Yeah. And everyone we called it the first boxes. 9:00 special meeting County Board of Commissioners to order with the flag pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call back. Sure. Commissioner Benoy here. Commissioner Heinen here. Commissioner Pop here. Commissioner Johnson here. Commissioner Gapinsky
here. Thank you. County Administrator Monte Hedley. M chair. Uh the first item is Pete uh Philippy from then with Evans assistance we'll take you through the bids and also the alternates and I think looking for some decisions from you this morning on which alternates you will
accept or not accept. Uh so that's the process I believe Pete. Good morning commissioners. Good morning Pete Philipp integrity group. Uh I have two spreadsheets in front of you. Uh,
one is an overall tally with the low bids with a spread of the alternates across the top. And the second one, and the reason I printed the second one, uh, is if alternate H2, which is a mechanical one highlighted in green, changes, it jumps over to a different
contractor. So, we have a separate spreadsheet for that. Uh with that being said, uh the contractors tallied have been called uh and comfortable with their numbers and therefore we are recommending uh fids
with the proper selection of alternates. So from there, I probably want to turn it over to Evan to maybe walk and talk these alternates through uh conjointly and kind of go through the pricing uh and see what uh alternates
uh are to be selected. So with that being said, uh alternates that we do have the 10 alternates uh first one is alternate A1 which is provide linear ceiling metal planks. uh that was fairly
limited to the entrance uh the overhang on the outside and the lobby. Currently uh we have a a metal panel ceiling, metal sophet ceiling on the exterior canopy uh jipboard ceiling uh in the foyer vestibial area and then we
transferred to a ceiling tile uh immediately when you walk in. Uh the price upgrade on that change would be $49,425. Uh alternate A2 is to provide man manufactured stone veneer on the outside
in lie of the the real stone. Uh that alternate number has been identified as a savings of 92,000 if you follow at the bottom of that sheet. Alternate uh A3 is to provide security glazing uh glass type 3B at selected
counters in the uh lobby portion when you walk in. That price is an ad of 10,500. Uh alternate A4 was a pergolo that was on the south side of the building, one of the entrances.
Uh that alternate was an ad of $27,250. Alternate A5 was to provide some framed walls uh up on second floor. Uh to do that with the openings in it was $13,550. We had an alternate for a poured
foundation in lie of concrete block concrete masonry units. Alternate A6. There was a credit amount or a deduct amount of $47,926. alternate. Then P1 is a mechanical alternate. It would be the cost for not
using PEX piping. That would be an ad of $17,260. Uh alternate H1 is the one where it changes to the different spreadsheet, which is some roof screens around the rooftop units. That would be an ad of
117,000 plus an increase in contract price because the contractor would change from McDall over to Weedner for an additional 2600. So, and then alternate H3 we put down a zero. The low uh control contractor that
we show in the base bid is St. cloud refrigeration at a $199,900 which basically a continuation of your current control system that you have in place in your other building. So with that we identified a zero cost.
Any questions on any of the alternates? I'm sorry. Did I skip over the snow melt system? Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. the snow melt system H1 uh which would put snow melt system on your front entrance coming into the government center along with the doors
and steps on the east side of the building was $107,400. That would be an additional amount. Sorry about that. questions. I think that's No, I think that snow melt was actually included in that one
before the alternate P1 the PEX piping because you had said it was like 117,000. Yeah, P1 was 17,260. And what that is is the PEX piping within the building. So the contractor right now currently has the option of using PEX piping in lie of copper piping
for maybe some of the interior runouts maybe some of the bathroom sets that were seen being used more predominantly uh in commercial construction than we had 15 20 years ago. Uh, I take it with that price. We're probably looking at
the small diameter pipes. Uh, the snow melt system, uh, once again, that would be a PEX in flooror system, uh, located on the exterior of the building. And that snow melt system once again is to the front entrance and the east side of steps entrance coming in from the east
side. 107,400. Evan, anything you want to add to this? I was going to say if you wanted me to walk through any of the details of any of the specifics, um, that'd be fine. Maybe one of them that might not be obvious is alternate A5, the framed walls. That was at the second floor
where we had that secure area and human services. We had the option for um drywall walls versus furniture wall solution in that area. Um so that um furniture wall solution would be a little more reconfigurable down the
road. So you could detach it and add on and move. Um sometimes that doesn't happen in the future. So it is a little uh less expensive to do the framed walls now. But if you have to expand or change that secure area on second floor um then you would have more construction work,
drywall work, you know, that sort of thing. So it's a trade-off on that front. Um the alternate A1 is at the front entry area that Pete said. Um it's like a metal plank ceiling versus a regular suspended ceiling like that's above you right here. Um just at entries
it's um nice heavier ceiling. It doesn't move that sort of thing. There is an aesthetic factor to that too. It carries from the outside. Um alternate A2 on the the stone veneer that's effectively going to a CMU versus a real stone. So,
for the life of the building, um you know, the the real stone's going to perform better. The one thing about CMU, they're a little more porous. You'll see more of the, you know, like dark spots. You get a little um staining, that sort of thing over time. But, um in this case, we wanted to provide the
alternate, but but for that particular one, I'd argue for the life of the building, that's a very good move on the real stone. Um perform better over time just from a maintenance durability standpoint. um that security glazing alternate three. We have glass at the public um
interaction spaces now. It's quarter-inch tempered glass. This would upgrade that to a thicker laminated glass. Um it has got a um like a small caliber bullet resistance, but it's um it would more stay together versus just
shatter into a a bunch of tiny pieces. So that lamination keeps it together. So that's that's what that one is. uh alternate A4 at Perglow really was a some the outside area off of the employee area is south facing with the
sun cruising right around. So it was a bit of a shading device over there. So that's an item that can be added quite easily down the road. So um you know if you chose to leave that one off the table that's something that could be done. It's it's completely separate outside the building as a sun shade.
Um the alternate A6 um we just have one contractor that specializes in um this port wall system that has insulation in between the two wise. Um so we have CMU with insulation and then CMU and they proposed doing a poured system. It's
called thermomass. Um oftent times is more money but they do a good job with it. They kind of specialize in that. So they were able to realize a savings. In fact, we kind of added that alternate during bidding um to allow for that. So, um
I'll add uh rooftop screens. If Jeff were uh speaking to it, he would say they're they're a little more maintenance um because you have to remove some screens potentially or open them up to get to maintain the items. But the the flip side is the building does sit a little bit low. You know,
where we're sitting um when you're on the high side of the site, you're going to see those units a little more. So, that's a judgment call on on your part and there can be um that's an easy item that can be adjusted down the road like if you go through construction contingency is really good and you get
the building kind of roughed in and you see some areas that you think that screen should be that's something you you can as long as it's set up to do so add those. Mr. Chair, so that screen could be added on at any given time though, I believe. So, we don't have to do it right away.
that gets mounted on the units, I believe. Correct. Correct. They're mounted on the unit uh versus like curbs or something that penetrates the roof. We're try try not to penetrate the roof. It just they're built onto the unit itself. I could point to some examples um in town that look like that. So, but
you know, again, I'll just reinforce that there can be a little more access for maintenance. So, if you're the strictly got your maintenance hat on, you would say no. But if you've got, you know, you're balancing the both, you might want them. So, but that's something I think you could um make the
selection right now based on low bid contractor. That alternate does, as Pete said, switch um low bid contractor. So, but if it's something you want to do, then um for sure then we could go ahead and do that. So, M how about how about this? Perhaps
we just take each alt one by one and kind of get a consensus whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down on on each alt and arrive at a at a a new bottom line then based upon what you accept or don't accept.
So you want to start with A1 please sir. Yes. Yeah. How about just start with alt one? Mr. Chair, what options do we have other than what's in front of us for that alternate? Okay. You said that the metal planking outside, you know, because it's the outside vestable, correct? That ceiling.
Okay. And we need to we would not put a suspended ceiling or anything. We have to have something to sustain the weather. Um, you just want to walk it through. Yeah, we could we could just walk it through. So, um, we on the outside of
the building would remain the metal plank. Um, because it would be the exterior rated material. um on the outside it'd be once we enter the vestibule um so the between the two vestibial doors the the one would switch to a drywall ceiling to keep that solid
um versus we just keep the metal plank going through um in that case and then there's that section right in front of the DMV entrance so just that small section um just in front of the lobby um what am I trying to say the uh the
reception person the the front up there kind of that small area would also be the same ceiling. So from the outside to the to the vestibule to that first chunk just before the uh um DMV area would be the same ceiling instead of switching
three different types. So and then all the questions you have for A1. Yeah. No, I think Go ahead. I think what Monty was saying they want to give out kind of need a thumbs up or thumbs down right on each alt if we could. Yeah.
I don't. Mr. Chair, um I was trying to look on the numbers here. Pete or Evan, did you include anything that showed if all the alts were accepted with their addition and subtractions, what that total would be? It's I have the number for you. It's it's if you take all the ones and let's
just set aside the screens for the moment. It adds 85,000 to the bottom line if we accept all deductions and so in increases and decreases, right? 85,459. That's the change in the in the in the bottom line. And again, that's not in addressing the
screens. I kind of get the impression we're going to let the screens go. Is that fair? Yeah. Excuse me. Is it fair to say we're going to let the screens go for now? It's only my opinion. Yeah. So, focusing on the the the page that doesn't have
the screens on it. Yeah. Again, grant net is 85459. Yeah. I mean, some of the stuff I don't have much knowledge about, right, to go through it. Yeah. Yeah. What what scares me is on the 92,000 for alter Well, we
should just look at alternate one at this point. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. I'm okay with alternate one. Okay. That one's okay. That's just me though. So the uh Mr. Chair, so the metal wall
panels deduct of 7100 and that number that's the deduct offered for removing um that area once you enter the building. Yeah. What it does, it deletes the sophet panels on the exterior canopy and the remainder of that alternate, the
linear metal panel which would be substituted would come back as a credit from uh the acoustical guy which is offset by a higher dollar material. Thus, you saw the ad from them at 56,000. Mhm. Anything else?
under the impression that you were looking for more like to combine them. Well, I was just trying to figure out what the end result was going to be if somebody already did the math. I just hadn't done the math. The problem where I was going with this is alternate two. I if I heard Evan right, we take that
one and he he's not really recommending that one. Correct. For the lifetime of the building. Yeah. I just think um you know again for the the long term of the building you know there's um and I do have samples of course and we probably
don't want to get into the weeds on that item right now but uh just you're looking you're all familiar with a CMU the exterior CMU is more dense but definitely still a cast concrete product um for government center lifetime of the building I think that would be one we
had that as a deduct because we felt base bid the way it was with the natural stone was the way to go for this type of building. Um, so I would recommend personally not accepting alternate two. Um, and then alternate number one is really strictly up to you guys if you
think that um, I do think that there obviously we did um, include that as a as an alternate because we felt it was very valid. Um, it'd be more consistent through there, but we also um, of course at that time we don't know where numbers are going to land. We want to give you
maximum flexibility of course. So, so with that said, if we didn't take alternate number two, then it would jump up to 180,000 just for the first two. Well, for the rest of them, it'd be 170,000. I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. And and just for clarity, two is in base
bid right now. So, if you didn't accept it, it's not a cost ad. It's just not in the savings. Yep. wish us to move on to alternate three. I I would like to come back to alternate one and see where we land on the other ones. Okay. That's just my
side. Yep. Alternate three to upgrade those counters with a little bit harder glass for 10,500. I want to mention, Mr. excuse me, is that the plan for the new building is you wouldn't have those security gates come down. So, I think we
thought we probably ought to boost up the the glass uh quality because not not having those retractable gates. So, just adding to what Monty said, that was hate to put you on the spot, but that's that's probably 25,000 a gate, something
like that. Is that fair? Yeah. So there were there was those gates at each one of them to provide um closure in the evenings or when needed. Um so this ad represents um a significant cost savings to when we had the the coiling gates on it, but as
Monty said, it was kind of a trade-off. So we forgotten the gates and then upgrade the glass. So, so the 10 represents an ad, but what we did for the building was probably pull 70,000ish out of the estimates. Yep. Out of the
estimates. So, do a thumbs up on that one. Okay. Employing. Yes. I mean, yep. Okay. Alternate A4 that pergolo on the south side. Uh, once again, and Evan said that
could be added in at any time down the line. So, it's uh on the south side of the building. Um we can always do that at a later date. Yeah. Yeah. Uh alternate five was to provide the the
framed walls up on second floor. Um like Kevin said, the partitions off potentially for future. There is some savings there if uh on a little bit on the furniture forthcoming furniture side of things down the line. But at the same time too, if the space changes, you will
end up having to potentially remove those walls if it intrudes into those spaces. So yeah, I would vote for keeping the flexibility to move walls if you need to, right? Rather than building fixed walls upstairs, the fewest possible.
Yeah, that was always our intention. Keep it flexible. Yeah. uh provol uh alternate AS6 that uh provide form concrete foundation walls. Uh we have no problem with it. There's
an additional savings of 47,000 um to provide those in le of the double CMU walls. I think it's a deduct I would be in for that. Yep. It's $48,000 one. That's a good That's an Okay. Okay.
uh alternate P1. The cost for not using PEX piping, like I said, we've seen more and more PEX piping being used. Uh if you want to just go with a strictly copper system on the interior side of things, it would be an additional $17,260. So I on the commercial jobs that I've
been on, they've all used PEX now. They they've completely changed and switched, I guess. What what's the warranty difference? Anything? I don't know if you're going to get an actual warranty outside of what you would typically get out of the
contractor side of things. Uh, as far as the copper pipe versus the PEX pipe, I don't know if one has a warranty or not, but Pete, what are you saying seeing nowadays? We're seeing a combination of both depending on the areas. More times than not, the large scale pipe uh PEX
doesn't really fit the bill on I'm talking inch and inch plus inch and anything over an inch. We're seeing a lot of/2 inch 3/4 inch runouts happening in PEX. Uh and I have no problem with it. I have it in my own house. So they're still using
combination then what you're saying and my guess is that's probably holy bid this project is a combination. Sorry. They probably bid this one as a combination and that $17,000 ad would be to go all copper. Not I don't know if it would be all of it. If you looked at the
the bid tab of where those it was up to the contractor discretion, the original bid tab and that one did kind of go over the all over the map. And that's why I'm thinking uh that this contractor is using it somewhat more limited. Um,
let me quick jump to that to kind of give you a little bit of the range on it. But it went from $17,260 uh all the way up to 85,720. So some contractors were using it more extensively than others. So I think if it's good, we don't add it.
We don't add to go copper. That's just my side. I have the PEX in my house. All All new construction houses are PEX. Yeah. Yeah. But like Pete said, it's just a matter of the water lines when they have to be over an inch. That's
where the they went copper and then when it downsized to 3/4 to half is when they went to PEX. So that's the difference. And this one was worded a little bit differently. So it's for not using it. So basically if you don't accept that
alternate uh you include the PEX into the project. Uh the next one is as we talked uh snow melt here. Uh the snow melt uh $107,400 that puts snow melt at your front
entrance and those set of stairs sidewalk coming off the east side of the steps. I would definitely vote for that. Jeff will thank you. You know, and you know, it's always an issue of up slips and falls in the winter, not employees, but the public. And well, anything we can do
to help reduce slips and falls is a good good investment. MCIT premium. Good thing for our MCIT premiums then. Yeah. Yeah. To extent you can Yeah. When because those become become more work comp uh injuries or if it's a public there's often times a medical cost, you
know, associated with that. So it'll also save on the concrete because all the salt that is around this joint. That's a good point. Right. Yeah. So that one's okay. And then I'm not sure if we need to go back to those rough screens or not. And
then like I said, the temp control is basically zero. You've got the low bid contractor already in that with the system you currently have in place in your other facilities there. Again, we can wait on that. Yeah, there. Again, we could wait on that decision.
So, sadly, Right. So, that the screens that's off the table. So, it looks like the last thing that's left is alt two, the stone veneer versus the natural stone. Well, we stone we got we got alternate one because I don't think we came to consensus on Oh, I'm sorry. I thought there was agreement on one. We
did. No, you know, I for the for the PEX I I'm fine with not taking that alternate. That was my impression, too. This is here's alt one just sorry I didn't print additional copies, but
so right now I'm hearing correct me if I'm wrong. There's consensus on alt 3, alt six, and alt h1. Correct. That's what I have. That's what I got. I got two. What remains then is discussion and
consensus on alt one and alt two. So Pete, what's the like life expectancy of the uh stone do you think with the deduct of that 92,000? You know, the real stone, there's plenty of examples around of a lot of these old
historic buildings, so you can kind of see where where that is at. Uh very nice product. Uh the masonry units, depending upon some of the sprinkler systems and stuff over time, we have seen on other projects where it has hit it. Uh it's not to say that both weren't going to
need some type of upkeep and ongoing, but uh you know, you go back to some of these real historic buildings that have stone and you've seen where some of these are still sitting, some of these old churches and things. So uh both of them would still have the effects if you
layered thick chloride on them or snow melt salt and didn't do anything with that, you know, and those entrances and stuff. You see a lot of older buildings where those are erode over time. So neither one is 100% foolproof, but the stone has some inherent qualities
if it was your building. Either way, I would probably go with the stone, but either way, and I I tell a lot of places that we work, make sure you maintain those areas that are coming up to your doorways. uh recommend additional power washing every spring to
get rid of those sidewalk melt salts and uh upkeep on that. We see so much erosion at these front entrance of these buildings cuz spring comes and we don't do anything in the sidewalk and the stone starts to show its age real quick. So uh building like this knowing it's going to be here for the the length of
time that it is, I would potentially stay with the stone then myself. Either way, we have to maintain the upkeep, do the upkeep every year regardless of what we pick should be done to me. I would go do with the stone and
get rid of the 90. Clarification that's already in the bid. It's deduct the stone is currently in the price. Yep. It's cheaper if you use the veneer, the the artificial product, right? Yeah. So, that's the question. keep it keep it with the natural stone in in the base bit or go with all the reduction for the
the U fabricated product. Right. So, if I'm hearing correct, the stone itself has a longer longevity than than the veneer would. I would I would as long as the upkeep is done.
Yep. I'd vote to stay with the stone. Yeah. So you're down to alt one then. So the the drawing that was passed before you had the two versions. The one you'll see the kind of a linear line
through the three areas and then the other has the linear plank, a drywall which has got kind of a stipple pattern and then a regular suspended ceiling grid in the next part. So you can kind of see that between the two. just a clarity on the areas that we're talking about and why, you know, we were
recommending one versus the other. So, basically, if we accept this, it goes to 119,000 for alternate ads. If we don't, it's 70. Yeah, I agree with your math. 119 399 wishes. So this is what it is right now.
This is uh with the hard ceiling and then just this outside the planking outside and then suspended ceiling. I can live with either, but I would prefer the um ad.
But I can live with it. I'm sorry. I can live with either, but prefer the ad. And this is something we could also change though down the down the process too. Correct. We can add it in, but we can always take
it away through the process. Yeah. I would just say, you know, when they approve the shop drawings and get the material through, you know, that's that's about the time, not like not like before it goes in, but we'd have a material order time and approval time. So, up until then, true. And then after
that, we'd have some challenges. So, okay. Is there sufficient consensus to keep all one I'm in the same boat as Commissioner Johnson. Yeah, I have no preference really at this
point. I I don't either. What's the timing if we choose? Is there something in between this or would you recommend one or the other? I think the in between might be running that plank through the vestibial part
and then running the regular tile up and through that front part. You know, there's kind of three distinct areas. You know, that would probably be the problem I've seen with the vestibules when you open the door and it's windy out, them tiles push up, right? Yeah. And that's why we definitely want to
switch something in that vestibial area. Correct. Yeah. if it's not heavy enough or if it's a just a regular suspended product, they can flip down and different things, but it's really not the way to go for a vestibil. So, I I can see it in in the vestable, you
know, in two of them, but into the main corridor there. I don't need I don't need that wood planking in that corridor. Well, why don't we come back to that one after they can maybe get a number just for the vest bill if we could do that.
Yeah, I don't know why. So, just to recap then we were looking at alternate three, alternate six and alternate H1. I correct on that money. Yes. Three six H1. Yep. So base bid plus
those three alts and Monty that that includes the one that would push it to 119. No, that would that would be at 70 grand. Yep. 69974 is the ad. 69974 is the ad.
[Music] I know we have to make a decision, but we have to I have to rely on you guys on some of this. Yeah, there you go. I'll just add on the ice melt. Um that was a very strong preference on Jeff's side obviously is
to maintain um they salt the heck out of everything to maintain some safety. I think um you're seeing deterioration because of all that salt um in your course facility building for example. Um this would be the the front walk to the
sidewalk. It's the main public area. Work with a lot of counties that slipfall issue is huge. Ice melts aren't perfect because in the winter when you get fair amount of um snow on there, some of it evaporates but some of it runs off. So
people kind of have examples of both. you know, sometimes you very successful and sometimes you got to make sure that it has a place to go, but at the end of the day, um, if Jeff were here, he would strongly recommend, um, including that for safety. I do think that I've seen
many times where there is slipfall. That's very much much more costly, put it that way. The, uh, overtime. So, the system itself is a is a separate boiler. It's not part of the rest of boiler. which is a it's a the boiler and the the piping system um to run that independent
ice melt. So that's the bulk of the I mean the other items that you're working with there that's that's the main ad. I mean that's the one that's um driving the cost and that's and that's got to be put in. I mean,
that's got to be decided a little earlier than others because that'll be um piping going in uh under slabs in a boiler that needs to be um ordered. So, I'm good with that one. I think that I think that in itself will
save on deterioration by not adding as much salt as we have to add. Saturate the sidewalks everything. So, Mr. Chair, I know conraint. I think we're looking at this
for a motion to accept the base. Correct me if I'm wrong. The base all three and all H1 those three and again the the change in cost is addition 69974.
Your new bottom line 24,238,319.33 [Music] Can you do that one more time? 238,31833. Again, the increase is 6974 over the base. I'm good with that, Mr. Chair. Need a
motion. I'll make a I'll second I'll make the motion. Motion been made and second it to accept the bid of 24,3 200 238,319 and 33 cent and 33 cents.
Any discussion? Mr. here. Yeah, I will be voting for accepting the bids because the funding mechanisms already been put in place. Uh the building is going to happen and at
this point if I voted against it, I would be saying I want to go to rebid and potentially spend more money. So that's where I'm at. So I will be supporting this. Mr. Chair, if I could if I could just have you please repeat the total. Well, I I think we are off a
dollar, but I just want I just want to make sure we're both all 24,300 or 238,319 and 33 cents. I have 318 38 again 69743
238 3193 Okay, 319. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? I will be voting no because I think the people spoke. They wanted a vote on this and we didn't
hear them. We to Jessica had a lot of comments that you know this was this was done at the first meeting we had in Foley that they said why are we here? Because you guys have already decided. I think now they feel that way more than
ever. Um I think there's a lot of ifs out there that uh we're not looking at. I think the public does not want this. I can't find I can't find 10 people that tell me
we should build this. So I think that uh we owe it to the public after every one of us sat up here at all three of the meetings and said we'd let it come to a vote. I don't believe that just because it's four million bucks or
whatever, five million um in savings that we can't guarantee it's going to be that much more. History says it will be more, but we're not in the same time as history as what we were maybe 5 years ago. So, I think that um
I just think that it's a bad deal for the county to put this face of what we just did to set tell them to go out and get the petitions and we'll put it to a vote and then come back through the back door and get this kind of a deal so it
can be built. I think the people would rather have their say and pay more money down the road. Mr. Chair, yes. Is it I mean can we agree that we tried that? What did we not make a motion last
meeting to do that? I remember making that motion to to put it to the vote. Right. And you second it and it failed. Right. Right. So we're at this point right to where the building fund funding mechanism is there. That's why I'm
supporting it. Yeah. I won't support it because um three board members are gonna say that we should spend 25 million in this county to build a new government center and I don't think that's right. Well, you got a comment. Okay. Yeah. The
funding mechanism just came up that wasn't transparency transparency. This was just brought up at the meeting when we got the signatures together. after that then it was the new funding mechanism. Okay.
And I feel like even when we're talking now and they just presented this and you guys were talking about gates and about safety of your own workers, our government workers here, the safety of the public. Um what I'm understanding is
with these gates, which I call crash gates because I know a little bit about them. That would be the safest thing for the county. You made decisions just right now. Nobody is like expertise on the subject. If let's say Metton County, god forbid, had an active shooter in our
new building, crash gates are the best thing. Isolates how many people get hurt and now we're going to glass that you know a low caliber gun can not puncture it, but a high caliber gun could. You guys made decisions just now. I just sat
here and listened and nobody's expertise. you didn't give your time to research it and just push this project ahead, push it ahead, and you're not listening to the taxpayers of this county, the voters. There was many more signatures that we had out there, and we
just didn't get in because we had way more than what we were told. You guys weren't going to go ahead with this if we had enough petition. It's very disappointing. And it's very disappointing that the research even with what you decided wasn't, hey, we
should look into this. Maybe we need to have another meeting down the road. We're being transparent here. Think about the safety of everybody about anybody that comes into that new courthouse. Crash gates are a real good project to have in a in a government center. It isolates a shooter if that
ever were to happen. Protective glass like what you guys just suggested. I'm disappointed in this. I'm disappointed in this whole process. Why didn't you put this on the election, the last election, and let everybody vote on it? You've been kicking this down the road,
you said, for 20 years now. I'm I'm just highly disappointed. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Go ahead, Mr. Leman. the court facility building that was
built years ago. Um, I talked recently to individual that was on the what they call the citizens advisory board. Similar situation you have here. The public didn't want it and and uh at the public hearing for that one,
the board did hear the public. Yeah. They still had their funding mechanism and they wanted to go ahead with it and the board had the power they had the power to do it under the H. that was jammed down their throats. But you know what that board did? They got the public involved with an advisory board. They
slowed things down. They didn't put the mahogany on the walls that some of the judges wanted for reverence. Okay? Uh and they saved millions of dollars. I don't have the exact figures, but I would suggest each and every one of you talk to Mr. Arlland Zelled. give his
opinion on what happened then and what was done by the board and how much the county appreciated getting the public involved on the advisory board and I believe it was about the same stage in the process. U maybe it was after the public hearing coming up. I'm still struggling to understand what the public
hearing is about in in July because you guys have the train coming down the track already. And so I would just ask you, Mr. Chairman, to please consider a citizens advisory board. nominate one or two citizens from each one of your districts, get an opinion, go through
what the uh lady over here just suggested, maybe doing some research into some of these projects. Your active shooters coming in aren't coming in with low caliber guns. With a high caliber weapon, all right, that's what history shows. So, if you're going to put this
expensive glass in to uh stop a low caliber gun, okay, money well spent, please consider the advisory board before this goes any further. At least give the public something. If you don't call for a vote, give the public something. Thank you. These crash gates,
guns go through, too. Pardon? These crash gates, they're not they're not complete crash gates. They're there's holes through them. Correct. Correct. And they isolate they isolate isolate that person. So they're not running around the whole courthouse and
isolating just that area of what is happening at the time. You're you're saving lives by crash gates. Yeah. We don't have we didn't have crash gates in there, right? You were talking about gates that came down. Those were for the auditor treasur all that stuff, right?
DMV. Mr. Chair, would it be fair to say, you know, Mary Kay, I appreciate your disappointment. I'm very disappointed. These are all things that we talked about well before today. There's documentation in our cow minutes. Again, you people refuse to review what we've
talked about for two years. You want to hone in on one specific item. I'd like to challenge anyone on this board with the exception of Commissioner Benoy because she wasn't here. We had these discussions when we met with these two individuals. You said you would not if
you got the petition. Yes. Yeah. I said what? I sent you the article. I sent you the article. What did you say about if we got the numbers? I'm pretty certain what I said would it would be likely put on the 26 ballot. That's what I said. Now, if you
can show me in the records and the minutes and the ads that I said I would do that, then let's have that conversation. By the way, Mr. Chair, last I checked, I didn't know that this was a public comment time again. Here, we're going to go back. I had the discussion with Monty and its commission
totally the board chairs. I understand. So you're allowing that obviously. M I just wanted to mention I know Commissioner Hein needs to leave at 10 for I believe it's career solutions. I believe commissioner solutions. So perhaps what we could do is you could act on this motion at hand and then hear from Jessica and if there's time left
after you've heard from her then then there's more time for folks in the audience to talk. But I again in respect for Commissioner Benoy and and Hine and their schedule this morning perhaps if we could move through this agenda item and then if there's time left over then you could have more public commentary.
Mr. Chair, call the question. All right, you want to do a roll call bound. Commissioner Benoy, yes. Commissioner Heinen, hi. Commissioner Pop, no. Commissioner Johnson, hi. Commissioner Gapinsky. I thank you, sir. Uh, so, uh, Jessica
Green is with us from North Securities to talk about, uh, the type of debt and the term of debt. And you have in your packet, I believe, 15, 20, 25, and 30. And Jessica, are you with us? I am. Can you hear me? Okay, we hear you just
fine. Thank you for joining us virtually. So, Jessica, I will just turn it over to you. Sounds great. Um, I know I've got limited time here. Um, so I will try to get through this pretty quickly. So, we have talked about um sort of the issuing mechanism previously
and what we've sort of kind of zeroed in on was the HA lease revenue bond option. Um the county has issued HRA lease revenue bonds in the past. This was back in 94 and then I believe it was in 2004 or five where those bonds were refunded. Um and then you may recall back at the
June 10th meeting, we had kind of touched on HR and EDA lease revenue bonds are very similar. Um the county of course um enjoys the fact that you have an HR and an EVA. So you can um issue in any case. Um and then there's another
nuance to the lease revenue bond option which is um also it's known as certificates of participation. We also touched on that on June 10th. Um and we've again we've been zeroing in on these HR lease revenue bonds because the county has utilized this format of
issuing in the past. Now that we've had some opportunity to go back and look at what some of those initial findings were back in 1994, um we've had some extensive conversations with bond council um and looking at some of the procedural steps
that need to occur if we're going to sort of continue down the path of HA lease revenue bonds. So one with the HR bonds, there's a redevelopment plan that needs to be drafted and that needs to go before the planning commission. So once it makes a stop at the planning commission and this isn't related to the
issuance of the bonds, it's related to the land use. Um so there's um again this redevelopment plan that makes a stop at the planning commission. From there it needs the local municipalities blessing and then you have your public hearing on that redevelopment plan. And
again, not related to the issuance of bonds. It's related to land use knowing that and and some things can happen um sort of um sort of continuously as we're moving along. But we do need to kind of have one step of the process sort of taken
care of. So planning commission first, then a step at the local municipality and then again we have that hearing and then after that you're issuing bonds. So, um, some of the differences here, HR lease revenue bonds again requires a stop at the planning commission. The EDA
because it's not a redevelopment project, those do not require a stop at the planning commission. Still requires local municipality and then to hold the hearing on an economic development area as opposed to a redevelopment area when it comes to the HA funds. Now with
certificates of participation which also function as a lease. Um the lease is simply with a trustee rather than with the EDA or the HA there is no planning commission that is required and because we're not establishing a redevelopment or an
economic development area there is no public hearing required. So given the fact that we're of course awarding the bids here and then moving ahead to try to keep in line with where we believe construction's going to start and when you will need proceeds in our
conversations with bond council. The fastest we can move here is with certificates of participation because again it eliminates the need for the planning commission to act on the land use and determine that it's in harmony with the overall development of the county.
So with that, if we were to consider HA lease revenue bonds, you're likely going to be selling bonds in late September, which then gets you proceeds in late October. If we do the EDA lease revenue route, we're probably into early
September, which then provides those proceeds in early October. If we were to act on certificates of participation, we would then be looking at issuing bonds on I believe it's the you're
meeting on the 15th of August. Let me just go back to my notes here. Apologies, I'm working off of two separate computers. 18th, excuse me, of August, which then gets you proceeds on the 11th of September.
So to recap, the quickest option is the certificates of participation. The longest option is those HA lease revenue bonds. And again, it's because of all these different procedural steps that is found under the redevelopment authority.
So in terms of the interest rate on the bonds, it's the same. Um again it's all a lease uh sort of arrangement between the county and then whichever sort of counterparty that we have involved whether that's H EDA or the trustee.
So we don't have any concerns here of selling the bonds marketing the bonds um given the size and likely the term um that the county may want to proceed with. We think that these will um be well accepted by the market regardless of the again the mechanism whether
that's HR, EDA or certificates of participation. So before we get into desired term, I'm going to pause there and ask for any questions that I can answer about the different options. Questions?
Do all of these have the same term? Like we could decide on a 15, 20, 25 year or 30 year. Yep, that's correct. Okay, Mr. Chair, Jessica, do they all have the option of refinance? They do. Yep. So, in we as we get closer
to the timing of issuance, we'll kind of take a look at what those market conditions are, but I would say that we'd put a call date in the bonds regardless of what type of lease structure between seven and eight years. And the reason that we wanted to bring this forward to you today is because the
county will be putting in a certain amount of cash to reduce the size of the bonds. We want to make sure that you're getting proceeds when you want them. Given the fact that you've got a couple of million dollars that you're going to be putting in, but given the magnitude
of the project, of course, those dollars are going to be out the door pretty quickly. Um so we just want to be um transparent in providing that information related to the timing of when proceeds would be delivered. So evidently the first op first option
need to decide is which one of the three options. M Mr. Chair, just for clarification, Jessica, really we're talking about the earliest proceeds would come in first part of September with the CO, correct? And then the second option would be late
September, early October. Yep. And the third option late October. Correct. And the H was late October. Correct. Correct. And that's due to some of those additional procedural steps that would
need to happen prior to getting to the point of the HA holding the public hearing. Because certificates of participation do not require a hearing because again we're not establishing a redevelopment area or an economic development area. You're able to proceed
much quicker. Mr. chair. Then I guess it's discussion over whether or not you want to dip into the county funds first or second or third because the longer you wait, the higher chances you're going to spend the 2 million in cash
first, which maybe isn't a bad thing. I'm just if we wait with the HA process and not get dollars until late October, we for sure will have billings before then. Correct. But if we do the HA like we
told the residents, you know, that was an option. We could also ask the planning commission for a special meeting and then get it at the Foley council too at a certain point, right? Well, and that would speed it up. I think schedule-wise Foley council has
got a meeting coming up July 8th, I believe, and planning commission the 10th. So, there's enough notice time today. And then if we do the HA uh what would that do to excuse me what
would that do to our process with the H? Would that still leave us at end of October? So the the issue is that the planning commission needs to take action before the local municipality can take action. Correct. Yep. If we've got a planning
commission meeting on the 10th and of course you could probably schedule something earlier if you needed to. Um then the next opportunity for the local municipality to take up action would be July 8th. And that assumes that we can get the planning commission together
prior to the 8th. Of course, if we do wait until the county planning commission meets on the 10th, then our next opportunity, I would believe Yeah. will be in August. Yeah. First Tuesday in August. Yep.
Yeah. Because if we don't have if so let's just say that we can't get the um the city to act on the 8th the next opportunity then would be the 22nd then we would need to notice for the hearing for the H which would push into August.
Gotcha. Then about a month later is when you're holding your actual bond sale and then four weeks later you've got proceeds. Okay. Couldn't you get a special meeting before then? I'm sure they could. I don't know if there's enough notice time, though. Is
it three-day notice, Monty? On special planning commission meeting? I would imagine it's a three-day notice. Um, Jessica, a question for you. So, uh, the the planning commission action, is it just a regular action or is it a public
hearing? The planning commission action is simply just taking action on the land use and making again making sure that it's in harmony with the development plan for the county. The public hearing is at the H.
So I believe and I could be wrong about the planning commission but I believe that a three-day notice is what is required. Then yeah then if it's not a public hearing then then three days is applicable. We need a decision and I'm just speaking because I didn't
vote for the H. I but I think I think staying that route would be the way to go. I I would have to agree because we did say that we could do the H route. We've never talked about the other two options. It's just a matter of time
frame. Yep. And but I do think we should get a special meeting together. Yep. Mr. Chair, and I don't mean to correct you necessarily, Commissioner Heinen, but I believe we talked about many options at the beginning of this process. Correct. These are all one of them. We did talk
about many options and I agree with you, but we we specifically said H. Absolutely. That was the latest action. Absolutely. We we didn't really elaborate on the other two options, but I am open to suggestions.
Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Chair, Jessica, is there a typical re action that happens in this situation? I wouldn't say there's a typical sort of method. Um, again, if we're if we're looking to move
things along quickly, certificates of participation is your best option. The county though has utilized HA lease revenue bonds in the past. But because this particular property is land that was most recently in the last couple of years acquired by the county, that's why
we have to go back and sort of redo the findings that were done back in '94. Um otherwise the existing findings would be fine, but again we're we're looking at some different property here. So that's that's kind of the the crux of it.
I really uh Commissioner Johnson, I believe it'd really be up to you if you really wanted to bring it to the planning commission. Well, I mean that's I guess that's this board's decision to do in direction. Correct. I'm just
looking for your your opinion. This case I'd have to call a special meeting because I quite our June 26 meeting was cancelled. So it would be either a special meeting or wait till the 10th which would then push the city meeting off a few weeks. I I wasn't done to the understanding that the planning
commission had to see it first. So that changes the schedule a little bit. Mr. Chair, would it behoove us to ask the question to Pete on how this affects their side? I think schedule-wise, we're still going
to maintain with the schedule that we currently put in the specifications where we still potentially could start, especially if you're going to use some money inhouse. uh you're going to have a few contractors submitting some mobilization bond costs, but for the most part there'll be the excavator
starting up and uh we'll set up a billing date where the work takes place and then of course 30 days later, 35 days later payment is made. We'll work those dates out with Christine and uh Monty. But with that being said, if we don't start till later part of July, your first billing
wouldn't be due till the end of August, which would allow then sometime in September for payment. Okay? And it's not like every contractor there will be working day one. So it will be a throttle up at this point. I would I would support
the H, but I won't support the rest. I have mixed feelings. And the only reason I say that is cuz now we're adding three meetings, which is an extra cost, which is minimal. I get it. But it's still an extra cost.
And if we're moving forward with this, why add those extra costs? I think it goes back to again that you're telling the public, well, we decided this and now we're going to change to this. Monty, what's a what's the extra cost
for a special uh Well, you can't commissioners can't get paid for a special meeting. I realize that, but planning board. Oh, they do. It just be the PDM times uh seven seven eight eight members about $500 plus mileage.
So that's an extra $600 roughly just for a special meeting, right? Minimal on $25 million project. Yeah, I'm okay with the H. I'm okay with the H, too. I know it's going to postpone it a little bit, but
that's what we did say and I'll stick to that. Yeah, even though it's going to cost us a little extra money. Okay, I'm good with the H. We just try to get this through as quickly as possible though with special
meetings and everything. Need a motion. I would suggest you also have some discussion about term. Uh so as Jessica starts working on on uh all the related legal documents, it'd be good to know. Is that correct,
Jessica? Am I jumping ahead to things? Look, that's perfect. Um so we have as Monty mentioned you do have I believe in your packets 15 year a 20 year a 25 and what we call 30 it's 29 years actually it needs to be paid within 30 years of
issuance so it comes down to um 29 principal payments. So in in very broad strokes, this is oversimplifying, but every five years that we add to the term, you're looking at about an
additional $4 million in interest. That assumes that the bonds are outstanding for the entirety of the term. However, it assumes that you're not going to refinance these bonds, which I'll I'll tell you that most cities, most counties that do end up issuing lease revenue bonds ultimately end up refinancing
them. Again, there's always the chance that market conditions don't exist where it makes sense for savings to do it, but given given the the length of time that the bonds are outstanding, what history has shown us with interest rates is that
there likely would be that opportunity. So, in terms of the payment, obviously the shorter the term, the higher the annual debt service payment. The longer the term, the lower the debt service payment. So, we've generally historically we've been sort of focusing
on a 20 and a 25 year term. Um, but we can certainly again look to something shorter, look to something longer. Um, but I'll pause there as I do know that you have those uh those debt runs in front of you and
let me know if you have any questions. I guess Monty, do you have uh what percent of the levy would that each one would be? Uh obviously it varies with the term. Uh I guess maybe you could, you know, give me a sense of which which
one you're thinking of. Well, I think I'd like to know from, you know, there's a there's a substantial savings on the 15, but that's 2 million bucks on the county's property level. I'd like to know what that does to the levy for the first for the next 15 years versus 20
years and 25 years. Well, I I would need a little time to sort of crank some numbers. Mr. Chair, I looks like the So, I'm looking at the 20 the 20 year. So that I just picked
that first year of levy uh principal and interest. So it' be about an 8% levy increase for the 20. And again, I just picked that first that first uh number. Uh let's see. I didn't think the 15 was
in serious consideration, so I didn't. Let's see. Let's go. Let's go with the eight. And then the the 25 drops down to about a 7% levy increase. So [Applause] 25. So again, the 20 is about an eight
and then the 25 is about a seven. About a seven. So you're looking at a 1% decrease per five per five years basically. That's how it's kind of working out. Yeah. So like a 30 year would be roughly 6%.
1 26 85. What's shocking is you go from a 20 to a 30 and it's an extra $8 million in interest. I had that discussion last night with somebody that does this and virtually he said that that's a lot of money on
the county's to go to to 25 to 30 for your mil your payment. Um, and plus he said you didn't figure you you don't figure in the refinancing that'll probably take place in there, which is more than he's been
and done this for some time. So, there will be refinancing opportunities if this is the route you're going to go. Um, and the savings could be even greater than what is expressed today. Yep. So, if it's helpful in taking one off the
table. It's it's not common to see these bonds over 15 years. Obviously, if that's palatable for the board, it saves you money in interest. Um, but given the the life of the asset that's being financed, 15 years is is pretty
uncommon, right? Yeah. 15 years I think is undoable to the taxpayers. Yeah. I mean the whole works is undoable but 15 years is very undoable. Mr. Chair, to that point, I'll I'll bring it up again, and I know I'm in the
minority, and I'm in the minority with my four peers here, but I talked about the 15 year at the very beginning of this process, and on 30 million, it was a $6 million savings in interest. Again, from a 20 to a 15 is about a $4 million savings. I understand your point,
though. It is a higher payment. I get that. I'm just trying to express the additional interest costs that will be paid. And you've always been in that that but not everybody can afford Yeah. And I understand tax break. I understand that
too. Go ahead, Mr. Depa. So what we're saying is that there's a bond got approved for 24 million some dollars. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? It would be it would be 22 if
using that math because there's going to be cash put towards it. Okay. So to me It's another exception to the tax period because you got to pay all this interest on that information should have been brought out how much it's actually what the actual dollar value cost is at the
end. It's not 22 or 24. After 30 years, you tack on that interest, you got a project of over 30ome million. That's wrong. Well, this is that's just Jared. Just let me talk. Okay. Am I right or
wrong? Yes or no? It's going to cost more with the interest because you don't the county does not have the money. The you're you're 100% right. It's no different than buying a house. Do you do you calculate what that house
really costs or a car at the end of it? I think people would be very frightful of that. I would say that they would have a big down payment on a house and not borrow that money. That's how I do my um calculations and math in my business.
So, so when when you brought that up, I brought that up to the the board about putting together a savings plan and I got ridiculed for that. Well, a savings plan should put in check before, but that's not it's
not what happened before. It's what's happening now. And now it's not a $24 million project. It's going to probably be closer to do the math on 30 years and add up the interest and tell everybody every That's where I'm at.
We're going to have to pay that interest and your taxes are going to continue to go up every year because of that interest. Well, above and beyond, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Um I've got to leave in four minutes. Um, so you can either have keep having
this conversation now or if we need to take action, there's two of us that have to leave and then it'll be on use three to take the action. Now I'm down to three minutes because I do have to leave. Monty, what was uh what was the
percentage on a 15-year loan? Uh percent like levy increase. Yes. Okay. Let's see here. 2120439 / 24931 859
8.5 8.5. Right. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm redoing my numbers for you. So that's what I was in the process of doing. It's not much of a difference between 15 to 20 if I'm going to recalculate my
numbers. 4 million in interest. It's 4 million in interest. So correct. Monty, if it's helpful to you, the impact to the county's tax rate would be just shy of 4% on a 15-year term. So
3.972. Thanks, Jessica. Yeah, it was a 20-year term, we're at 3.34%. Mhm. 25 is 2.996 and 30 is 2.829.
But again, they're all subjected to refinance. Yeah. Mhm. But there's no guarantees. That's what I was telling us. But there is a guarantee you save 4 million in interest. Correct. Mhm. Payments higher. Payments higher, but
I'm in that 20 year. I'm I'm Yeah, I'm stuck on the 20. I won't do the the 2.1 million in levy dollars. Okay, we got two of them at 20. I'm fine with 15 or 20. Either way, 20 is just
fine with me, too. Okay. I can live with the 20. I'd prefer the 15. Fair enough. I'm good with either 15 or 20. It's only a.5% difference. So, from 15
to 20, we save $4 million. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for a 15-year motion dice for lack of second. Mr. Chair, I'll move for a 20. I'll second that.
Roll call. Beth. Commissioner Benoy. I. Commissioner Heinen. Hi. Commissioner Pop. Hi, Commissioner Johnson. Hi, Commissioner Gapinsky. Hi. Sorry, Mr. I have That's all the business we have before
you, Mr. Chair. So, okay. One more comment from Mike. at the end of the day presented to the public and have our taxpayer decide. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Chair, just so it's
in also in the record that at the last meeting I also commented said that from my opinion this was a very material change when the bids were opened. So people can hash that out how they will. Um I I just want to make sure that that's clear, too. There's multiple other records that could be included,
multiple minutes, multiple meetings, and it all needs to get put together. Okay. I just want to thank the board first because I think you've been very transparent and I think there's a lot of people that are going to agree with the decision you made. I think us taxpayers of Benton County and you know, no none of us like to pay more taxes, but I
think you have served us well. I've been a resident for 43 years watching this all and I think you guys have made a very prudent decision. Thank you. Thank you. One more and then we're done. Mr. Chair, I'd like to mention that uh when we first come out about bonds or whatever it is to come
through the back door with this other bond and you guys can say that you can come back through the uh back door or whatever. Mr. Headley's one representative said that we would get it would go to a people's vote. Those were words out of his mouth that it would go
to a vote and he had the petition. you get this petition signed with these votes, the people went out, they spoke, they got it. All of a sudden, they come to the next meeting. That's totally off the board and it's thrown under the table. That's dishonest. That's the way
I see it. And uh and deceive the public. I probably agree with you 100%. Put all the apples on the table right from the beginning. Don't put don't don't don't bring a cart at the end with another option. And that comes from the lady that's not here today that's on the
screen. She could have came to here and we're doing a video. Why? I think we're all adults. I think we can all agree to disagree and I agree that this was done wrong. Okay. Thank you.
With that, we're adjourned at 10:17. Let's shut off