Building Needs Assessment Work Group Minutes

April 1, 2021 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Virtual Meeting

Present:

Corey Baumann          SCLS Delivery Services Coordinator

Kerrie Goeden             SCLS HR & Finance Coordinator

Mark Ibach                  SCLS Consulting Services Coordinator

Jesse Stewart              SCLS Fleet Manager

Kristi Williams             SCLS Board Trustee – left early

Martha Van Pelt               SCLS Director

Guests:

Devin Flanigan            Keller Inc. Project Manager

David Haug                  Lighthouse Commercial Real Estate

Rob Lindstrom             Keller Inc.       
Excused:

Vicki Teal                     SCLS Technology Services Coordinator

Nan Brien                    SCLS Board Trustee

Call to Order at 10:07 by Kerrie Goeden

Approval of previous meeting minutes:  March 11, 2021

a. Motion by  M. Van Pelt to approve the minutes

b. Second by  K. Williams

c. Approved

Reports: None

Discussion:  (with Keller & D. Haug) Went over in detail the building comparison sheet.  Devin was trying to do apples to apples, not really price comparisons.  Utilities’ cell does not include MUFN cost.  Madison building code requires visual screening of docks.

· Assessment is to include discussion of:

o Budget: overall costs (purchase/improvement/construction/demolition)

o Location:  Highway access for delivery

o MUFN:  access/proximity to

o Other criteria – addressed by Keller

o 5303 Fen Oak Building

§ It is set up as an office building not for warehousing

§ Current walls will not support higher roof

§ Best option is to tear down 1 wing and rebuild – will be expensive

§ Would require complete gut and rebuild; including a redo of HVAC and electrical to match SCLS needs and discovery book priorities

§ Devin mentioned that if SCLS goes to office cubicles in one wing, that wing would be ready to use – would reduce costs ($500,000) for this site but

§ Would still be $1.1 million over budget

§ Can make offer on less than asking price

§ Devin and the work group was reminded that consensus has been reached (twice) on wanting individual offices so as to address equity concerns, and possible future options to expand since offices are sized to share if need be

§ Even with changes and cubicles, substantially more expensive than Shopko site

o Parcel on Fen Oak (Graham Place)

§ Hill requires a lot of site preparation and additional expense

§ Might be able to rearrange parcel purchase to get less hill and more flat land – D. Haug will follow up with city

§ Need to build retention pond ($100,000)

§ $500,000-$600,000 estimated price for land. 

§ Total investment price would be comparable to Shopko

o Shopko parcel

§ Low cost on site preparation, no need to build retention pond (already there)

§ Part of upcoming development plan for Madison

§ Preferred location for Delivery

§ Total investment price comparable to Graham Place

o Wright Street actually 4.38 acres not 9.38 acres

§ Would require full build out of warehouse

§ Would need to demo smaller building  ($100,000)

§ Because SCLS needs all hard surface for parking  which pushes cost to $6,000,000

§ Delivery would not have drive-through capability

§ Owner wants to hold onto site to end of 2022 for warehouse use

§ EPA concerns?  Include Phase 1 environment study in site offer

§ Zoned industrial.

o Agriculture Drive lot (near Pflaum)– not the best option but used as a cost comparison for this discussion

§ Faces 3 sides so would have multiple façade requirements

§ Back of lot is higher and slopes to the road.

§ Would need its own retention pond.

Follow up Discussion after D. Flanigan’s review

§ Remove Agriculture Drive and work group agreed.

§ Need to get flat portion of Graham Place to make it work

§ Delivery: Based on location only

o  Shopko is # 1

o Wright Street # 2

o Fen Oak/Graham Place # 3

o Mark Ibach agrees

§ Wright St timeline – Bell will not be out until the end of 2022.  Can do interior build out in 4 months if Keller does all prep work in advance.  Challenging but possible.

§ Shopko is still cheaper and we would get the building we want.  Design it our way and have drive-through for Delivery

§ Reminder to Keep site selection criteria in mind that are non-negotiable:

o Budget, MUFN, proximity to highway (location) for delivery

o All sites discussed are within range of MUFN

Considering that all sites are within range of MUFN, Round Robin choice order based on - budget and location:

MVP    Shopko #1; Graham Place #2, Wright #3

MI        Shopko #1, Graham Place #2, Wright #3

CB        Shopko #1, Graham Place #2, Fen Oak building #3

JS         Shopko #1, Graham Place #2, Wright #3, but MATC has bad traffic

            Loss of drive through for trucks

KW       Left early

KG        Shopko #1, Graham Place #2, Wright St #3 (price too high)

DH       best to pursue more than 1 option at a time, future development will increase value of Shopko Bldg – Dave’s # 1 is Shopko

DF        Axe Agriculture. Fen Oak has to go to cubicles to even consider.

            Too much work to make it work for SCLS and over budget.

Aesthetics of sites or buildings are not a large value.  SCLS staff will be looking at our office walls, not the brick façade and pond.  Staff is happier with a good break room, nice office, restrooms than a pretty exterior. All 3 sites are doable.

Can we expand on Shopko in the future?  Probably not unless we build a 2 story building now and leave land for future build.  Can’t afford to build a single story building now that has a foundation that would allow for future 2^nd floor, as that would exceed budget.  Site does not include the parking lot next door.  The value of the site will likely increase in the future, thus increasing its asset value to SCLS.

Summary of Discussion

§ Eliminate Agriculture Drive

§ Fen Oak building and Wright St are over budget by at least $ 1 million

§ Consensus agreed that Shopko and Graham Place were sites 1 and 2 to pursue based on the criteria of budget, MUFN, and proximity to highway for delivery.

§ Group discussed and agreed to start moving on negotiations on Shopko and getting more info on Graham Place parcel land.

· Review spatial relationship plan – it is not a building plan or layout.

R. Lindstrom reviewed bubble plan quickly.  BNAW will cover it in more detail at next meeting on 4/8/21 and send comments to Keller.  A square or rectangle shaped building is best on costs.

Homework for Next Meeting: 

· BNAW review bubble spatial diagram and get comments and questions to Keller immediately after April 8 meeting

· David H. will begin negotiations for Shopko and write up a letter of intention or term sheet. 

Topics tabled for April/May Meetings:

· Review photos of things we like design-wise to share with Keller

· Start discussions with Deb, Rebekah, Devin, Rob, Mark Ibach regarding Deb’s level of involvement in interior design of new building

· Schedule Admin and Delivery meetings to discuss shared spaces – Brinnan, Tim, Heidi, Kerrie

Next Meeting Date:  4/8/2021 at 1:00 p.m.

Adjournment: 11:53 am