By Ed Nadolski
Editor in Chief
Recognizing a rare opportunity for collaboration that could lead to cost savings, officials from the City of Burlington, Burlington Area School District and Racine County on Monday agreed in principal to pursue a study of a shared government services building to be built in Burlington.
The leaders of all three entities said during a joint meeting of the School Board and City Council, held in the Burlington High School library, that they would put the study proposal to a vote in February.
That step – while significant both logistically and symbolically for an issue that has lingered for more than a decade – would lead to questions of much greater weight, such as: Who is going to pay for what; how much space is needed; and where will it be built?
Before any bricks are laid, officials stressed, voters will likely have a chance to be heard through one or more building referendums.
For now, however, the chance to work together on a project that could save taxpayers millions over the cost of building separate facilities for each of the entities is the prime motivation, according to Mayor Bob Miller.
“The potential is there to save everybody a lot of money,” he said, comparing the potential savings to putting up just four walls instead of 16.
Alderman Tom Vos agreed, saying, “We’re all taxpayers whether we’re paying it to the city, county or school district.”
School Board President Jim Bousman said, “The timing is perfect for us,” in light of the fact the district is in the midst of an engineering and architectural study of its current facilities with an eye toward the future.
According to Superintendent Peter Smet, the potential exists for that study to be expanded to consider the needs of the city and the county.
Motivating factor
The discussion took on an added urgency a week ago when Racine County Executive Jonathan Delagrave told the City Council the Racine County Service Center at 209 N. Main St., Burlington, will be demolished in 2017 due to maintenance issues.
That building is now home to several county services, including certain functions of the Human Services Department, Workforce Development Center and University of Wisconsin-Extension. The building also houses the Burlington Senior Center and the area Meals on Wheels program.
At the heart of the discussion, according to Miller, is each entity’s need for new space.
In the case of the city, that’s a facility to accommodate government offices, a senior center and, possibly, the public library. For the school district, it’s a replacement for the current district offices, which are housed in the Lincoln School building, which was built in 1857. And for the county, the need is for space to continue most, if not all, of the services it currently offers in Burlington.
Burlington Library Director Gail Falk said the current facility is in “desperate need of updating and space.”
Whether the new facility would include a library or other amenities – such as a community center or performance auditorium for community theater – could be rolled into the discussion.
“Personally think this is a perfect time for the three taxing bodies to figure out a way to make this work,” Vos said.
Aggressive timeline
With the clock now ticking on demolition of the Racine County Service Center, both Miller and Delagrave said an aggressive timeline is needed to ensure continuity of the services offered at the Burlington Senior Center.
While there appeared to be some debate whether a 2017 completion date is realistic for a new facility, Miller said it is important to keep things rolling even if a transitional situation is required for the senior center and county services.
He said his fear is the project would lose momentum once the County Service Center is torn down and some of the entities began to look elsewhere for space to house their programs.
Miller said the question of whether to proceed with the study will be placed on the City Council’s agenda for Tuesday. Smet said the School Board will consider it on Feb. 8. Delagrave said the county will likely have a decision on the study before the end of February.
Even if all three groups agree to move forward and a facility needs study is completed this spring, it would be difficult to schedule a referendum and – assuming it passes – complete site acquisition and finish building design before the end of the year.
Construction of a building in the 70,000-square-foot range would take roughly a year, according to Jim Scherrer, of Scherrer Construction, who attended the meeting.
Smet stressed that the question before each of the respective governing bodies is whether to proceed with a study to determine the feasibility and costs of such and endeavor – not whether any funds will be committed.
That question – and what percentage of the study costs each entity will bear – will be answered in meetings that follow.
Officials would also have to determine whether one of the entities – be it the city, county or school district – assumes ownership of the building and becomes a leasing agent for the others.
As for location, Miller and Vos, said a downtown facility makes the most sense. That, however, would lead to the challenges of site acquisition likely involving multiple properties.
Despite the many hurdles, all who spoke said the potential cost savings of shared project is too good to pass up.
“I don’t know that anybody here has a (better) choice,” Vos said.
-
-
-
-
-