New Government Center Revised Proposal Presentation

Preceding the August 7, 2006 Borough Council Business Meeting was the presentation of the revised proposal for a government center by the Borough Committee.

At 6:10 Councilman Davis opened the presentation noting that the time of duct taping the car to keep it together was over and a modest, quality government center was here. He addressed four primary points:

1. Cost was reduced, and could go lower.
   
2. No vote tonight, only the presentation.
3. Green space is increasing, not decreasing.
4. Property values increase near public buildings.

He noted that 10 other proposals were considered, numerous meetings were held, 100s of volunteer hours made. He thanked his fellow committee members Councilmen Bowers, Samus, and Stoudt.

Davis said this building demonstrated a true sense of community pride. As a post script he stated that they found plans from 55 years ago in this borough that had a new municipal building planned on this spot including a fire, police, and municipal buildings.

At that point he turned it over to architect Bob Furst of Architecture Furst. Furst stated he was brought in in 2000 regarding building design and cost and with this proposal the committee began by setting goals:

1. Minimal impact on Green Space,
2. ADA compliance,
3. Replace outdated police department facilities,
4. Central location and healthy working environment for all borough services,
5. Modernized Council Chambers,
6. Support facilities, meeting rooms, etc.
7. Park accessible restroom facilities.
8. Cost effective.
9. Long term maintenance friendly.
10. Good facilities attract quality employees.
11. Good facilities retain quality employees.
12. Promote community pride.

Furst then articluated the history of the project from 1999 through today - a snapshot:

• 1999 - $1.2M (million)
• 2000 - $0.4M (2500 squarefoot addition, ADA, toilets)
• 2000 - $2.65M, 1.97M, 2.02M (Renovate, Demolish and Rebuild, New Site Build)
• 2000 - $0.35M, 2.34M (new chamber, new chamber with addition)
• 2000 - mash-up of other 2000 plans to create four new ones.
• Project on Hold
• 2004 - Updated and Sketch plan at Stoudt Blvd.
• 2006 - May - $2.925 for 9800 square feet addition and 2730 renovation at Council Chambers.
• 2006 - August - 2.591 for 6400 square feet addition and 2730 renovation at Council Chambers.

The August figure was a total project cost, whereas all other proposals were building only.

Lee Schankweiler then presented the layout of the revision. He noted the addition of a connector walkway (from Church to Green at the south side of the property) and a play area. He stated that the slope of the property allowed for a two story building with a single story profile. The lower level was the police department, which was cut back the most for space savings. It accomodated 4 officers, 1 chief, 1 detective and everything was cut back to minimal needs. The upper level was for the administration and Council. An elevator connected the two floors along with a stairwell. The Council Chambers and a conference room, zoning, tax, 3 offices, and a records area were all included.

As the crowd swelled to about 50 in the audience (not including Council or those presenting) the presentation continued.

The addition would result in a loss of 8,277 square feet of park space. Since 5/25 the cost per square foot increased $10.00 and the play area that was to be built east of the retention pond was reduced in cost from $48,000 to $40,000.

With the presentation complete - the Council was asked if they had any questions. There were none.

Questions were then open to the audience.

• You have $1M budget, where does the money come from to pay for this?
• Finance chair is not here, we don't have the answer.
  
• How close is the play area from the sully (may be sally given my handwriting and lenght of the meeting, in short a garage wherein a police car can pull in, close the door, remove a detainee without risk of him fleeing)?
• There will be a fence around the parking lot to seperate the two areas and the sully keeps criminals from public.
  
• Why are we doing this again? We are getting alot done without this. Not being democratic about the whole thing. You are not listening to the people. Had money allocated to fix the police station and you never did it. I'll finish by saying we we have proud people and a proud community.
• Is the retention pond near where the spring is? What is the contingency?
• 15% contingency, because haven't done soil testing, etc.
  
• On site plan, zoning ordinance of town, permits various housing, limits industrial. This is an R-7 district - minimize intrusion of commercial property in a residential area. Logical argument is why do it if against it in zoning. Parking lot is not consistent with parking requirements. Sidewalk seems to cut through the berm that is currently placed because of water run-off.
• Any future expansion will take place here because you'll use the same argument later with even greater affect (we have the building here and space to expand).
• If you go ahead the drainage system here is antiquated and you'll stress it. We in Nazareth are not concerned with showing pride. We have history, we have quaint, we have community pride. This project is taking away from it.
• The population increase of a few hundred doesn't corelate to an increase of the proportions the plan includes.
• Nothing's changed in 20 years - you have needs to be addressed that haven't. We do that.
  
• There are rougly two arrests per month, and right now they go across the street to the magistrate, but now it will be further away.

So ended the first presentation of the evening.

• Next Question