The City of Appleton Finance Committee met 03/08/2021 to award a design and engineering services contract for the Appleton Public Library to Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM). The city had only included $2.4 million in the 2021 budget for these services, but the contract was for $2,857,459, so they also had to vote on a budget amendment to cover those additional costs.
I didn’t have an opportunity to write this up at the time because there were school related things going on and, additionally, it was basically guaranteed to be approved. But, since it is a big project I feel I ought to recap what the discussion surrounding it was.
Only two members of the public spoke publicly on the project. One of them, Walter Blank of Appleton Concerned Taxpayers expressed concerns about the budget. During the meeting Mayor Woodford and Alderperson Kyle Lobner (District 13) addressed some of those concerns. A person listening only to the meeting, would come away with the sense that the Mayor and the Council were both committed to keeping the library project within budget. However, in a post on NextDoor, Alderperson Lobner stated “Please do not take what I said as a promise that ‘future library costs will come in under $24 million.’ That number was an estimate and was made before we had even hired an architect, so it’s much too early to assume we know a final number. What I said was that some elements from later phases are expected to be completed earlier under the current recommended bid which should reduce costs later. It’s still much too early to guarantee a final cost.” So it sounds as if the President of the Common Council is open to the cost of the library increasing.
[In addition, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder what the other proposals were and why the Finance committee was not presented with a couple different options to go with instead of just the SOM proposal. Even if SOM was the favorite, it seems like they should have offered a 2nd and 3rd choice if only so that the public could get an idea of what the other options were and be reassured that SOM really was the best option. For all the claims that this process has been very transparent, this aspect of it does not seem to have been. Be that as it may, let’s commence with the recap….]
Mayor Woodford spoke first. In September, they announced a changing approach to the library project where they would focus on the current library site and renovations/addition/expansion or outright demolition and replacement at that site instead of moving elsewhere. The mayor stated that at every step of the process they prioritized communicating with the community, the council, the library board of trustees, and stakeholders in the community [I’m not sure what the distinction between “the community” and “stakeholders in the community” is] to make sure that they were perfectly clear about where they were in the process. They have gone through a review process of the firms that submitted proposals on the project and had the good fortune of looking at a lot of excellent proposals. The proposal before them tonight was one that rose to the top.
Director Gazza said this started back in September. When they got to the point of putting out a Request For Proposal (RFP), they did a public listening session on December 9. He said this was one of the most extensive RFP processes he’s been a part of. Doing the listening session was a different approach and it helped reassure them that they were including everything the community was looking for within the RFP. After the RFP was written, they put together an 11 person review board that had numerous viewpoints which were very valuable during the review process. The 11 members were:
Mayor Jake Woodford
Alderperson William Siebers, City of Appleton Common Council
Dean Gazza, City of Appleton
Colleen Rortvedt, City of Appleton
Paula Vandehey, City of Appleton
Karen Harkness, City of Appleton
Cameron Green, City of Appleton
Tasha Saecker, City of Appleton
Rebecca Kellner, APL Board President
Nancy Scheuerman, APL Building and Equipment Chair
Don Hietpas, Friends of Appleton Public Library
They had several meetings where they scored the proposals individually then discussed their scores as a team. They proceeded to interview the consultants, then had a discussion about the interviews. They then reviewed extensive references and discussed the references and then made a unanimous decision to recommend SOM. They were very pleased with that decision.
Library Director Colleen Roertvadt stated that what was especially compelling about SOM was the strength of their references. The references they spoke to were people who had done 60- 70 libraries each and so the weight and the power of their input was especially compelling. She had tremendous confidence in the recommendation they were making to the Finance Committee.
Rebecca Kellner (Library Board President and review committee member) from the review committee then spoke. She agreed with everything said before her. This was the third iteration of obtaining library proposals, and 11 proposals was the most they have ever obtained. The quality of the proposals was fantastic. One of the first comments they made was that “reading them really made me proud to be an Appletonian because the quality of the firms and the passion that came through in those proposals was really astounding”. There were a couple comments throughout the process along the lines of “gee, we got an opportunity to choose the best of the best–not the best of who was before us.” She said the process of going through the proposals was very robust. She personally spent 20 some hours reviewing proposals, and they had hours of discussions weighing the pros and the cons. Ultimately, they made a unanimous decision to recommend SOM, and she thought the references really put that firm over the top and made such a strong statement to everyone on the committee.
Nancy Scheuerman (APL Building and Equipment Chair and review member) spoke. She said being a part of this process was a very eye opening. She wanted to congratulate the staff that was a part of the process putting it together, especially Director Dean Gazza. She said it was an open, honest, and thorough process. The discussions were very open and honest. Everyone had an opportunity to share what their concerns were about each of the proposals and what they saw as the strengths of each of the firms. She stressed there was an open dialogue at every single meeting. She thought the Finance Committee should know that those who participated in the process felt as if their voices were heard and as if they were representing the community, the library itself, and the patrons of the library. She said the review panel was very confident in SOM being able to lead them forward into the future with a library that will have a huge impact on the community and the surrounding area.
Mayor Woodfor spoke again and said that he realized that when he spoke, he had spoken more to process and less to the firm being recommended. He wanted to note that one of the things that they were really looking for through this process was to identify a firm that not only understands what the city is trying to accomplish and a range of possibilities that they’re hoping to explore with this process but also a firm with a demonstrated ability to execute the project. That was evident in the proposal from SOM and their experience with adaptive reuse. He thought it was particularly compelling the way they’ve reused buildings and brought new life into buildings. From his perspective, it was not only understanding the project but also that demonstrated ability to take on a project like this and give it the attention that it deserves that made SOM desirable. He was impressed in even the early discussions with the SOM team at the level of attention the firm devoted to preparation and those conversations which he thought spoke well of the desire of the firm to work with Appleton. He thought that they would be fantastic to work with and deliver a project we could all be proud of.
Members of the public were then allowed to speak.
Walter Blank of Appleton Concerned Taxpayers spoke. Their organization reviews the city budget and gives voice to a significant portion of the population who often tells them that “it doesn’t matter what we think; they do what they want”. He said he disagreed with that sentiment and he appreciated their listening ear in their decision making. ACT strives to have a positive impact, looking for win/win outcomes. They would like to see the library go forward in a way where everyone feels like they’ve been heard. He said he just listened to two speakers talk about how everyone felt good speaking during the review panel meetings, but he wasn’t part of that group and a lot of the public wasn’t. He noticed that about $450,000 over what was budgeted would be given to SOM. He didn’t know why that firm was chosen when panel members said many good firms submitted proposals. They didn’t know if SOM was the lowest bid or the highest. There was little transparency in that area. They did know that the cost was 19% above what the city had budgeted which was a red flag. Of course the request for the additional money can be explained away by saying the city was going to move this future spending forward and save money in the process, and that might true, but the past tells says that it’s possible that is a bait and switch and somehow “save money” will turn into just “more money”. In 2018 Commercial Horizons was awarded $327,000 for similar work with around $220,000 going to the design and engineering work for the proposed library at that time which would have been transferable to other potential locations if the considered site at that time was rejected. During that discussion, several Council Members (Coenen, Spears, and Konetzke) voiced arguments against this. Alderperson Coenen noted that in no project that she’d ever seen have they ever approved that much money without knowing what it was for. Alderperson Kyle Lobner stated that spending the money was necessary to find the answers, and the money was spent. Walter stated that he got this information from a September 6 Post Crescent article by Mica Soellner. He wanted to know what the other 10 firms offered and for what price? The public has not been given this information. Why was this firm deserving of the contract? Most families when shopping for a car will walk in and look for something in their price range and reject the luxury model that is shown to them as a temptation. He was sure the review board published some reasoning for their unanimous choice.
In closing, he pointed out that in 2000, Neenah opened its brand new 50,000 square foot Library For The 21st century at a cost of $6million. That amount included demolition of the old building, asbestos removal, movement of material to and from the temporary storage, and building and equipping the new library. Appleton is starting with a $3 million outlay. Will they control this process or let it run wild? Today they already approved the extra spending. That is a red flag. The Finance Committee serves as the gatekeeper for the city’s finances yet over the past 5 years the city increased its debt on an average of over $10million per year. That is unsustainable. The Appleton Concerned Taxpayers believe it is time to focus on the needs of the city–not just the wants. That includes what we will commit to the renovation of our library.
Community member Jason Brosek then spoke. He said he read through the available information and this seemed like a clear recommendation to him. He read about the firm and he was impressed that Appleton has been able to secure a firm with a global reputation, but, more than that, that SOM has a community minded vision from the documents on their website and the documents they’ve submitted. He liked that SOM is willing to think boldly and creatively about libraries as critical, community hubs and not just about book warehouses. He totally supported recommending this to Council for approval.
There were no other community members who wanted to speak.
Alderperson Kyle Lobner (District 13) asked Alderperson William Siebers (District 1), since he was the Council representative on the review panel, if he had anything to share.
Alderperson Siebers said he felt honored being on the committee. When they got the 11 proposals, they individually went over those proposals and then came back with their ratings. He said it was interesting how none of the 11 members were comparing notes with anybody else at that point then they came back together and had a discussion and they could see it narrowing, narrowing, and narrowing until, when it got down to making a final decision, it was a slam dunk. He alluded to Walter Blank’s concern and said they were not selecting the firm that was the cheapest but, rather, the one that matched all the criteria they were looking for. He said they selected a top notch firm that they believe is going to give Appleton a top notch library. He said that they were all looking for a library that the community can be proud of and that meets our needs. It is not necessarily going to be something that is grandiose as the Concerned Appleton Taxpayers were worried about. They were looking for something very, very good–something we can all be proud of and that’s going to serve the citizens of the city.
Alderman Matt Reed (District 8) thanked the various boards, panels, and staff members who were so involved. He had a question regarding the wording of the item they were voting on “Proposals received for design and engineering services to redesign the Appleton Public Library”. He said the library project was a big talking point among constituents and the big concern for folks is they want to keep the cost down and they want a library that serves our needs. He wanted to know when the proposal uses the word “redesign” are they limiting it to redesign or are they looking at new construction as well. Are they leaning one direction or another at this point? His second question was where does this specific design work integrate with the rest of the planning for the neighborhood surrounding the library?
Director Gazza said they were going to look both at redesigning and at new construction. That was one of the requirements in a firm. They do feel that there are good bones to the current facility so they don’t want to discount that and say that they’re going to demolish that and start from scratch if some is reusable. They really went after a firm that could and had experience with adaptive re-use. They also are looking at sustainability–possibly LEED certification. They’re definitely looking at both options.
Mayor Woodford added that this has been a point of emphasis all the way along. From the very moment they announced the change of direction in September they’ve been clear with the community and also in the RFP that they want the firm to evaluate options and help the city evaluate options. He thought part of the reason to hire experts to work on a project like this is to give good advice on the best way to accomplish desired goals. In this case, one of the city’s goals is to deliver this project within the budget that is available. It may be that reuse is the right way to go in terms of meeting that objective. On the other hand, reuse may carry expenses that we don’t yet understand and a firm can help the city work through those details and help them understand the trade off of various approaches. The mayor said they really have put an emphasis on evaluating the existing structure because they believe it’s important to steward the assets of the community. If they can make use of part or all of what is there then they would like to.
He went on to say that in terms of where this work fits in the overall neighborhood planning process, once a firm is determined for the library design process, that will really set in motion the finalization of RFPs for the neighborhood level planning work that they’ve been talking about. They want to do this work concurrently so that they’re not waiting for a library project to be completed before they start thinking about what’s going on in the neighborhood. They also don’t want to wait to get the library project moving again until they’ve sorted out the neighborhood plans. In the neighborhood RFP process they’ll be looking for something very different then designing a library building. They’ll be talking about the neighborhood and the interconnectedness or the potentials for connections between institutions in the neighborhood. He specifically mentioned the Building for Kids, the Public Library, the Appleton Historical Society, and the History Museum at the Castle and did not mention anything about Valley Transit [although it seems to me that Valley Transit’s presence there is a huge issue in making that neighborhood a desirable place to be]. He went on to say that a neighborhood level plan will help them identify neighborhood institutions and more clearly articulate the community’s vision for the neighborhood north of College Avenue. He expressed a desire to build from strength and put the library at the center of the work as opposed to having the library be a contingent part of a bigger plan.
Alderperson Siebers appreciated the mayor’s words. That neighborhood is in his district and they have often felt that north of College Avenue has been a forgotten part of the business district. He looks forward to the day when something positive in regards to that neighborhood happens. He wanted to make sure the public understands that with any vote that night and any vote by the Common Council didn’t mean that there was no longer any room for input from citizens. This contract with SOM is just the beginning and there will be plenty of opportunities for citizens to be involved and give their input and opinions.
Alderperson Lobner wanted to talk specifically that night about the reasons for the budget adjustment and wondered if someone could speak to that.
Director Gazza said that when they put together the 2021 budget, he did an estimate of what he thought they would spend in 2021–not necessarily what he thought the contract for the architect would be. They budgeted money in 2021 and more money in 2022 and more money in 2023 as the project goes on. They won’t be doing any construction in 2021 so the money for the budget adjustment will go into 2022, but they can’t approve a contract unless the money is there for the full amount which is why they are making the budget adjustment. But the only other thing they could do is an alignment where they would only do the contract up through the design documents and then issue another contract for construction administration in 2022, but that’s not how these things are usually handled. Normal procedure would have a contract issued upfront and then payments made along the way as the project proceeds.
Alderperson Lobner said a couple meeting cycles ago they had what seemed to him to have been a similar conversation about the water treatment plant where they moved an item from one phase to another just because it made more sense to combine them. He asked if it would be fair to compare what happened then with what was happening in this situation?
Director Gazza said that they’re slightly different. In that other case, they moved it up because they knew it would be less expensive by doing so. In this case, it won’t necessarily be less expensive. It’s just that it’s more accepted to issue one contract for all phases. He did not think they would spend more than $2.4 million in 2021 because he didn’t think they would be that far along in the project.
Alderperson Lobner said that, really, they were approving a contract that will be executed over something in the neighborhood of the next 18 months with portions of it probably paid for in the 2022 budget.
Director Gazza said that this contract would go to the summer of 2023, and, actually, in the fall of 2023 is when the city was likely to make their final payment to SOM.
Alderperson Lobner said it seemed likely that an architect would not bid on this project if they were not comfortable with the budget for it. He asked if there had been conversations with SOM about the budget and how their work may fit into it?
Director Gazza confirmed there had been conversations and that SOM was 100% comfortable with the budget. That’s one of the qualities of this firm. Appleton gave them a very reasonable budget to produce a very functional library, and that’s what they’ll do. They’ll tak and design a project that’s in alignment with the city’s budget. If that budget were to change for some reason–if donations were to come in, for example–then they would be able to adjust for different features within the library. That’s another quality that SOM is able to do which is adjust as they go. But right from the initial proposal meeting the budget was discussed thoroughly. The construction budget was outlined, and that construction budget of roughly $24 million includes some other expenses such as moving the library and finding an alternate space.
Mayor Woodford said that inevitably in the course of this project the city is going to have to make difficult decisions as a community about the facility, about the scope of design, and about aspects of that design.
Per Mayor Woodford, “Inevitably–it’s a promise–we are going to face difficult decisions when it comes to what’s included, what’s not included in the project, the level of finish in parts of the project, to make sure that we are doing this project in a responsible way.” That’s a challenge that they talked through with the firms and, in particular, that they talked through explicitly with SOM to make sure that they understand. The mayor was encouraged by their responses and their level of understanding that this is not an unlimited budget or a pie in the sky project. They need to deliver a facility that meets our community’s needs but does so responsibly.
He reiterated that the city is going to face hard decisions and that’s why they’ll need input from the community along the way to help them weigh those decisions as they come up. He said it was not just the responsibility of the firm but also the city’s responsibility as the client to manage the project budget. He said he was confident in their construction administration skills and thought Director Gazza has a proven track record when it comes to project administration. Staying with budget is on the firm but it’s also on the city as a client.
Alderperson Patti Coenen (District 11) said she thought they had come up with a firm that was really forward thinking and able to look at all the different aspect that the city we wants–to not just make their mind up that they’re going to tear the building down or make their mind up that they’re going to add on to it. She really appreciated Alderperson Siebers being on that committee because she thought that he was very fiscally responsible and the library is in his neighborhood. She also had a lot of faith in Director Gazzawho does have a proven track record and is excellent at what he does. She thought that everybody is trying to keep it within budget–there’s no doubt about that. She was going to vote in favor of this because it’s going to bring the project forward. She thought there would be a lot of time for public comment and for people to have their voices heard. She agreed with the mayor that there are going to be a lot of tough decisions being made. She thought this was for the greater good of the community. She was very excited to see it happening in that location and thought that it would rejuvenate the area.
The contract with SOM and the budget amendment were approved unanimously.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=847398&GUID=D0085028-FEB7-40E7-8417-E8E41156BBD4&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply