CC_Minutes_2016_0926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 26, 2016 Page 17 At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Holt clarified the four options presented by the Parks & Recreation Commission prior to the Advisory team, as noted earlier, all under the caveat for City Council direction to the Team that they stay within the current footprint while also considering additional space (e.g. basement). From the perspective of the Team, Mr. Holt advised that the same footprint remained under their consideration, whether it remained at its current site, or was relocated on the site. As mentioned in the Final Report, Mr. Holt not- ed that other needs were part of that accommodation and design; with the archi- tect better able to bring that into the discussion (e.g. parking ratios, building de- sign, etc.). Councilmember McGehee stated before starting from scratch and changing the building orientation, she wanted to ensure the building was energy efficient as part of its major components (e.g. windows, walls or solar panel) and asked that an architect have that as part of his expertise; and even if it cost more money up- front to incorporate that energy efficiency rather than paying the ramifications of not being energy efficient further down the road. Regarding her long-term maintenance concerns, Councilmember McGehee opined it would be shortsighted to construct a facility without it being energy efficient and asking residents for more support after the fact. Councilmember McGehee also stated she would like to see any levy discussion dropped, given the history of 42% increases in taxes over the last few years, when many Roseville residents are on fixed incomes. Mr. Holt reported that came up during the Team’s brainstorming discussion; and advised that the intent was to have access to all of that and additional options from the architect as he proceeds with preliminary design work and outlining cost considerations, and ultimate recommendation to staff and the City Council. Therefore, as noted in the Final Report, Mr. Holt reiterated the Team’s request that the City Council remain open to funding options outlined as well as some other possibilities, including levy or bonding. Councilmember Etten asked if the intent was to use a Best Value Procurement process moving forward for construction. Mr. Brokke stated that had been considered as an option, noting the good experi- ence to-date in using that process as well as cost savings realized. However, Mr. Brokke stated the intent would also be to enlist the help of Arizona State Univer- sity again to help, with additional costs to seek their assistance. Mayor Roe stated he was supportive of the motion to proceed with preliminary design work to better understand the costs and associated considerations in look- ing at funding. However, before considering levy funding or bonding, Mayor Roe stated he would prefer a discussion on greens fees and other potential bonding op- tions. From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe stated his strong preference is to