vehicles and try to maintain a larger footprint of, you know, roadways and things like that, that increases more to do with the vehicle storage than anything else. $4 million. >> Um, I I don't know how you know Jolene made this question for you. We know we have really no answers with the local sales tax option. I mean, I really do think for me personally, the ability to get that probably, and I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but ways into this because it is just less impact on the taxpayers. >> Correct. And we're not going to have answers on that. I mean, we've got to get through the first hurdle first, which is legislative approval. So hopefully, fingers crossed, there can be some progress at the legislature this year and they can have a decision on all of those requests from different municipalities or governments on those sales tax um requests in May. They are dead, you know, kind of deadlocked and they have to call a special session. We're looking at July. That's first hurdle. The second hurdle is then having this on a ballot in November. And that's really the big hurdle. Um it's no skin off our legislators backs whether you they pass it or not, but it it comes down to our constituency and how they're going to vote on it in November. So we're not really going to know until we get to election day in November if we get to that point. >> Yep. So when I said depends before, obviously that was one of the things that I was referring to. Um, as I look at this, and I'm not sure these answers. I'm not even sure if I should ask them, but I'm going to. Um, when you look at the construction costs, it looks like they range anywhere from, you know, 30 million to 38 million. And when I look at the soft costs, I see they range anywhere from they're all pretty similar, around 6 million. Are those soft costs? Uh maybe this is a question for staff. Uh things like uh building permits, things like citywack fees, u city sack fees, um a number of those costs that we're paying to us, the city, who's building this public works building, do we have to pay those? >> So that actually got brought up at the the steering committee level of of do you or don't you? And that and that's a a council decision, right? A a city project, you know, there's a thought of that you're double dipping. You're you're say if you're bond for this project, you're not only bonding for it, but then also you're charging yourself back out the permits. So, I mean, every other city project that we've done, water plants and all that, we get fees, you know, we pay the billing permits and we do that. I mean, that's so it's it'd be a a council decision whether or not to wave those fees. Yeah. And again, yeah, I I don't know what the discussions were. It just looks like, you know, when you look at a lot of these soft costs, you could knock off, you know, a couple million dollars in addition to uh by reducing space, we could knock off a or cold storage space, we could knock off a few million dollars and maybe we're now closer to that number. That's going to work for all of us. >> Just >> Yeah. Talking. Well, that conversation on on the fees, I mean that, you know, we sit here every other Monday and tell people they need to pay these and sometimes exorbitant fees. And so for me, it's a little hard to say you have to pay it, but we don't have to. The rules don't apply to us. Now, if you educate people and you explain to them, hey, we're the taxpayers are saving that money. Maybe there's more appetite to do that. It just it just seems a little uh >> was it just moving it from one hand to the other basically for charging ourselves fees and we're collecting >> ourselves for the fee. >> Yeah. I mean that's a that's that's a a legitimate >> I mean so whether we whether we charge them or not all ends up in the same checking account. >> Yeah, pretty much. The only thing I'm thinking is, you know, we may have to look at a tax increase and and then you're taxing for that to pay for stuff that potentially they shouldn't necess, you know what I mean, I get it, but >> if it ends up back in the general fund because we charge ourselves a fee, it's a levy over there. >> I think a lot of these soft costs, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the stuff that's going inside the building like the right >> lifts and the, >> you know, Yeah, some of them. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean soft costs have like a few main buckets. I'll say there's a contingency just to make sure that you've got some wiggle room, you know, as you're going through pretty large construction project. And I'm sure if people remember this building, there was construction contingency that was spent on that. Um and then you'll have like professional fees. So, some of that is maybe already paid for if you look at those numbers because you've got um architectural fees, you have some CM fees and things like that. Um and then you have yes, what you shake the building and falls out is that FFN part. So, fixtures, furnishings, equipment. Um when we look at public works, there's sort of a divide sometimes between what actually gets bid out as a part of the project. um for some of those vehicle lifts and some of the more I would say intricate things that go into a building like that as opposed to just a chair or a desk or something like that too. Um so those are kind of your big buckets typically out of that soft cost. It's just not what not the hard bid that you'll see on bid days. All the other things that sort of add up to get you there at the end so you know what the actual budget needs to be. So on bid day, what you're saying is they're not going to necessarily figure those soft costs. A lot of that >> Yeah. I mean, those soft costs are just all the way through to the very final check is written because you'll go through and maybe reduce some of the contingency and the city might actually see that the number goes down over the course of time. Um, but you know, you've got some, you know, construction testing that happens throughout the course of construction. So you'll have a, you know, your own independent group doing that. and they're sort of billing hourly for those tests. So, we won't know what that is until they're all completed and construction's done. So, the soft costs tend to be, you know, wiggle around a little bit. But every time we come back and meet with either our core planning group or our construction group or, you know, we give council updates monthly or whatever on something like that, you know, we're always dialing in on what those soft costs are because we always want to try to know, okay, are we still on budget and how much is contingencies left so that we're always making sure that you've got some wiggle room there. And I've noticed on a lot of our bids that we get recently, uh, you know, for road projects and things like that, they've been, we've been actually been surprised how low some of them have come in over, uh, some others. And I assume bid day will be going out to anybody who wants to put in a bid. Yep, >> that's correct, council member. That's a good point. And when you look at these numbers and how we budget, uh, as a company, we do not budget to low bid. We budget for middle of the road. So there's certainly ways um whether it's through strategy on alternates or things that will continue to get looked at throughout design material finishes u the teams work well together that way um to be able to make sure that we're keeping an eye on those costs. The goal is hopefully you can drive out as much participation on bid day as possible and get yourself into that minus 5% compared to budget uh zone as much as you possibly can. >> Yeah, that's significant. Mhm. >> Um, mayor, back to your question about square footage. Jordan, quietly in the background is doing the leg work. Uh, it's about 20,000 square ft. 15 of it is vehicle storage. Uh, and then about, let's just say the other five breaks down in between mechanic space and office. So maybe like 2500 each of those things. So again, the bulk of the increase over that 20 years is the 15,000 in vehicle storage space, but you're looking at an overall increase of 20,000 square feet. That's something to be, you know, mindful of. >> How much how much of the office space did the steering committee you've mentioned it got kind of whittleled down. What did we start with and we're I know we landed at like 11. >> Uh you're specifically on office. >> Yeah. um office back at the concept level was close to 12,600. Um and right now we've got options ranging down to 11,000 and a little bit below 11,000. So close to 2,000 square feet depending upon what option you're looking at 1500 to 2,000. >> That that is our well maybe but that's our most expensive square footage. It's easier to add like if you're not going to do 20 year build out on something like that, that's more difficult to add on than it would be >> garage space. You know, you um I I would like to see us somehow come back with something between north of 35 and south of 40. I I I think I could tolerate that. Just that's my personal but everyone has to we all have we owe this to to the taxpayers to try to I mean again we budgeted for 25 million and we're at you know at 50 we're going the right way. I just I I I think we need to just push back and that that means shrinking up some spaces where we're not fully billing out to the 20 you know current plus 20 year I think we have to look at that. >> That's your option four, which is why I saw that 4. I thought, "Oh, that's pretty nice." >> It is, but I I don't know. I mean, Dave, if you guys had a I mean, if you had to cut back on cold storage versus some additional office space and some mechanic stuff and, you know, you have the wood shop, the sign shop, the lube, you know, all these. Where would you rather see that? What's more valuable? all of it. >> Don't take away. >> I I think that's where it's at, right? If if you say we need to cut $3 million off of this, if you want to see if you're looking at strictly option four of the that base building of, you know, where do you want to get down to? I think that's when Golden K and staff can say, "Okay, we can take a thousand feet from here and we can try to take 2500 square feet from here without trying to lose the efficiency of the building. I mean, it it says wood shop, but it's not just a wood shop. It's, you know, where you sharpen your chainsaws, where all the chains get stored. And the sign shop isn't the sign shop. It's where I mean, it's multiple things. They just, you know, pick pick a word to go on there. And lub room is probably the most important part of that mechanic bay because that's where all your grease and oils and all that are going to be housed to. So I mean you can't just shrink that down. That has to be a certain size. So I think if no one is confident with a a price now than a price that you would be confident in or good with that would give us something to whittle down to. I don't think picking one certain thing is the right thing to do. It's probably trying to figure out how you can keep as much as possible by cutting down your, you know, your square foot. >> And isn't cost less expensive to go up than out? >> Uh, not necessarily. >> Okay. >> Especially in these facilities. It's actually more of a wash to go vertical versus horizontal >> just because of the elevator and the stairs. >> The elevator and the stairs. And you're already dealing with very simple finishes. uh in these types of facilities as it stands in an office building it's completely different but because of the type of building you're building right now um unfortunately there's not a huge cost difference uh from one to the other I will add this to U mayor council member just because I think it's important I was actually just presenting here within the last month um to county who's building a new highway facility very similar to public works um and this very question came up because they're also struggling on the dollar value associated with their facility um it's very easy to do things as alternates for cold storage, for things like vehicle storage even even though it's you know you look at vehicle storage and the cost per square foot is the less right. So you got to eliminate more to get more money out of it. When you look at the maintenance bays and the wash bay and how that's configured along with office space um it is incredibly difficult to do additions onto those in the future. Um, and I will point out just because we are doing expansions onto maintenance and office bays, uh, you look at that $300 and some a square foot for office space that qu that quickly doubles when instead of building 10 11,000 square feet, you're only adding on a,000 or,500 or potentially 2,000 square feet. So, yes, I I think that's just something I want you to know and when you're balancing costs is that there is that upfront cost which is ultimately incredibly important. But on some of those pieces in particularly the office and the maintenance, those are the two hardest to expand onto into the future. Um, so if you're looking for areas, and I know we haven't had this conversation uh before obviously now, uh, but the cold storage and vehicle storage would be the the easiest ones to add on to without increasing or coming close to doubling that cost uh, per square foot from an estimate perspective for a future addition. The other the other piece I think is I I really believe that um doing this in a tip up type construction the whole building office included if it's saving a half a million dollars it's a half a million dollars. I I think the public, they want a functional building that our staff can work out of and maintain the roads and plow. We don't quite need anything aesthetically pleasing as city hall and city center that's right on right on 61. Yes, that will be, but hopefully there is a commercial building in front of that building that is not going to be so forward facing as as this building here. Yeah, I guess the only challenge with like 6B. If you go with the one story, I mean, we're not saving any money. >> And the twotory, you're not saving any really much either. >> Well, I'm not even saying you'd go twotory. You you do the same square, whatever that square, maybe it's ends up being 9,000. Maybe we can shave off a couple on that office space, but that ends up being 9,000 ground, but just in tip up type construction as opposed to all the glass and the brick and everything we're seeing we saw earlier tonight. >> Mhm. >> May maybe there's not a savings. It seems like there would be, but um if if going up is is just counterproductive just just the additional space cost of steps and elevators and all that, then that square footage stays the same. It's on one level, but it's a different style con. It's a tip up construction. >> Yeah, I guess I I didn't get to speak to the sort of operational challenge of that either really. I mean, the whole idea of creating this sort of central environment for public works is they're all on one level and they can all traverse in between each other and see each other every day. You start to push people upstairs into an office and now there's, you know, some separation there. It may not be big a big deal. Um, but I just think that there is something to be said for people being separated um by a floor. Just another thought. So 35 to 40 I'm that's my number guys you guys I mean please weigh in I don't want this to be kind of discussed it amongst >> things here >> so that using more of that tip up less more tip up construction for the whole the whole facility um shrinking down the cold storage under that 10,000 square ft. Um, I don't know. That's so if you take 3B and you used reduced footprint on the cold storage like you did in >> 5B >> 5B >> we already have option for you. >> That is okay. So that's are the same one's just smaller same material. Okay, got it. >> Yeah, I mean essentially that's what you're saying. You want to be at 5B, but you're trying to get below 40 million for the project cost. >> I think your best bet in doing that, this is speaking out loud, is taking that alternate method for the cold storage. It doesn't promise you the cold storage. It just prolongs waiting to see where things shake out on bid day because that can have on a cost like that cold storage for grand engineer metal building. It could suck up the vast majority of that cost if you have a great bid day. the other things you mentioned like a tip up building or going to the more simpler building. Those are things that our teams look at as you go through design development. Um there's already a value management list that's started between uh the construction management firm and the design firm that goes through things like do you do an EPDM versus ballasted roof system. Sometimes the market fluctuates, one can be cheaper than the other. We say it's an easy alternate. put it out there and let the five to six roofers that are going to bid on this project, let them determine what the best value is for the city and then let the city make that decision on bid day of whether or not they select one system over another based on the final cost of it. So, there are going to be things that the team should if uh and I know that the construction management is going to be something that you talk about here a little bit later tonight, but depending upon the team that you have that's going to be working alongside you. Uh there are a lot of things that within these facilities that simple material changes or things that the teams talk about can make into easy alternates that can help get you down below or closer to that $40 million mark if that's the the threshold. I know you said 35 to 40. Um, and there might be other things to help reduce it further from there, but those are the easy ones that are coming off the top of my head. >> So, it sounds like um there's appetite of the council to wave any fees that we would charge regular developers or contractors. Correct. If that's the case, is there some appetite to look for variance and go with that pre-cast or the the the more metal, I don't know what the term is of that building for that if we were to do the coal storage, >> the PMBB. >> Yeah, I think so. >> I'm fine with that. >> So, there's a little direction there, I guess. I don't know but still have to go through the whole process of a variance and that um and also fees then not not to charge ourselves. So I think at one point it's isn't just on that alone I I saw a number it's not close to a million dollars. >> If I look at and I got to do the math in my head but on this breakout sheet below permits and fees building permit ranges let's ballpark it at 140,000 depending upon what option you're choosing. It's just the building permit itself. Um city whack fees are about another 180,000. City SAC fee, >> plan review fee was the >> about 15 grand. >> Um, city whack fee was about another 150,000. So 180, 140, 300, 400. It's about a half a million dollars in fees. >> Why is the city whack and sack fee listed twice? >> Uh there's a water acquisition charge and a sewer acquisition charge and then there's a separate fee I believe that's on top of that. >> Then there's also Matt Council. Yeah. >> What part would bed counsel be of that? That that we pay that regardless, right? Yep. You have to pay that. >> That one would have you couldn't wave that one. It's a pass through, >> but it's a contemplating area charges plus access charges. So, you're just like any other developer. It's per acreage, which you'd have to pay for, you know, your area charges on development. Then when you when this the building hooks up, then you'd pay the access fee, too. So, that's why there's two of each. >> You got it. >> I don't know. I guess I I wouldn't want to commit to not charging ourselves fees until we know what happens with the bonding or the uh local area sales tax. >> So maybe we should just recap here. You guys feel like you have enough direction, but it sounds like council wants to look at kind of tightening this up to a 35 to 45 $440 million total budget and focusing more on a tip up design perhaps seeking a variance so we can look at some different building options. Um but also did five 5B or 3B is kind of the preferred design at this point of the council focusing on those aspects but with some different variations. Is that I I just want to clarify so that we're all on the same page. >> Go back to those options so I can so we can see them. But So 3B would be the full size cold storage and then 5B would be the reduced. Looking at those two options but tightening them up to fall within a budget that meets the expectations of not just this council with the past budgeting that council has done but also what the public expectations are as well. Yeah, I mean I'm I'm happy to see some consensus there and I think it's something we can work towards. I guess the question is um as we look to kind of what's next here? Um would you like us to find a sweet spot to wrap up schematic design that hits that below 40 million? because I think some of the things that we're talking about in terms of savings have a lot to do with materiality and more specific building construction pieces that really has to go into design development and getting deeper into it, not just looking at a floor plan and some diagrammatic stuff. So I think um in in one way we can keep kind of just dragging it out and figuring this out and see if we can get there with maybe the steering committee and core planning group. Um but in another way we could also just come back to a formal council meeting and say we know what the direction is and we're ready to move forward into design development and that's going to be the target. >> Yeah. I mean, I just remind everyone that um we've got this part of it is $330,000, a lot of money. And so, I think we need to get as comfortable as possible with this piece before moving moving forward. So, I think coming back to exactly what Joan just listed there on some of those things, at least another shot at that at least has to happen. Um it's comfort. So I didn't quite follow your comment. I mean I understand what mayor's saying. So you one of the ways you're going to bring that overall cost down is just looking at those final those intended >> Yeah. I mean there's a couple things. I mean there's some there's some soft cost pieces. There's some maybe global square footage things that we can look at. Um, but when we get into looking at specific materials and pre-cast versus XYZ and all those things, it's harder to start to break that cost out and really realize savings until we have more of a specific building design because then we're just we we would be guessing now. And if we say, "Okay, our guess is in within your $40 million number, but we go to actually design it and we're in DD and we have all the components put together and we say, oh, I guess we didn't do it right." I would fear that we would not be able to realize the savings you're really looking for without having that level of detail. So to me, at a schematic level, there's certainly a lot we can do to try to be between that 35 and 40. I'm just suggesting we might not get into the level of detail conversation that you're talking about. >> Think I think another way of saying is that if you like the building footprint and if you like 5B, if you like how this is, then schematic design has kind of done its job. It's now it's the dollar amount doesn't you need that. And you said design development, you can all you can work with your design and your as you're going through design development to bring that cost down at the same time. It'd be different if you look at what they came up and said, "Absolutely not. We don't like this building. We want the office to be on this side of here and I want the wash bay to be up here." But I think if the general consensus is we like the layout, we like either 3B or 5B, just the changing of the cold storage, then I think the schematic design has kind of done its job. to your point, the design development is where you you say, "Okay, now we have a target cost of we have to be we want to get close to $35 million. Okay, as we design this, where can we find these things to bring it down?" Whether it's in the site or in the building or combined, you know, and also these fees, right? That's you can show that as an option there. There's say if it's 500,000, you can continue to carry that on of, you know, there's a cost savings there as well. And I would say let's not focus on the soft costs, focus on the construction cost getting them down. We can adjust soft costs. We can figure out what to do with soft costs if we need to. >> And I and I don't want to tie these two because you'll be talking about a mirror and council members uh in a minute on on construction management. But breaking away from construction management and Jonathan will go through this. Your design is kind of on an anticipated timeline. That anticipated timeline is projected into a cost escalation, which is the numbers that you see up here on the screen. That's assuming that you start construction and you're in the middle of construction in 2027. And it'll be a variation in between there. If things slide, you just have to take into account escalation costs uh depend upon how much time is taken before you move from one piece into the next. So, I understand you got to make sure you're making the important uh the important decisions to make sure you don't wind up in a spot you don't want to be. Um, but just take into account as we try to make sure you drive out enough competition and try to get below the budget, you're on a schedule that's giving you the best chance of getting to that. Um, it's just something that you'll want to take into account. Um, if you look at revising the schedule as you move forward to hear uh from here, just make sure you're taking a look at those pieces. Just one question about moving on from schematic to design. Do you think that you can without making changes to the footprint, do you think you can get down to that 35 to 40 million? >> I think 35 would be optimistic. I think if we're if 5B is at like 42 something um I think we got some wiggle room to be able to probably get below at the 40 or below >> in design not changing the footprint anymore. >> Agreed. It might you might be looking at some level of vehicle storage because again it's an easy thing to adjust later and make an alternate. >> Um >> I think there'd be some reduction. >> Correct. I'll just say that I don't think I don't we're at the point where you're you're not going to cut two million out without losing something. Um but if operationally that the key components are there and we try to maintain those I think we can do it without losing too much. >> Even if Kevin says I can't touch the soft cause >> because I don't that's the easy way out. That's we don't want you doing that. We're just going to cut your contingency down. >> Exactly. >> Agreed. I I would like to point out too, and this is just part of design, uh but when you look at this detailed budget, you're going to see probably about midway uh down on construction costs, you're going to see a line item that's called design contingency. Um that design contingency alone, depending upon what option you're looking at, um is between 1.6 and $2 million. Now, that design contingency, you can't count all of it. Like, you're just not going to use it all. Uh but if the team is under the direction of hey we want to get down below that 40 million that's when your CM and your design firms can really work closely that as you're making real world decisions of I want this wall here we need to add this office down here we're doing those real time estimates to say hey what's the what's the offset because this decision over here just cost you $25,000 where are you going to go get that $25,000 away from it here versus just being well we've got 1.6 6 million in design contingency. That's just a piece that eats it up. So, that also is a very helpful tool for design CM firm and owner to know um as you're moving forward because that's real money uh in those design contingencies. >> Yep. >> Yep. Um, does so back to the I hate to kind of beat this over and over, but the the tip up style construction throughout the building. We >> You talk about the simplified the six >> Well, I don't know if that's simp We didn't I don't even know if that was an option, was it? >> I'm not even sure that you'll know the difference if we do it. Maybe some cost savings. I don't know aesthetically that you're going to know that much of a difference if we continue to meet those sort of ordinances for accent materials and things like that. >> You might realize some savings, but I think aesthetically you probably wouldn't know the difference. >> Yeah. And I mean, every little bit counts on this thing to try to get this thing reasonable. So, >> you know, it's true. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, next now we're talking >> Well, there's a lot of different things we were going to talk about. I'm trying to follow kind of where council's at right now. So, we had kind of a schedule, you know, an optimistic schedule that we're going to jump into design development in April. Um, it sounds like it would make sense to probably connect with the steering committee one more time, probably our core planning group one more time, maybe another workshop before we really sit down with the formal council meeting and say, "Okay, we we got the target. Let's move into design development." I think that's kind of where I'm hearing we're at. Um, so I'll keep the schedule up here only to say that once we go past that May timeline, all of a sudden our ideal construction windows and bidding windows um we start to lose that foothold. And so now it's not just um escalation per month, we're talking six months because we have to span winter conditions. So, not not to kind of strongarm anybody. I'm just trying to put context around kind of ideally if we're going to continue to move forward, we try to be in that May timeline to start design development. So, that gives us, you know, about a month to kind of shake this out and get to the target. Um, so then I'll jump to the very end. And I think the first sort of action item, recommendation of project scope, I think we have that. I think I didn't write in there and budget. So, I think we have both of those and we're pretty close now. Um, and then beyond there, there's a couple other steps that I think um should be discussed. One of those is, like I said, proceed with design development. you have our proposal that's based on essentially 3B which is the core planning group repation. I don't think we necessarily have to talk about that anymore today because that'll just adjust as we kind of dial in on where we want to be. Um but then the last one is that um project delivery method and really starting to think critically about um how you want to move forward with construction. Um if we are sort of taking a month to um kind of smooth things out here um that would really be the time to try to make this decision because you wouldn't necessarily want to go into design development not knowing um if or there's a construction partner and who and then there's this fourth piece of the community engagement strategies. I think, you know, today was one effort. Um, but there's certainly other things that can be contemplated and, um, I think Carl Anderson's got a couple of tools. We have some, too. And it's just a matter of how much you want to hear about that or try to hit that um, head on. >> So, do you have you prepared for that for these items? >> Yes, >> we do. Or do we we we can talk about those. We don't have to. I'm suggesting that we get beyond this first piece of project scope and budget and then some of these other things probably need further discussion. Um, but that's >> what what's staff's preference. Do you want them to lead this? >> Mr. Mayor, I I kind of appreciate where Jonathan's going with this. I think that this is the first time this whole council has seen a lot of these design options. That's kind of a lot to digest. I think that if we get too far down the rabbit hole with the other items tonight, it's just it's going to be a little too much. Dave and I had had some preliminary conversations with the city attorney about uh CM options. She's working on preparing a memo and a legal analysis for the council. That's not ready quite yet. So, I think that if we hold off on having these more in-depth discussions, it's just going to be a little more um fruitful when we get to those discussions. So I would just suggest we >> so if I can just one just one recommendation maybe or just ideas just so we're prep so when we get that memo we can talk the language a little bit if we can just do maybe a high level for everyone here about the what the three different ones that are options. >> Yeah, I I think that makes sense. We can scrap the design stuff because we talked about that um talking about delivery methods. Um Dustin's closer to that than me so I'll let him talk through that a little bit. Um, but it might make sense to talk about the community engagement stuff at least a little bit only because if we have this sort of month, it's sort of a gift to be able to maybe do some of that work in that time frame while we're not actually marching forward and changing things or doing something that the council's already approved. So, it might make sense to think about maybe one or two things that we could do within that time frame. Um, whether that's with us or the city in general. I I Julian is that something staff could I think that's reasonable to just have the convers a really high level conversation tonight. I know internally we've we've started chatting a little bit about public engagement and different options that are available. So like to hear what you guys have to say on it and then staff will continue to work on it to present further to the council. >> Go ahead. >> Awesome. That was back on John. >> I think it was right there. There we go. Um, so maybe as a high level overview, I'm not going to spend a ton of time on general contractor unless you have uh questions in regards to it. Uh, what you see up on there in the screen, um, is more of a hard bid or low bid mentality, meaning your construction partner, your general contractor, um, you hire your architect to help you then bid out the project um, to low bid wins general contractor. So, you're going to hear me talk a lot about subcontractors or prime contracts that you see up there. When you bid out under a GC method, um, you don't get to see who those uh, subcontractors are. You get to see a lump sum bid from contractor X or X amount and you award based on cost. Um, construction management, whether as VI as advisor or at risk, uh, there's more transparency with those delivery methods. You get to see how those bids are made up. You get to see all the folks that bid concrete, that bid masonry. Um, typically, no matter which delivery model you do, CM at Risk or CM Agency, um, there's between 20 and 30 work scopes um, on average, it's about 30 work scopes uh, for all the different trade contractors on the job. meeting. We're as a construction management firm, whether it's us or um the majority of them that are out there, they will break it down to say we're going to bid out to uh a work scope 9A for painting and a 9B for drywall, 9C for tiling, and a 9D for flooring, and so on and so forth across the job. So there'll be about 30 different work scopes that then you solicit out to the market and get competitive bids on painting, on masonry, on steel erection, uh every component of the given project. Um ultimately what you're hiring when you hire a construction management firm is your team that you're working with to bid out the project and manage the project um as it moves forward from the bidding process. And the nice part uh that you don't get in general contracting is what you see here today is your construction manager working alongside your architect to help on costs and schedule. In a general contracting model, they're getting hired on after um all that pre-construction work um is done. CM at risk, it's uh I'd like to say for KA at least, we've been doing this for for quite some time, but it didn't become dependent upon who your attorney was within a city, didn't really become legal to do up until a couple years ago. Um, so the vast majority of public projects uh were delivered as CM as uh as advisor. Uh about two years ago that statute changed and I I'd say in pretty short order you saw it flipped. Uh it was about a 7030 split and I would say today you're probably seeing a 5050 split out there in the marketplace of folks wanting to deliver either as construction managers agent or construction manager at risk. Um the two biggest differences I would say um on CM at risk to CMA as you can see up there that line down the middle that's going to subcontractors or the one that's going to prime contracts. The biggest difference is who hold who holds those um individual 20 to 30 different contracts on the job. Does the construction manager hold them or does the owner hold them? Um there are some factors to consider and literally we we give presentations on this that can get close to an hour. Um, so I'll try to give you the brevity of it. Um, there is a cost increase uh for CM at risk and it doesn't matter which CM you choose. Um, they're just uh real costs that are out there in the marketplace and they vary from CM to CM and that is uh insurance and bond costs. Um, you can imagine if you're the owner and you're holding all those prime contracts, the painter, the masonry, the steel erector, they're all going to hold a bond. The city's going to require them to hold a bond for the cost of their work. And those contractors are all going to have to carry their insurance to cover their work. Painter uh has an error, they've got insurance to cover them. So on and so forth down the line. In a CM at risk, you're sliding all of those underneath the CM. At that point in time, you're going to require the CM carry a bond that oversees all of the prime contracts that are now subcontracts. And then as construction managers, you pay insurance on what runs through your books. So on a CM as agent, the only that runs through your books are your people time and some general conditions costs. When it's at risk, all of those subcontractors are now underneath you as a CM. So you have insurance that covers that whole cost of what's called in an at risk scenario, your GMP or guaranteed maximum price. There are nuances and I can answer questions as you have them. There are nuances like how the contract stipulates contingencies are held. in a CMA. You as the owner, you control that contingency from start to finish. The whole amount of it. You'll see on this uh the contingency amount that's currently carried in the project is hovering at uh 1.6 to 1.7 million depending upon the option. In an at risk scenario, that's going to get divided. um a portion of that, usually three of the 5% is held underneath your CM at risk and the other 2% is held by you as the owner. And that is for if changes come up on the given project, how are they handled through owner's contingency or through contractor's contingency? And then there's contract language that I'm sure your attorney will share with you uh as to the differences of each. But those are the highlevel overview uh differences between CM at risk and CMA. Per state statute, you are required to go out um for an RFQ and an RFP process. Your attorney will probably also comment on if those two can be joined as one. We've seen that happen. If you have to do them individually and do an RFQ first and then do an RFP. Um depending upon what option, whether it's combined or separate, you have a two to three month process from the time you start it to bring your CM on board. uh under an at risk scenario CMS adviser you can choose to do an RFP or similar to designbas phase services you can direct select and work with your construction management firm as well so you have the ability uh you have a little bit more flexibility in regards to your selection uh under CMA than you do under CM at risk and there's a slew of requirements uh that you'll see underneath the state statutes for CM at risk selection and the process you have to go through to bring bring one of those on And on on our on a kind of just architectural perspective too, that's one thing we always talk about is um who has control over the site and and building the project. And really when you go general contractor, you're just subject to whoever that low bidder is. So there that's not out that's out of your control. Um whereas if you decide who you're going to hire directly as a CM or through an RFP process, that's where you have those professionals that you've chosen to help kind of run that project. And so you're able to get um a little bit more control of that and have a little bit more transparency about that process. And there are differences like if a and this is maybe for a longer conversation but just to keep it short like if an issue arises on a given job with a trade partner, a subcontractor or a prime contractor, there are differences in how that plays itself out. Does a construction manager get their attorney involved versus having to get the city attorney involved. shy of that type of an issue coming up, you wouldn't be able to see once the contract is executed and going, you wouldn't really get to see much of a difference uh between the at risk and advisory uh models. >> So, based on the numbers here, if you were just to go with a general contractor, you would not have this basically $2 million construction management fee. >> That would shift up into construction and be buried as part of construction costs. Those costs are all still there. Um, what you see in that is people time. Um, Ken Francis is a senior PM overseeing things, our project manager that's coming out to conduct weekly progress meetings, doing all the postit evaluations, drafting all the contracts, all those different pieces and components that go into a job, as well as uh your full-time site superintendent person that's out there managing those 30 plus trades um on a day-to-day basis. That is what that uh amounts up to is people time. So if you look at it, a general contractor has a PM, they have a soup, they have a project coordinator, they have all of those pieces the same as a construction manager would. To Jonathan's point, the difference is you don't get to select who those people are in a general contracting mode because it's not based on qualifications. It's based on cost. In construction management, you get to choose your team. And and then so CMA is the price this one nine but CMR would add another seven to $800,000 to that. Is that right? >> That is correct. And ultimately and I just don't want you to think I take a broad brush when we put together those types of numbers. The difference is and what makes up that 700,000 is your insurance and your bonds. And there are ways and I've seen certain attorneys that allow it like where you can try to do a modified bond. Most I would say 90 plus percent of the time don't allow that modified bonding process where they do a a different type of a bond as a construction manager. Um I guess I would caution against that because the whole point of the at risk site is that you're putting the risk on your construction manager. Um but uh it's it's typically when you look at bond costs and I collect this data across the industry it's plus or minus a percent uh on what the bonds you can see some get down you know to 6.7 somewhere in there you can see others that are at 1.1 or north of that. So I just went in the middle and said 1% most bond costs again you can see some that are a little bit sub 1% you can also see those that are over 1%. So, if you just take a factor of 1% uh for bonds and 1% for insurance, that's what that $700,000 equates to uh over this size of a project. >> I think one other thing to pay attention to, and not to get too in the weeds, but just between general contractor and the either CMA or CM is the line between the architect and the construction manager. Um, it's super beneficial to have the construction manager working with the architect as you're going through design development because you eliminate those holes in your project. Architect is designing a building, but a construction manager is also looking at the plans and going, "Okay, there's a dead space here. What we're missing something here or why isn't there something here?" I mean, so when you get 100% construction plans, if you have the architect and a construction manager both on looking at it, your contingency probably is going to fall down even more just because you've probably found a lot of the gaps in your your project. Whereas like general contractor, Jonathan went to design it and then all of a sudden then you hire Dustin and he builds it and he'll go, "Well, I can't build that. That wall is supposed to be 6 in this way." and then there's a change order and I can't do this because that's there there's another change order. So regardless of you do CM or CMA, having that construction manager on board as you're going through design, development, putting construction plans is just valuable just that you're going to have a very good set of plans because the construction manager is going to be just as involved in those construction plans as the architect because they're going to know what they're looking for and how that building's going to get built, too. I guess I would caution that if you're going design development, the sooner you can bring on your construction manager, the better. You know, just like have the they're assisting with schematic design, you know, if Jonathan was just doing this without Carl Anderson assisting in schematic design, you'd probably be missing some of these costs or they're the ones helping with, you know, certain design aspects. So just my two cents on that that that it you know if you're going to go down that road when you said 2 to 3 months I think when you if you decide decide to do design development you would want to decide which direction you're going with this as well and setting that in motion and whether you're doing the RFP RFQ with CM or direct select just knowing what that plan is and how long that's going to take and going with that right away. Other questions on this for now? Is that it? >> I do have one question. I'm confused. Sorry. >> When I was uh building and developing it was residential. So, uh when you at the CMR, >> did you say when the subcontractors when the owner sends it to the out for bid, you have your choice on subcontractors on that one or not? >> It's actually a two-step process to go out for bids. Uh council members. So, in CM at risk, you have to do what's called a pre-qualification of contractors. So, usually around design development, um you're going to want to go out the plans are developed enough or the specs are developed enough at design at the end of design development that at that point in time, you have to go out and set a list of pre-qualification criteria. Your construction management firm, most of them, uh will have a pre-qualification booklet that you >> Does the city have input on that at all? >> The city does. Okay. Um, and we've worked with multiple cities that >> want to uh provide heavy input into that and some that don't want to even touch it. So, it's a matter truthfully of what you want to do and whatever your level of involvement is that you want to have. >> Um, but you have to go for pre-qualification. That takes roughly two months. So, what ends up happening is you solicit out general information about the project. Contractors have to submit their qualification data. >> Any contractor >> any contractor that wants to bid on the project >> that qualifies. >> Yep. That qualifies. So, they submit their data. We go through it as a construction management firm, bring back to you. Here's who qualified, here's who didn't. You ultimately approve of that list and then that list is what ultimately gets to bid on the project at the end of the construction documents. So, it is a little bit more involved >> and that doesn't apply under general contractor. >> That doesn't apply underneath general contractor uh and that doesn't apply underneath construction manager agent. >> Okay. The only reason I ask is other projects I've heard that certain so- and so didn't get a chance of it or so and so didn't get a chance of this and they're trying to get all their buddies in here to do their bidding and >> you understand what I'm saying >> 100% CM at risk and CM agency is open is opened up for both for the pre-qualification process to everybody um as well as on the advisor it's open to anybody who wants to put a number to the project and we ultimately try to that's the up to the construction production manager who gets hired, but you try to tailor the packages of that given project, those 30 different work scopes. You try to tailor those to the community in which you're working. If you've got good local electricians, you might try to break that out. If you've got good uh local earthwork contractors, you're going to try to break different pieces and components out on the earthwork side to get as much local interest uh as you can. But that's really up to the construction management firm. I would just encourage you that if you do hire a construction manager's advisor, you hire one that breaks those projects out. Um because I have seen in the past where you can hire a construction manager and then they basically turn around and solicit out to a general contractor. Uh that is not a model I would encourage you to follow. >> Okay. Um enough on this. I think on the next part, uh, Jolene, correct me wrong or if you want to do something different here, but you were talking about maybe getting some other proposals on this type thing. I think ideally maybe whatever options would be conveyed to staff and then you would be reaching out to others and present us with a couple options. That's correct. Especially in the essence of time right now, >> that's correct. >> So, we'll hold on that point if councils are going to revol that. Um, and uh Oh. on the >> community engage community engagement part. I mean or whatever. I I think we've got some time on that. >> I think so, too. >> So, yeah. >> Okay. >> Makes sense. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thank you so much >> for all your time. It was >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Well, answered a lot of good questions and and appreciate the time. >> Definitely. >> Likewise. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Right. 5C staff wellness program join. >> All right. Thanks, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'll try to get through this real quick so we can all get out of here. Um, as you're aware, we have developed an employee wellness committee here to support the well-being and overall quality of life for our employees. I strongly believe that that helps to um encourage employee engagement and employee retention. Um, in 2026, the committee has proposed um a de a a series of monthly events for staff to engage in. And in conjunction with that, they're proposing a participation tracking system which is tied to a year-end incentive. And that being um some additional vacation time for staff members who engage and participate in all of the monthly goals. Um, from a policy standpoint, they're just requesting that the council consider or give some feedback on this incentive program. Um, we don't anticipate any financial or budgetary implications with this. Truly, what this would, you know, this isn't a cash bonus. It doesn't create any out-ofpocket expenses for the city. It's not going to ding our budget or our budget planning process at all. um any incentive that is earned by staff would just be absorbed just like normal vacation time is you know with staff planning and supervisory planning. So, um, we're looking for some council direction if council would be supportive of of approving an incentive program for our staff, which would allow for in a full calendar year, eight hours of additional vacation time being granted to staff members who do participate in each monthly objective or event that's planned by the wellness committee. in this year because we're starting a little bit late being that this committee just got off the ground in January. Um we would look at uh proposing a pro-rated incentive which would allow for a maximum just six hours available for use in 2027. We would not propose that incentive hours be carried allowed to be carried over into future calendar years. So if staff earned the hours this year, for example, they would have to use them within 2027. And so we'd be tracking them a little bit separately in our time card system and our leave balance system. Um, but just want to get council's feedback on that. Trying to increase some employee engagement, some employee wellness opportunities. In addition to that, in your packet, I also included a procedure that we've developed. The wellness committee has created what what they're calling the care cafe. It's an opportunity for staff to buy some healthier snack and drink options instead of just going to our candy jar every couple minutes that we have and kind of pilfering that. Um, this is a self-funded cafe um snack option. Uh the wellness committee did put some initial dollars in it um from our wellness bucket, but um it will be self-paid. So staff can purchase whatever snack opt options they would like and then um our wellness committee would be using those proceeds to replenish the care cafe in the future. So no city dollars involved, no city bank accounts. It's a pretty straightforward um process. So, I I did include an administrative procedure in there, but if council's more comfortable with developing a more formal policy that we'd bring back, we can certainly do that as well. So, um just happy to answer any questions about this, uh talk through it a little bit more or just get some direction from the council on what they'd like to see with us. >> Just a quick question on the um vacation acral. is they do they acrew x amount for each one they get. So even if they just participated in one or two they would earn for those ones that they did participate in. >> This year it would be like that just to kind of start kicking it off. Next year the committee would ask that folks participate in all 12 in order to get that incentive. Um because we do have folks who do work night shifts particularly our police officers. we would develop out some alternate options for those folks to participate in or to show proof of participation in some fashion so that they're not missing out on potential incentive as well. A lot of these activities are, you know, normal business hour during our operating hours. You know, we're doing a walk or we're watching a webinar, we're having a healthy potluck, things of that nature. Um, and obviously our our officers who are working overnights aren't going to be able to participate in all those options. >> Good. Thank you. >> Questions? >> I think it's a great idea. >> Yeah. my previous employer, they would put dollars towards um health club memberships and so forth for things like that >> because they didn't have work facilities and and that for a little while, but uh it was very beneficial for all the employees. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, if council's okay with it, I'll bring back a formal request on next our next meeting's consent agenda. Okay. >> All right. >> Good work. >> Thank you. >> Anything else tonight? >> I don't know what not formal, but I think we're done for the evening. It's workshop. So, thanks everyone for all their input and time. So,