Laserfiche WebLink
Cine Council 111inutes <br />August 13, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />aside and be used in 5 years to purchase an adjacent parcel of land to be used for <br />additional parking. He stated all the seniors he's spoken to have been very vocal and <br />wants to stay at their facility, which has swayed his decision, noting that's a lot of <br />voters who won't support the referendum vote. He stated he's willing to sacrifice <br />something to ensure the seniors do vote in favor of the referendum as he doesn't <br />want to see the referendum vote fail. <br />Councilmember Westgaard stated there were a number of emails exchanged in the <br />past two weeks regarding this topic and one being the difference between the <br />amount of JLG's quote in 2016 of $1 million versus the 2018 quote of $2.5 million <br />received last week. He stated with this quote it's hard to say what's included and <br />what isn't, and wondered if it was for roof repairs and fire suppression systems <br />which can be costly to update in his experience. He stated these building update <br />funds are necessary and separate from programming needs. He stated he appreciates <br />the responses from the seniors, who seem to know their priorities, but his priority is <br />from a dollars and sense standpoint, noting more flexibility and opportunity for <br />funds could provide not only current senior needs but future needs in a greater space <br />if incorporated into the multipurpose facility. He stated the current sense of urgency <br />is to determine where the senior space will be located and how the space is laid out <br />in order for seniors to support the referendum. He felt dialog could continue if the <br />senior space was incorporated into the multipurpose facility and felt $1.7 million <br />could provide a lot more amenities and enhancements to the space. He said if there's <br />a desire or need for some of those spaces to be senior -specific, it needs to be <br />discussed to understand. He stated on the other hand, if the seniors want to stay <br />where they're at, program the amount at $1.5 or 1.7 million in order to not upset the <br />applecart. In terms of staffing and required membership fee, he wasn't sure if they <br />need to discuss that at this time but would look to Mr. Portner, Mr. Hecker and staff <br />as to what the programming needs are for FTEs. He felt the membership fee was <br />tough to impose because they don't charge a membership fee for other places in <br />town. <br />Mayor Dietz stated the membership fee could be similar to a fee charged by Parks & <br />Recreation for programming. He didn't think it was much to ask for a membership <br />fee. <br />Commissioner Westgaard asked for Mr. Jack Lorge's opinion. <br />Jack Lorge representing Activity Center seniors stated the seniors would like to <br />remain at the Activity Center "hands down, without a doubt." He asked for <br />clarification about a statement made by Mr. Portner regarding the value of the <br />activity center building and felt the most recent bid for repairs was out of line. He <br />felt the membership fee was reasonable noting St. Cloud charges a larger fee. <br />Mr. Portner indicated when JLG submitted their report they used staffs estimates <br />from the city's CIP of items like HVAC, roof, windows, and restrooms requiring <br />updating. He stated when 292 Design Group reviewed the building needs, they took <br />a much deeper look, and because 292 had recently reviewed another similar building <br />r a V EA f 1 e r <br />NATURE <br />