Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 6 <br /> February 8,2018 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> senior programming options. He stated in April 292 Design and JLG Architects <br /> presented Council cost estimates for design. He stated after that meeting Council <br /> directed staff to work with the school district because the design would infringe on <br /> softball fields. He stated in May they met with the school district about their plans <br /> but it got pushed back due to a superintendent not being on board at the district yet. <br /> He stated this is when the $25 million option was presented. He stated Council was <br /> asked if they wanted to move forward with a Request for Proposal for architectural <br /> services,which were approved,He stated Council was asked whether they wanted to <br /> commit to this project. He stated that presentation more accurately reflected the <br /> dollar amount. He stated Council did see the funding and voted on it. <br /> Councilmember Ovall stated he voted against the $25 million option but at <br /> subsequent meetings he thought it looked like it had already been approved and he <br /> figured he wanted the work done properly so hiring a construction manager seemed <br /> Eke the right thing to do. <br /> Councilmember Wagner stated she wanted to move this forward due to time spent <br /> by the task force and it made the most sense to put the facilities together. She stated <br /> she felt frustrated because Council said what they were planning to do and she <br /> thought it was clear if the referendum failed Council was still going to move forward <br /> with improvements. She stated she never expected this to be a $10-12 million project <br /> but feels a lot of people did. She stated the right thing to do is to go back and regain <br /> public trust. She stated the public also has a lot to do on their end and it is unfair to <br /> write false accusations about people they don't even know. She stated she would like <br /> to reconsider a referendum. She understands if it fails they need a backup plan. She <br /> stated she receive a lot of comments from people who said if they had known better <br /> what the referendum stood for,they would have voted for it. She stated she has <br /> always been on board about needing to do something but doesn't feel the current <br /> plan is the right one. She stated Council needs to reconsider a referendum but <br /> doesn't feel it necessarily needs to be the same as the last one. She suggested some <br /> things could be done differently or better, such as a different location. <br /> Councilmember Ovall stated by citing the $10-12 million and what we would do if <br /> the referendum failed to maintain current (minimum) service levels. He stated the <br /> upgrades were bonuses and frankly maybe isn't needed for the arena. He stated he <br /> doesn't disagree the facility is dated not the most functional but it goes beyond scope <br /> of what was communicated to the public. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard stated the literature did lay out the three options Council <br /> was considering acting upon if the referendum had failed. <br /> Councilmember Wagner concurred but feels not everyone understood it. She noted <br /> the city did hold extensive stakeholders meetings with 30+ groups. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard noted the city held numerous community engagement <br /> meetings at several different forums at several different levels. <br /> UREJ <br />