1994-05-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes May 10, 1994 Page 9 Council Business. continued Fulton believes that this project has merit, and that it might provide an opportunity for the City to retain public ownership space and allow for municipal expansion into the space in 5 or 10 years. It might provide an opportunity for the City to not only carry the third floor costs; but also cover the City's tax levy costs for the first phase. The Towle study will be very helpful in determining the feasibility of the third floor. That study should be available before the next Council meeting. Benke requested documentation for costs associated with adding a third floor at a later date. Fulton will provide this documentation to Council. Samuelson asked if the third floor could be constructed without finishing the interior space. Fulton felt that if a tenant is not located., the exterior could be constructed and the funding for the interior would be held until the ultimate tenant is located. Fulton noted that there has been some discussion in relocating meeting rooms to the third floor. There was some interest from the School District in locating their office entirely on one floor. Gunderman asked what percentage of square footage is leasable. Fulton noted that taxing issues associated with a building's rental usage begins at 10%. Gunderman asked the status of the Senior Center. Fulton said staff is involved in discussions with a developer and there appears to be continued strong support from the multi-city Senior Center Task Force Committee. Gunderman asked if the projected amounts reflect additional parking needs. Fulton confirmed that the proposal includes about $40,000 for additional parking. Fulton said the intention is to locate a tenant who would be compatible with the facility's parking needs. Larson has received feedback from other cities who have recently built similar community centers have found that the demand for additional office space is high. He has received many favorable comments regarding the prospect of the third floor. Williams prefers that the facility's occupancy be limited to public agencies to avoid signage issues and other potential problems. He feels that potential tenants should be compatible with the concept of a facility which provides services to families. Samuelson asked if we could define limitations in regards to private occupancy. Benke noted that the City would need to stay within that 10% factor or locate a tenant which would not demand signage and fits within the financing requirements. Fulton agreed that the most compatible use for the facility is a public agency. He is reviewing the issue from a more economic standpoint of how would the City cover the tax portion of the balance, and that would mean the most logical choice is a private tenant. If a public agency is located and the economics were resolved, the Council could determine to what extent it is important to cover the balance of the tax levy on the other portions of the building. Council Business Family Service Center Third Floor Expansion Report 94-115