Gas Pains

I agree about the foot-dragging, Tom. But I'm not sure about the need for the referendum. Is it required for this issue? I thought the Council had long had consensus about the need for a new fire station.

Christine

Needing a new fire station and wanting a new fire station may be two very separate things. That we need

I'm not sure where the comment fragment above came from. Any ideas?

Christine

Christine...

Alderman Jim Krol addressed the referendum question quite eloquently:

"The whole reason we got into this COW (Committee of the Whole) structure was to come up with a referendum question by a date so that it could be ready for our citizens to vote on it at the next election," he said. "I keep thinking when I hear things about design, we may invest just under half a million with design with contractors not ever knowing if there is going to even be a budget to do this. … I don't want to burden residents with this pending decision. I think the time has come to put out the question, so this does not become a protracted exercise in how not to build a fire station."

The comment fragment you  referenced came from a link to your blog on the same subject; which I might add, was well put!

I am beginning to sense a lack of transparency, or dare I suggest courage, on the part of the naysayers.

Cluck!

Tom

I think you misread my vote. My objection is not to the referendum but to the amount of money proposed to spend on the project.

The earliest we could go to referendum is the April election. To hit that date, we have to vote it and send it to County by Feb. 19. We are scheduled to vote on it Feb. 5.

I was not ready to propose a 12.5 million dollar budget to the public last Tuesday because on that night, for the first time, we received a set of options, with price tags, for reducing the project a bit. These options total $2,719,000. Don't you think we shold give them some consideration?

Two options I am interested in are 1) reducing the Admin. and Dorm space by 10% which is still a 28% increase over existing space, (a $480,000 reduction) and 2) building a 25-50 year building vs. a 50-100 year building ($515,000).

Getting rid of the underground parking ($960,000)is also appealing but we need to weigh that against the development opportunities lost by a larger footprint.

I'd appreciate any guidance you want to offer on those issues.

I understand your frustration with how long this has taken. (Imagine how the council people feel). But, as far as I'm concerned, there is still more than 1 million dollars of good questions on the table and I believe it is my job to really challenge and scrutinize. I have no doubt that would be consistent with my constituents expectations of me.

The "chicken" thing to do is just pass it on to the voters and let them  

pick a budget.

The more we beat on it, the more likely the voters will be to accept our recommendation in the referendum.

Highest Regards

Alder Donegan,

Of course we appreciate your being careful with money.

I wonder why this was the first time you'd gotten such figures. At the last meeting I attended, rather a long time ago, the council asked for someone to study the recommendations and come up with more recommendations. I remember thinking at the time you all (I don't think you were there) should have been making some of those size and function decisions right then and there.

Christine

Pete...

I just finished perusing the January 2, 2008 CoW minutes.

First you are advocating for the underground parking.

Later, you vote against it?

What's all the posturing about?

Where do you really stand?

Highest regards.

Tom

You are badly mistaken. You did not see or hear me advocate for the Parking Structure on Jan. 2. You heard the chief claim that I did so in the past. That is not true. I'm sure I asked to see that as an option to extensive land acquisition but would not advocate for something, the cost about which we had no information.

Jan. 2nd was the first time we were presented with the parking structure option and a cost estimate and I took no position except that I thought we needed to study the proposal before us that night before voting on it.

You are also mistaken in saying I voted against the structure. In fact, we have not been presented with or voted on any aspect of design. That will come after detail design is accomplished which happens only after public approval.

All we have done is established a budget to present to the public. After considerable analysis, I became convinced that 12.5 mil was excessive and that the proposed specifications or minor compromises could be done for at least 1 million less. As I said, the worst compromise might be the elimination of the parking structure and that has nothing to do with the integrity of the facility. The City Administrator is on record as saying the program could be done(including parking structure)in the 11.2 - 10.6mil. range. The Chief agreed that we can get the job done with this budget. The only one who mentioned cutting the life of the building in half was Jerry while arguing against it.

So I think we responsibly decreased the budget. I think, because of that, it has a better chance in referendum and, ultimately, we will save some money. I think thats just doing my job and don't understand why you call that "posturing".

By the way, are you paying attention to our Labor negotiations? Not as sexy as Fire Stations but it's where all the money goes.

Alderman Donegan...

I don't think I am at all mistaken - much less badly mistaken.

The minutes read as follows:

In order to accomodate the underground parking that Ald. Donegan advocated.

So, are you implying the Chief is a liar?

What next, Carla Ledesma fudged the minutes?

I'll have more to share after I get caught-up on the balance of the minutes - maybe this weekend.

Sorry, labor negotiations will have to wait.

This is a firehouse thread.

Tom

No, I am not calling Chief Redman a liar but he certainly misrepresented me when he said that I "advocated" for a parking structure. On Jan. 2, when Chief said that, it had been many months and many meetings since he and I would have been talking about parking structures. He would accurately remember that I, indeed, asked to see that option. But to say that I "advocated" for an underground parking structure, without knowledge of it's cost, is an incorrect statement on his part and, if you would ask him, I'm sure he would agree with my representation here.

Go back to the minutes. You will not find me "advocating for an indoor parking structure".

And you misrepresent me when you say that I voted against a parking structure last Tuesday. No such vote was taken.

What is your interest here Tom? Good public policy or making me look bad?  

Alderman Donegan...

What I am attempting to do here is reconcile what I read in the minutes, see covered in the local press and read in my tea leaves.

My impression following the last meeting was that $1 million cut from the new fire station budget was the magic number and the underground parking was off the table.

If that is the case did you support its elimination or not?

Can you tell me if we still have a 75 to 100 year building?  

__________________________________________________________________

Incidentally, since you brought the subject up, there is nothing I can do to make you look either good or bad.

Since I don't live in your district I don’t care how you look.

Of course I'm interested in good public policy.  What concerned citizen wouldn't be?  

You get no points for being condescending.

Tom

If the voters approve the referendum, the next step will be accomplishing a detail design and then bidding out the project while beginning negotiations for property acquisition.

The basis of the design that we will bid-out is the standing Zimmerman Design which incudes a 35 space underground parking structure and material for a "75-100" year life.

Zimmerman had proposed that we establish and seek approval for a budget of 12.5 mil for the project.

We were then presented 6 sets of options that would reduce the cost of the project. These included size of parking structure, number of bays, placement of mechanicals, choice of material (which would affect "life" of the Building), allocation of space to Administration/Dorm and to storage(Presented to COW on 1/22 or 1/29 ?).If all of these options were exploited, they estimated a 3+ mill. savings.

We then heard the City Administrator opine, for a second time, that he beieved that the whole Zimmerman design (no reductions) will get done for 10-15% less than 12.5 mill.

Then, a 1 mill or 8% reduction in budget was moved and seconded (by me).

We then heard the Chief testify that he was comfortable (not an exact quote) with the 11.5 mill. budget (an 8% reduction).

We then voted unanimously to propose to the public to move forward with the project with a budget of 11.5 mill.

We won't know what it all costs and if any compromises to the design are necessary untill the bids come in.

If reductions are necessary, the most likely options are not "black and white propositions"; ie. 25 indoor spaces vs. 35, or 5%, 10% or 12% reduction in Admn./Dorm space.

I personally believe that the least probable reduction would be in the building materials budget (ie. length-of-life issue).

We'll find out.

My thinking at this time is: Tosans will take two competing sets of values to this proposition: Quality and Economy. I believe that they need to see both addressed in a balanced way in order to approve this. I think they will see the architect and Chief biasing (properly)for Quality and they need to see a check on that in the interest of Economy.

I hope that our citizens will see this 1 mill. reduction as a commitment to manage the project so as to avoid excess and waste while delivering a quality facility and I truly hope that the referendum passes.

Good answer.  Quite succinct.

Tom