By Ryan Whisner
A recommendation has been made to the Fort Atkinson City Council to renovate the existing site of the Department of Public Works facilities starting in 2024.
Located at 700 James Place, the existing facilities include a mix of new and old buildings totaling about 39,000 square feet, with some being more than 50 years old. The city has been discussing the possible renovation or upgrade of the DPW’s facilities for nearly a decade.
On Tuesday, Public Works Superintendent Tom Williamson presented a proposal for a new facility on the James Place site that would cost approximately $22.9 million based on 2023 estimated costs.
The city will fund the project by borrowing general obligation bonds and/or utility revenue bonds with funding through the city’s general fund, water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities.
Under that scenario, Williamson said the design would take place in 2023 and the groundbreaking and construction in 2024.
“I think this design itself will take us up to the next 25 to 30 years and there is room on that site after this redevelopment takes place to grow for another 10 possible years,” Williamson said.
A space need study was conducted in 2017, however, the report was not performed as expected and the contract was suspended early, leaving the report incomplete.
In anticipation of potentially having to make a significant investment to maintain the site and the buildings to an optimal level of service, the city hired Enberg Anderson in June 2022 to assess the existing facility and prepare concept plans for two possible locations – the current location and the former Loeb Lorman scrapyard at 115 Lorman Street.
No action was taken by the council on Tuesday as it was merely an informational session. The anticipation is for the council to decide on whether to advance the proposal or move forward with redevelopment at the former Loeb Lorman scrapyard.
In addition, the city’s 2023 budget includes $100,000 for design work on a new public works facility.
For informational purposes, Williamson presented a general overview of the two sites and why city staff was recommending construction at the James Place site.
He pointed out that the current main office structure was built in the early 1950s, the north building in the 1960s, and the west building in the 1980s.
“What we’re suffering from now in this facility is a lot of age-related rapid deterioration, and rising maintenance costs,” Williamson said. “Being built in the 50s, it is insulated, but it’s tough to maintain heat within the facility and we are now suffering from some of those deteriorations that have taken place over the last 20 to 30 years.”
The superintendent said the current facility requires major structural and environmental control upgrades to maintain its viability to the city. He noted that the state of Wisconsin has sent multiple letters in the last couple of years about the need for the city to upgrade and replace the existing fuel system that dates to the early 1970s.
“Overall, it provides a very unhealthy environment for the employees to work in,” Williamson said. Throughout the facility, there are multiple locations with substantial water damage with deteriorating ceiling tiles. In addition, the ventilation system, particularly in the shop area is lackluster at best in providing reasonable airflow.
Among the challenges with the use of the Loeb-Lorman site is simply keeping up with the repairs at the current facility.
The city acquired the Lorman site in 2021 as part of a blight elimination/remediation grant. The grant stipulates that once demolition and clean-up are completed, the site cannot undergo any redevelopment for five years.
“I think some of the things to be concerned about would be, of course, the increased construction costs during the waiting period,” Williamson said. “I think we’ve noticed over the last several years those costs escalate rather quickly, and the markets have been volatile.”
He said to continue operations at the existing site for five or more years while awaiting the construction of a new facility would mean significant repairs at the current facility. Required repairs would include a new roof (structure and membrane) which Williamson estimates that just the roof repairs alone would likely exceed $100,000.
“The environmental control systems, such as the air exchangers, the air handlers, and the heating units, need serious upgrades,” he said. Further analysis of the facility would be needed to determine the full extent of necessary repairs to make the building viable for an additional 5-6 years.
Were the Lorman site approved, design work would be set for 2026 and construction in 2028. Cost estimates in 2022 dollars suggest the price would be approximately $21.4 million. Just accounting for price increases into 2023, Williamson said estimates would rise to $25.9 million.
Across the two sites, cost estimates are nearly the same. Williamson said the differences are a new cold storage building built from the ground up on the Lorman site and the additional site improvements such as underground utilities, grading, and paving.
At the James Place site, one of the existing structures would be reused as part of the redevelopment but upgraded to meet 2023 standards.
“We’re literally almost doubling the size of just one individual building and still maintaining another 15,000 square feet of extra storage,” he said.
The superintendent acknowledged that the current campus would need to remain in operation should the council determine that the James Place site suits the reconstruction plans.
“The current existing facility campus location will need to remain in operation should the city determine this location suits the need for reconstruction of the proposed facility,” Williamson said.
To accommodate this, reconstruction could be compressed to the next couple of years, thus alleviating the need for more costly repairs to the existing facility.
“There will be some minor investments to maintain the facility during development or design and construction,” he said, noting that the mass investment will not have to take place.
Council member Mason Becker admitted that many people in the city are unfamiliar with the DPW facilities.
“You guys go out and do your jobs every single day and it’s kind of out of sight and out of mind,” he said. “I think our city has prided ourselves on stretching every dollar and getting as much value out of those facilities as we could, and now those dollars have literally ripped in half, and now we have to make some tough choices.”
City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire agreed.
“We really do want to continue to instill pride in our employees and we really can’t expect our folks to be positive productive ambassadors for the city when they’re getting rained on inside of their facility in addition to what we expect them to do outside, which is the majority of their job,” she said.
Fort Atkinson Municipal Building, file photo/Kim McDarison.
This post has already been read 2747 times!
