Board continues to examine City Hall project

The Board of Alderman met Thursday, Feb. 25 with a long agenda due to the discussions surrounding the new City Hall project, which would move City Hall operations to the city-owned 17,000 square foot building on the square after it would be renovated. Mayor Natalie McNish introduced a timeline of the project up until this point, the board heard presentations and information regarding the project as well as public comment.

Despite error on the agenda on the first item of new business, public comment from former Mayor Robert Williams was immediately heard when the meeting came to order. His concerns included the spending of over half a million tax dollars and restricted funds to complete the project, without consultation of taxpayers on how to fund this debt. “I've not done the necessary research to be confident enough to say that my opinion represents the views of the community,” Williams said. "So far regarding this particular project it appears that we're a lot alike in that neither of us have actually put in the work to engage the community in a meaningful way or to get good understanding about what the community thinks about spending tax dollars and restricted funds at this level for this project."

One question Williams asked the board was whether they would take the time to present the community with well-researched options that would include use of the current facility and also the plans that have been budgeted and allow for the time that it takes to truly capture the priorities of Marshfield citizens. Which he said takes far more time than a simple public input meeting.

“I originally supported this project if it could be done for the projected $300,000 and I could support it today for that amount because the appraised value of the building was [at the time] I think $700,000. The primary challenge for me though is using tax dollars and restricted funds to pay for a project that isn't going to offer any significant improved service to the citizens. For the most part, it will simply be a location change unless I'm missing something,” he said. “What is the reason behind spending 3-4 times the original projection on a building that won't be valued at near what it costs to renovate. Is it coming from a true need to find the right solution for city hall or is it coming from a desire to restore an old building on the square? If it is from a true need to do what's right for city hall, shouldn't we have alternatives and options and look at  all the possibilities before settling on this one option.”

Williams then inquired on what affect taking $100,000 out of the water and wastewater fund would have – would it result in a higher rate with the upcoming rate assessment since the project was not factored into previous assessments? 

“The city already charges users what's called a pilot, which is 5% and it's a payment in lieu of a tax. One of the reasons for the pilot is to cover services provided by the general funds… should we then charge an additional amount for our utilities to pay for renovations that will offer no new service or enhancement to the customers?” he asked. 

After hearing Mayor Williams concerns regarding the project, the board finalized minutes from the previous meeting and finished old business items before returning to the City Hall discussion. The board was then presented with the historical timeline of the project by Mayor Natalie McNish.

"Part of the purpose of providing this timeline is so that everybody can understand, myself included, the length of this project. It's not new information, the board started this in 2015 and there has been many many more conversations than what I documented in the timeline but that gives you an overview of the events that have taken place up to date,” she said.

After a short PowerPoint presentation of the current City Hall showing current space utilization, the importance of adding additional office space for operations is a clear need. Alderman Rob Foster and Duane Lavery, President and CEO of GRO Marshfield, presented information supporting the economic impact of the new City Hall project.

"I would say based on tonight's meeting there will be additions as to what I have here, this is a draft that we have put together,” Foster said. “This is to inform the public why we decided to do what we are doing, which is to relocate city hall to the square. First and foremost we're faced with a need which is unanimously acknowledged. That need is more space at city hall for current staff and future staff.”

Mayor Williams had emailed Lavery, asking if he agreed that any positive economic impact resulting from relocating city hall to the square comes from renovating an old, mostly-vacant building and causing some increase in traffic and that any other use of that facility that would restore it and bring traffic would have the same or more or less economic impact, in which he said he agreed. 

“I agree with that, it could be a different use,” he clarified. “We both agreed that the City Hall project versus any other one would yield positive.”

According to Foster, a key factor to this project is that the city owns the building, which will satisfy the need for current and future expansion as well as allow for phasing of the project. He then touched on financing for the project, explaining that the strategy developed for financing two rent revenue streams that have never been used for any other revenue purpose by a department. 

“[The revenue streams] have always been designated for the purpose for the new city hall project. Those two revenues are rent from the communications tower in city park and rent from Seymour Bank in that same building, as well as unallocated cash which has been carried over for several years.... that's a perfect place to go for financing for this,” he said.

As far as community impact, he argued that the consolidation of properties and buildings allows for those revenues associated with properties being turned into ongoing, unused revenue for other new projects with ongoing expenses. 

“On behalf of the community, this is an act of economic development for commerce on the square, which is a catalyst for economic development. It's an improved space for the city and for the Marshfield government,” Foster added. “It will be a source of pride for citizens to have. The location is more centralized with the convenience of a drive-through service and it wouldn't take away from any public parking. That parking lot goes with that property and yet it's still not being utilized for parking at this point."

After hearing presentations about the project, Mayor McNish addressed concern that the city may not be able to afford the risk that comes along with the financial aspect, regardless of if the price was right. According to McNish, the issue stems from the low potential of condensing operations to free up more than one city building.

"One of the comments you made was that it would not take away from other operations, and I think I agree with the allocation with cash that we have, and that's the part that maybe I need to take a look at, but I can't say that using that cash for this project doesn't take away from our ability to do other projects… the advancement of our sewer system, the correction of other issues, the purchase of equipment that we need,” she explained. “I don't feel like that's a fair statement. I do think we're picking one project over the other." 

"It worked out on the budget so the budget allowed for us to approve all of the growth areas effectively priority 2 items on the budget in every single department and acknowledged at that time that that was an exercise that you would be able to move forward with without having to do budget amendments,” Foster replied. “It was clearly understood that it was not at all likely all of those projects could possibly happen." 

While McNish suggested that there are additional projects that aren't on that budget because they prioritized this project’s funds first, Foster argued that the city could only can do so much in a given year’s budget. 

Mayor McNish suggested and the board agreed that they would reach out to financial advisors as well as BKD for an updated estimate on costs as well as BKD's ability to provide input on the potential renovation of the current City Hall building before moving forward with anyone else. 

"I love the idea of refacing city hall and making it look inviting and welcoming to investors but I'm not entirely sure that's a necessity in order to get that investment in our community that we're looking for,” McNish said. 

The Board of Aldermen Zoom meeting recording can be found by scrolling to the bottom of www.marshfieldmo.gov and following the proper link. The board will hear further research and information at the next meeting Thursday, March 11 at 7:30 p.m. The Marshfield Mail will have more information on how to watch the meeting live via Zoom in the March 10 edition.