It’s no secret that Ms. Schwan was opposed the current ‘plan’. On her ‘100 Eyes on Business’ show with Lalley she spoke out that it wasn’t a plan that would spur economic development. At that time she stated if it was a private office space, maybe, like Docutap.

Then she did some digging around.

Last week Jodi emailed me with a simple question, “Who is moving into the new building at what are the floorplans?” I pretty much confessed that the employees moving into the building is a mystery, except for some rumblings about the engineering department.

Then she did some more digging;

And there, sitting right on top, was one of the reports I had felt was worth saving: an analysis that recommended how to address adding office space for city government.

“Office Space Utilization Analysis,” read the report, dated 2008 and completed by The Winkels Group. Inside was a detailed analysis of current and projected city office space needs as well as phased recommendations starting that year and continuing potentially through 2025.

Please continue;

In fairness, rough plans for the new administrative building show similar counters. But that doesn’t compensate for further separating city staff and surely causing confusion for the public. It is quite possible that someone needing to resolve an issue could have to visit both City Hall and the new administration building – and perhaps go back and forth multiple times between the two.

This is only a small part of what contractors, architects and developers were telling us while standing at the back door of the County Admin building. They also need to go to the county several time to get the planning work done. One contractor told us of six trips between the county and city to just build a small project, still not done because of the countering issues of dealing with both. The people we talked with wanted to have a way to simplify the process and the new city admin building actually makes their work harder.

I guess I just don’t see or feel the rush to start this building project, especially given that borrowing the money is the proposed funding solution – and we’ve borrowed more money than ever before over the past few years.

I feel more comfortable risking a slightly higher interest rate environment than I do obligating more sales tax right now to repay bonds at a time the city is already cutting back on other expenses. But that’s just me.

And that’s just it, economically, the plan just doesn’t add up. Most support having more administration space, but this plan falls flat on it’s face. Don’t take my word on it, just ask Jodi.

4 Thoughts on “Business Journal Editor opposes the proposed city administration building plan

  1. anonymous on September 18, 2016 at 12:13 pm said:

    There is no mention in her AL article today of her suggesting a public/private partnership.

  2. You are right. I will try to find a link to the show, Lalley and her were throwing ideas back in forth in conversation.

    I think this is it, FF to about 14:00 to hear the convo

    http://livestream.com/accounts/2373245/events/6113047/videos/132475361

  3. The D@ily Spin on September 19, 2016 at 11:51 am said:

    There are clear signs the regional economy is sagging. China doesn’t want our grain. Ethanol plants are closing. Corn is a great crop but price the farmer gets is negative return. Credit cards are unpopular. Nobody needs new wind towers when oil is cheap. Income from Huether entertainment is weak. Not that many play tennis. Rock Stars are dying off. Monster trucks and cage fighting wont fill the events center. The indoor water feature and Pavilion cost to much to maintain.

    Future budget from sales tax revenue will not support the present wasteful extravagances. Why go deeper in debt for an unnecessary public multistory building. There will be more people leaving than coming in. It’s time to cut back city employment not provide offices for ghosts of Christmas past.

  4. Concerned citizen on September 21, 2016 at 10:15 pm said:

    Jodi’s article was “spot on”!

Post Navigation