Proponents of a new community center complex hoped that the ground would be broken for a new facility in fall 2011. But after months of debate and design, a location for the proposed building is yet to be determined. At the last county board meeting, commissioners narrowed a list of six possible locations for the community center to three. Commissioners asked ORB Management, the company acting as the county’s owner’s representative on the project, to bring back an estimate of what it would cost to analyze the feasibility of each location. On Tuesday, June 21, Tom Wachholz and Rob Barse of ORB returned with an estimate of up to $88,465 for the evaluation.
The alternatives the board asked ORB to explore are dubbed Option 1 – the location and design that was introduced at a May 10 public meeting; Option 2 – a reconfigured building design that would be located immediately east of the existing community center; and Option 5 – a design similar to Option 1 placed on the northwest corner of county property, north of the Pappy Wright ball field.
Tom Wachholz of ORB said there are costs to complete site evaluation for all three options. He said Option 1 would be least expensive at about $5,000, as the majority of building design has been completed.
Option 2 would be the most expensive at approximately $35,000, as it requires not only soil studies and drainage evaluation, but the building itself would need to be redesigned to fit the proposed space.
Finally, Option 5, situating the building north of Pappy Wright field, would require about $15,000 of study. Wachholz said, “We could take the basic building design and plop it down on the Option 5 site. There would be some site prep, wet- land investigation and possibly subsurface exploration.”
Commissioner Fritz Sobanja questioned the cost of exploring Option 5 and noted that soil borings and topographical maps had been discovered at the county highway department that would be helpful. He said he was “frustrated” that ORB had not been able to produce those documents and said he felt that ORB had “steered” the board away from Option 5 because of concerns about the cost of building on rock on that location.
Wachholz acknowledged that Option 5 had been ruled out “almost immediately” and replied, “I don’t disagree with you. It would have been nice to have this information 3 – 4 months ago.
“I think it was also because of functionality,” added Wachholz. “There were concerns about its nearness to the road and the desire for proximity to the school.”
Commissioner Jan Hall asked why so much time and money had been invested in Option 1. Commissioner Sue Hakes, chair of the Community Center Steering Committee, said it was agreed to proceed with Option 1, with knowledge that changes would have to be made in response to public feedback. “We were asked to come up with costs to heat and maintain a community center. To do that, we needed some idea of what the building would look like. Clearly, we are hearing that we need to revisit this.”
Commissioner Bruce Martinson questioned whether ORB needed to evaluate all three options when two will be dropped. He suggested completing the soil borings and evaluation to see which options will work.
Wachholz explained that it was actually more cost-effective to do some of the evaluation concurrently. “You could calculate the cost of soil work [for an option] and it may come out as less expensive. But then when you redesign the building for that site, you might find that it costs more. It’s more efficient to do it all at once. It also would save time.”
Pat Campanaro, a citizen at the meeting, raised her hand and was recognized. She asked, “If the county board authorizes this, what will the deliverables be?”
Wachholz said, “Extensive details on each option—pros and cons.”
To the board, he added, “You’re spending a relatively small amount. It’s a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things, you’re spending a small amount of the project cost to get good information on which to base your decision.”
Wachholz said if the board authorized the analysis at the meeting, he believed he could have that detailed information ready by the July 27 meeting of the Community Center Steering Committee.
Before the board made its decision on investing more money in analysis of the three locations, Commissioner Sobanja added a new idea. “I just keep seeing the Recycle Center in my head,” he said. Sobanja suggested moving the Recycle Center to the business park and placing the community center on the current Recycle Center location.
“I can guarantee if we said we want to move the Recycle Center, we’ll have the same arguments,” said Commissioner Jim Johnson, referring to the concerns about moving the public tennis courts.
There was a brief discussion about the pros and cons of the Recycle Center site and Wachholz said he and Rob Barse could take a look at the Recycle Center site. “I wouldn’t say spend money, but if you want us to take a quick glance, we could,” he said.
Commissioner Hakes said the steering committee was meeting the next day. “We’ll throw it out there,” she said.
Sobanja then made a motion to approve an expenditure of up to $88,465 by ORB Management to conduct additional analysis of the three options currently favored by the county board. The motion carried unanimously.
According to Deputy Auditor-Treasurer Aimee Luick, ORB Management has been paid $228,015.57 to date for four 1% projects— the library, Superior National at Lutsen, Birch Grove Community Center and the Cook County Community Center.
Leave a Reply