Facebook
RSS![[Masthead]](http://www.fstribune.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (28)
When the city purchased the building at 123 S. Main St. for the purpose of relocating City Hall, then city manager Joe Turner said there would be about $11,000 worth of renovations, mostly structural, which needed to be made prior to moving operations. The number presented to the commission was significantly higher ... the low bid from Buildet Construction, of Nevada, Mo., in the amount of $96,128 in addition to an alternate item, a dumpster enclosure, in the amount of $13,017; bringing the total cost of the renovations to $109,145.
"I was just surprised that it came in as much as it did," Commissioner Jean Parker said. "I was not under the understanding that it needed that much structural work."
Commissioner Gary Bukowski described the news saying, "It was a bad surprise ... It's just made that building a whole lot more expensive from what we anticipated."
The commissioners were aware that minor work would need to be done because the floor was not rated to properly support City Hall's load which includes storage, file cabinets, and heavy foot traffic. In addition there would need to be some masonry work done to replace broken or missing bricks on the outside of the building. What was not expected was that there were many areas not built to code.
Richard Zingre', project architect, said that the windows needed to be replaced and that there was a large amount of structural support renovations which would need to be made.
"What got me the most was how extensive the renovations would have to be ... it was considerably more than we anticipated," Bukowski said.
Parker added, "I'm thinking a little bit, [Zingre' is] thinking a lot ... maybe there was a miscommunication there."
In addition to the increased structural work, the bid also included the replacing of a stairway on the exterior of the building, which Bukowski said was a safety issue. However, he was not aware until it was time to award the bid that he was informed of an alternate bid which included the construction of a dumpster enclosure to cost more than $13,000.
"That dumpster enclosure was something that -- no, I wasn't aware that it was something that we needed to do or should do ... that wasn't part of the initial discussions," he said.
Not all commissioners were caught off guard. Mayor Dick Hedges said that he knew that there was money budgeted for the renovations -- the final bid price was less than budgeted, according to Fort Scott Director of Finance Susan Brown -- so there must have been some idea of the potential cost of the renovations.
"For whatever reason we have a different opinion on how surprised we are," he said. "You can always second guess."
Now that the decision has been made, the commission can only move forward.
"Right now we can't look at 'what ifs'. We've got to deal with it and roll on," Parker said.
Both Parker and Bukowski agreed saying that the entire situation could have been handled differently. Bukowski said the sense of urgency in making the deal got in the way of having a proper engineering assessment completed.
"On my part, I would have liked a little bit more explanation into how structurally sound it was," Parker said.
As the old saying goes, "hindsight is 20/20," and that is the case with Parker and Bukowski. If the facts were known ahead of time, Parker thinks that the city may not have purchased the building in the first place. Bukowski added that the city could have been better off walking away and letting it go to the private buyer who was believed to be interested in the building as well.
"If I had known prior that it was that bad off, maybe we could have looked at doing something a different with it," Parker said.
"It would have made a difference to me," Bukowski said about having more information prior to the purchase of the building. "I'm not anxious to see us have to throw more money into the project, I was hoping the renovations would be no more than $20,000."
Hedges said that he doesn't believe that the city would have passed on the building saying that the benefits of having full handicap accessibility would have outweighed the additional cost.
Comments
City ready to close on new City Hall
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
FS Tribune
"Some minor work will need to be completed before the offices are moved over." said Joe Turner
After this renovation it still will not be big enough for a city council meeting or municiple court or am I wrong about that?
Unfortunately, this is just another bad decision made by the City Commission. I try to support the decisions made by the Commission (as do others I'm sure), but the past two bad choices (the Armory and now the downtown building) is making it harder for the citizens to believe in them.
Well, looks like the City is caught "with its pants down". Not sure how/if they can recuperate.
Sounds like Hedges was the one driving this. And, don't forget that the building is not adequate enough to even hold commission meetings there. Add to that the fact that the City did not get an appraisal on the building before purchasing it and obviously did not even have the codes officer see how far off it was in meeting the city codes. Well, doesn't the high school have a little group of students that renovate buildings? I saw them in an old drug house on the east side doing some work so maybe they could do the work on the city hall. Also, a dump enclosure for $13,000. So, you all know this was just another set-up of the citizens in Fort Scott. Can you believe that they didn't get an appraisal before buying the building or have it inspected? Is anyone that uninformed and, well, ignorant and if so, should they be serving the City?
It would seem that another alternative is to sell the building. Why is it so critical that city hall has to move right now. You could always leave the building as it is and wait to renovate. What are we going to have down there that has to cost over 100000.00 to renovate. Why dont you tell the citizens that. No one thinks of the citizens struggling to pay their bills while the city buys truck tractors mowers new buildings only for there own use. City taxpayers can always wait for later. Seems a whole bunch of citizens should come to the next meeting, flood city hall and demand resignations if this is an indication of how messed up this city is really ran. Can' the commissioners ever say no.
Why does the city need to continue with this. There are other alternative. The building could be put back on the market, or leave city hall where it is until a new renovation project is announced to the taxpayers as to what reovations are going to be made.I wonder if these revovations are actually necessary. If some commissioners didn't know what the cost was projected I would assume they didn't know what the extent of the renovations are going to be. I know the taxpayers don't know. How can you vote yes on proceeding when you don't know what you are voting on. Times are tough. If we didn't spend this budgeted renovations would you lower the mill levey in the same amount or would you keep it in the rathole so city workers could find more new toys to buy.
Do you hear that big sucking sound citizens????
That's YOUR money being wasted again...
When the contractor came back with all these extras, the bid should have been sent back out for re-bidding. In addition to that, why does it cost $13,000 for a dumpster enclosure!! A dumpster enclosure is a cement or gravel pad with a fence around it. Sure does not cost $13,000 to do that. Obsurd.
I understand the thinking of: "Now that the decision has been made, the commission can only move forward"; however, I believe part of moving forward must be learning from previous mistakes. With just this article's information I'm not sure how it is that we are moving forward in a positive direction with a learning from our mistakes.
I realize that the commission is trying their best. I don't think they are blindly spending on mistakes then blindly spending to fix those mistakes. With this in mind, I would like to not be blind as to the how/why decisions are made. I hope the answer isn't "we (only) went on the word of our previous city manager".
With the understanding that Mr. Turner is no longer a city employee, I believe it is still encumbered to the city commission and/or Tribune to obtain and provide answers from his research concerning this. (Example: "Where did he come up with $11,000?", "What are the differences in his estimates and the bid?", and "Why did he not consider said differences?")
It is my understanding that this is a fairly "new" building. (Especially for it being in the downtown area.) With that in mind the last line of questioning that I feel should be posed is how is it this building was able to pass inspection after construction was completed? Have codes changed that much recently? I don't have the answers...that's kinda what I expect journalists and those making the decisions to find out.
Finally, to the city commission and Tribune. I hope these words are not seen as me trying to blast your efforts. I am happy that you give your time in the way that you do. I just hope that we (commenters and public) gain a greater understanding of the decision making processes by the commission and information gathering by the Tribune. Maybe then we (commenters and public) won't be as quick to denegrate said information.
pastoral I do agree with you. Lets just buy a building without getting all the facts. No individual would ever just buy a building without getting all the proper inspections and information needed! I hope they can some way turn this around into a positive decision. However, my hopes are running low. When is election again?
Our tax dollars at work. I am sure our commioners were looking at this building like desert, unfortunatly their eyes are bigger than their stomachs.
I have to agreee our elected officals sure do not set a good example for whom they represent.
I agree we need new leadership who will look at the big picture, not think of just themselves.
Change is good!
I think we all, including myself have become too complacent in our lives and we need to pay more attention to who we elect to serve us.
Better yet, we ALL need to start attending these business meeting. We have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing this situation to get out of control.
I responded to this story before and my comment disappeared..mmm...as I said before...why did the city buy this crummy replica of an historical building when there are so many truly historical buildings empty downtown..? Like the old Tribune building, etc.?? We need to preserve our history and spend our money on saving the old 19th century buildings downtown..not the newer buildings that are poor examples of 20th century architecture..
It is a shame our money is not being put to better use and Fort Scott has no better sense than to buy an undersized modern building that needs so much money to renovate...when they could have spent the money to preserve a historical building and gotten grants to do it..!!!
How can it be that a Kansas state office was housed there and it passed codes. The bid for improvements and structural renovations seem to be inflated to me. Is the contractor trying to take advantage of the city? Just asking.
"It is a shame our money is not being put to better use and Fort Scott has no better sense than to buy an undersized modern building that needs so much money to renovate...when they could have spent the money to preserve a historical building and gotten grants to do it..!!!"
Great point!
I agree with you on the old Tribune building too.
It seems to me that our former city manager pushed this through (along with selling the Armory building to FSCC). These were voted on by the commissioners and none should be singled out as being responsible.
I don't agree with selling this building since the city is now aware of the problems. These arguments will only be used by any prospective buyer to get it at a much reduced price. The city may as well keep the building, make the needed repairs and use it for city hall or move PD into it and then go look for one big enough to serve the needs (including commission meetings).
It also looks like there would be potential to recover at least some of the costs of the renovation. The prior owner evidently did not disclose the code problems, which should have been done. There's also the contractor who built this structure against codes. Let's let our city attorney earn his salary & get the lawsuit on file.
Due diligence would have been to do what most buyers are told to do when they have a COMPETENT Realtor....Get INSPECTIONS and RENOVATION costs BEFORE making an offer on the property!!!Would this have been too difficult to do..? It is not like this was prime real estate and there was a bidding war going on for it..
In every way this was a big FAT mistake!
Especially since a more historical building could have been saved from further deterioration!
And isn't our city responsible for making sure buildings are up to code??? So although we have a codes officer employed by FORT SCOTT...They STILL bought this not-up-to-code MONEY PIT??...It really makes me angry!! Obviously the codes officer should be thrown out along with the rest of those deciding to buy this lemon and throw our money away!! I would have rather seen the beautification of Wall Street done that was proposed but voted against.
First off, I would like to thank the Tribune for the wonderfull picture. The only thing that could have made it better is to add Turner's picture in the middle. But I would like to ask of you, Tribune staff, can we refer to Susan Brown by her correct job title, Assistant City Manager?
I don't understand why this comes as a shock. Susan Brown said it herself, the quote was less than what she had in the budget. This would leave one to believe that she and Turner knew it would cost more than "$11,000.00". I don't understand how you could budget this project for $150,000 if you didn't have it in the back of your mind that it would cost more than 11 grand.
Turner and Brown both knew this was going to happen, they just had to get it by the commission before he "retired."
How about some of those empty buildings on Wall and National? The old Tribune Building, and real soon the Cosmetology School will move to the old Armory, and there is the former popcorn factory that has been empty for a while (that should pass any load test as I'm told it used to be a car dealer many years ago). I also think the City Commission should put to use what buildings are available.
Let's face it, the building was purchased so the police department would not be able to have the armory. This is why the deal was rushed and proper inspections were not completed. I would also want to know if the city has all this extra money, then why did the city employees not get a raise this year and will only get 1% next year?
Mr Hedges, a respectable man, a city commissioner,a man of great influence, has more loyalty and interest in the local college than he does the city.
Vote him out, and get someone in who is city first, college second.
It is amazing how much stuff will be blamed on Mr Turner after he is gone, when the same kind of scenario's according to many citizens go on thru different city managers.
Perhaps it is worth a look and see who(if any) has been involved continually thru the decades in one capacity or another as the arbitrator or (for lack of a more politically correct term)instigator of the decisions that are made in the city, and see if they can be voted out in the next elections if you are unhappy with how things are going.
i think i liked that spot better when it was a bowling alley.
The reason the building isn't up to code is the Code Enforcement Officer has nothing better to do then pick on people with the most trivial things. when other people can liter their yard with cars...dog pens and half done garages and storage sheds..makes me wonder do they even have building permits? why not check that..oh wait she prolly dosent.
The blame lies with the city commissioners. These people are your representatives and you voted them in. If you didn't vote, you are part of the problem. You must understand that the city manager works for the city commission. Susan Brown and the 2 people in the Codes office work for the City Manager and they do what they are told to do by City Manager as in, they would not have went in to inspect the building unless told or permitted to do so and Susan Brown makes recommendations but ultimately has no power to spend or decide what to spend the budget on. The City Commission is screwing the people and just because they grew up in Fort Scott does not mean they care about the people of the City. Get a clue!
How many people are willing to go against their boss when the boss wants something done. I had heard that when the HR man Mr Johnson was let go that Mr Turner said that it was the commissions wishes and that they were his bosses and that he would not go against their wishes, so he let him go. This is probably the same sort of situation. The commission wanted the commission got.
How many people are willing to go against their boss when the boss wants something done. I had heard that when the HR man Mr Johnson was let go that Mr Turner said that it was the commissions wishes and that they were his bosses and that he would not go against their wishes, so he let him go. This is probably the same sort of situation. The commission wanted the commission got.
like2b_onree
"Perhaps it is worth a look and see who(if any) has been involved continually thru the decades in one capacity or another as the arbitrator or (for lack of a more politically correct term)instigator of the decisions that are made in the city, and see if they can be voted out in the next elections if you are unhappy with how things are going."
What makes you think that this person or persons is an elected official? Just might not be!!
Yeah,that's possible, but even so,
apple-polishers who are there to support his desires can be voted out, and people voted in who are more diverse in their views.