Building Needs Assessment Work Group Minutes
August 12, 2021 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Virtual Via BlueJeans
Meeting Documents: https://www.scls.info/committees/building-needs-assessment-work-group
1. Phone: 1-866-226-4650 and use access code: 461-0318-2019.
a. Press the # button to enter meeting as a participant.
2. Web site: https://bluejeans.com/46103182019/webrtc
1:00: Call to Order
1:02: Approval of previous meeting minutes: August 5, 2021
· M. Ibach Moved, J. Stewart 2nd. No discussion. Approved with Kristi abstaining.
1:05: Reports:
· Feedback from City of Madison on Letters of Intent – D. Haug
o CIC Site
§ City received new appraisal on the site and is concerned that the $2/square foot is too low. Should be prepared to receive a counter-offer from the city looking for a higher offer.
§ Put $420,000 in the Letter of Intent, but Keller has $522,720 in their project estimate. D. Haug said there is some wiggle room to increase the offer and stay within budget.
o Graham Place
§ D. Haug said the city feels like the cost/square foot is low, but our impression was that a portion of that property really can’t be developed. Provided a site plan to show them how the building might fit.
§ D. Haug said he priced it at about $3/square foot for the property that can actually be developed. He will provide a break down to the City of Madison of this.
§ For both sites he explained that increased materials costs are making the budget difficult and that is why we are coming in with lower offers for the land.
§ $348,480 in Letter of Intent and $550,598 in our budget document for land cost.
o N. Brien asked if anyone has talked to the Alder Jael Currie (16th Aldermanic District) for the Graham Place site. D. Haug said that is always a good idea, and suggested that someone from SCLS reach out to her and try to build support for the project. N. Brien offered to reach out to Jael Currie and see if she is interested in attending a meeting with us to learn more.
· Site Updates & Discussion – D. Haug
o Discussion about city concerns about the location of potential parking lots at Graham Place. Some indication that they would like parking lots on the side or rear of the buildings.
o Many other buildings in the area have parking in the front of the building. Is this a new requirement?
o D. Haug said the city raised that issue so we are aware of any potential issues that may come up and be prepared to address them. It’s not that they can’t be resolved, but it helps to think about it ahead of time.
o City would also like to save the “Centennial Oak” on the Graham Place property, but right now it is within the footprint of our building. Would moving the building forward to avoid the tree also allow us to move parking to the rear of the building to address those concerns from the city.
o There was also some concern among staff that the Delivery parking lot is a bit far from the building. Explore options for alternatives. K. Goeden said we are amenable to looking at options, but we aren’t sure what R. Lindstrom can do on this site.
o Question about 22-foot height. D. Flanigan said that appears to be a maximum height, but he said they will be sure to confirm whether they have to make the entire building that height, or only part of it (like the Delivery garage), or does it have to be a full 2nd story?
o D. Haug said that any warehouse or storage is a conditional use in the Graham Place site. That will involve an additional approval, but certainly not something that can’t be accomplished. Want it to look more like an office building. That is not an issue with the CIC property.
o C. Baumann asked about the loading docks facing the street, and wonders if we would need to flip the building so the loading dock is on the right side instead of left? K. Goeden remembered that we had talked about this and one concern was the movement of vans and trucks through the parking lot that staff and visitors use. J. Stewart asked if there is a way to make a change but have trucks go directly to the road and not through the parking lot?
o Garage traffic flow/exit is close to the loading docks. Can the loading docks be moved down a bit to provide separation, or would it work to paint traffic lanes on the parking lot. J. Stewart said one option might be to go back to a traffic flow like we have now with trucks going in and out the same door. K. Goeden said she’d like to see R. Lindstrom take a stab at finding a solution without giving up on design features that have been high priority.
o V. Teal Lovely reminded us that one reason the Delivery garage is near the hill is for window access in offices. D. Flanigan shared the site map and said they may still be able to accomplish that even flipping the building on the property.
o D. Flanigan said his feeling is that city will want the office space closer to the road and the trucks and dock further from the road. He said they never build on a first design and we’re not close to being done talking about these items.
o K. Goeden mentioned the issue of access from the sorting floor to the garage. The bubble diagram has designated spaces between the garage and sorting floor.
o V. Teal Lovely said UW-Hospital is looking at expanding MUFN near CIC. She said the Hospital said there is still time and the possibility of saving money on the fiber build.
· Property tax information from City Assessor – K. Goeden
o K. Goeden learned from the City Assessor’s office that if we are non-profit then we are exempt. Must fill out a Request for Exemption form on behalf of SCLS. Not sure if it needs to be done once for the entire project, or once after the purchase of the land and then again when we finish construction of the building. K. Goeden will ask.
o Must file a report with the city every-other year in even years.
· BCPL loan status – K. Goeden
o Been in communication with BCPL and requested application form and received it this week.
o The Board of Trustees will need to vote on the application and the recorded vote will need to be included in the minutes showing who was in attendance and who voted. The SCLS Board President and another Board designee have to sign the application.
o They also want pictures as the project progresses they can use to promote the program to other entities.
· DAT meeting updates? – D. Flanigan
o DAT stands for Design Assistance Team. The City of Madison creates this with one member each from a number of different city departments that look at this from a very broad view. The goal is to help navigate the project through the city processes.
o Have a meeting tomorrow with the City Zoning aspect of the project. This will be an introduction about who they should be working with at the city.
o Every project in the city has to go through this. As you work through the city they have to work with every division. Said they don’t always work well together and we have to expect some frustrations and uncertainty at times.
o Keller will have to closely monitor the process at each step to make sure it is moving along. Said the departments don’t always talk to each other or share when they are done with their part of the project.
o Meeting will probably continue in a virtual format.
1:10: Discussion:
· Site selection, are we ready to make an offer?
o D. Haug said the next step is for us to receive a formal counter to the Letter of Intent from the City of Madison. At that point we can start to develop a formal offer to purchase.
· Review revised bubble diagram with Keller
o R. Lindstrom was not able to attend this meeting.
o Already shared the information about needing direct access from the sorting floor to the vehicle garage to facilitate van loading.
o Already shared information about moving the building to facilitate saving the “Centennial Oak.”
o Already shared information about proximity of loading dock to the street. What sort of screening would be required?
o C. Baumann said having Delivery parking closer to the building would be nicer when weather is bad or when people forget things and have to run back in.
o D. Flanigan will share these thoughts with Rob to see what he can come up with.
· Project plans, cost and new budget
o D. Flanigan said they have one significant concern that could impact the timing of the project.
o Said they are estimating 3-4 months of preliminary planning. That starts to make the process tight.
o What are we going to do about the offices and flex space. They have a concern that it’s going to be very difficult to address what could be very different perceptions of how people want to work in the future. D. Flanigan said he’d like to know what employees want, but he wants to ensure that we can get good information so we can move forward in a timely manner.
o V. Teal Lovely said she feels like we could start having the discussion right now. She said she believes her two teams already know what they want to do going forward. People can already come to work in the building and they aren’t choosing to do that.
o D. Flanigan said he and R. Lindstrom will talk and come up with a “drop dead” date on when they need to know our preferences for the balance between individual office and shared/open spaces for drop-in work.
o K. Goeden suggested putting this on the Coordinators agenda for the next meeting to formulate an internal plan to collect this information from staff to try and answer these questions.
Topics tabled for Future Meetings:
· Need to have an industrial ceiling vs closed ceiling aesthetic discussion
o Does not save money to leave open. Open or closed involves different building issues.
· Discuss individual offices vs. shared space. Survey staff in October, providing options Keller presented at 8/5/21 meeting. Goal is to have maximum flexibility of space use now and in the future. Any changes? Report to Keller. (Oct meeting)
· Start discussions with D. Haeffner, Rebekah, D. Flanigan, R. Lindstrom, M. Ibach regarding D. Haeffner’s level of involvement in interior design of new building
· Schedule Admin and Delivery meetings to discuss shared spaces
CONSENSUS (includes newly added consensus points as of 10/28/20)
· Flexibility
· Hybrid of remote and on site - not 100% either way for most staff.
· Design for job needs and requirements not staff member.
· Collaboration and/or individual work can be done at home or onsite as appropriate.
· Set schedules so everyone is accessible no matter where they are working.
· Need to maintain in-person relationships (work and personal).
· The “team” at SCLS is 50+ people with several smaller teams; admin, delivery, tech, ILS and consultants.
· Staff will maintain their individual offices, but offices will be more equitably sized.
· Collaborative space will be added (labs, shared soft spaces) and other common spaces such as the work room, deliverables room and meeting room sizes will be reduced to accommodate the new spaces.
· Staff will be allowed to work remotely and/or in the office as their positions and duties allow with the understanding that there will be times all staff are required to report in person in order to facilitate and maintain staff working relationships.
2:55: Homework for Next Meeting:
· Discuss next steps regarding sites and whether to make an offer
· BCPL loan application to SCLS Board?
· N. Brien will reach out to Alder Jael Currie (16th District) and see if she is interested in attending a meeting with us to learn more.
· At one of the next two meetings, coordinators will discuss developing an alternative plan for deciding about offices vs. open spaces after D. Flanigan & R. Lindstrom identify a “drop dead” date to help keep the project on target.
· D. Flanigan and R. Lindstrom will talk about the bubble diagram thoughts we shared today.
· K. Goeden will attend DAT meetings and will report back to BNAW.
Next Meeting Date: 09/02/21 at 10:00 a.m.
3:00: Adjournment
· Adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Parking Lot:
· Create staff workgroup to help select interior furnishings
Members:
Corey Baumann SCLS Delivery Services Coordinator
Nan Brien SCLS Board Trustee
Kerrie Goeden SCLS HR & Finance Coordinator
Mark Ibach SCLS Consulting Services Coordinator
Jesse Stewart SCLS Fleet Manager
Vicki Teal SCLS Technology Services Coordinator
Kristi Williams SCLS Board Trustee
Martha Van Pelt SCLS
Director