Two options were presented by the Committee based on Furst Architecture in Bethlehem.
Option 1: Renovation of existing Council Chambers (2,730 sq. ft.) and a two story addition (9,100 sq. ft.) at a cost of $2,775,000.00.
Option 2: Renovation of existing Council Chambers (2,730 sq. ft.) and a two story addition (9,800 sq. ft.) at a cost of $2,925,000.00.
Each option was at the same location and called for a nine space parking lot. All new building would take place on the grass area south of the existing structure along Church Street.
Public Comment:
Numberous individuals, including myself, made comment on the two options presented as well as impressions from the previous week's meeting (which I was unable to attend).
Some of the comments:
- Proposed addition much too big.
- Hope if new facilities are built they will be cared for better than the existing ones.
- Six years ago plans were made and the naysayers nixed them, now we are at the same place and the cost has gone up one million dollars.
- Need to have proof of needs for this type of facility - so far its a group of wants.
- Proposal for this site is in excess of what community needs.
- Previous week's meeting was premature - the architects were unprepared, did not have answers to specific questions, and did not provide handouts to those in attendance.
- Concern regarding the amount being spent in light of what was allocated.
- Downtown is vital, keep it that way.
The Council members had much to say as well.
Dan Chiavaroli noted he had questions about the size, areas, and the cost and that he didn't want to go outside the budget.
Cindy Werner asked what alternative options were being considered and Michael Davis replied that the current police station had no role. She followed up by asking if the borough abandons the police building what is the plan? He replied that a few suggestions were apartments, a restaurant, or a facility to host arts or cultural events. To which Werner replied how is it good enough for those things and not us?
Jack Herbst said he hasn't yet seen need demonstarted for this new facility and if everything was under one roof how will service improve? He hadn't heard of anyone complaining about service.
Cindy Werner said are we building a nice building to get more people to want to go there? (In response to the comment that the current facility has roughly 70 people per week visit for business.
Michael Kovach asked how many square feet the current facility on Belvidere Street occupied and no one could answer. He questioned the number of visitors and whether the 10,000 square feet would be needed. He also questioned how many council members would be supporting this facility if they put their own money up instead of taxpayers.
While many questions were asked, unfortunately there were few answers. The Committee members proposing the plan allowed Michael Davis to do the talking and his only real answer was that this was the plan they chose to pursue. There was no support for why it had to be located at x instead of y, how the space needs were determined, or why this was a better option than others that were considered. In fact it was not revealed if any other options were considered.
In fairness, I was not at the meeting last week specifically addressing this plan so it may have been explained then, but a brief reiteration would have been helpful.
What are your thoughts? Should Nazareth use up to $3 million in bonds to build a government center within a predominately residential area and close the existing borough building and police station located in the Main Street business district?
1 comment:
I don't think it's a very good idea for the foillowing two reasons: 1) The Borough will be taking thr police away from its own Main Street District, which defeats the purpose: 2) The kids who play there will be adversely affected. They will be unable to play their own pickup games at one end of the field when teams are playing on the ball field. No place for the kids to play means there will be trouble.
This needs much more thought.
Post a Comment