01-04-89 Parking Comm MinutesPARKING COMMISSION
•` January 4, 1989 4:00 PM Council Chambers
ATTENDING: Chairman Gordon Pirrie, Mayor Kennedy, Police Chief Ad Clark,
Ed Gallagher, Bob Ivey, Steve Cooney, Kevin Calnan of Main Street Realty,
and Howard Fryett.
Chairman Pirrie stated he had talked to Bill Cooper of School District #5
about Montana Hall. The School District has not come up with a selling
price yet, but would like to get an appraisal and sell this property in the
future. The Commission feels since the current Parking Commission funds
are committed to FVCC, they need to look toward funding from tax
increment for future projects such as the the purchase of Montana Hall.
Mayor Kennedy stated that the City would be preparing the budgets in the
next few months and the commission needs to put their budget together so
it can go through the budget process. Ed stated that with the Eagles lot
paid off, the Commission needs to look at, and anticipate the revenue that
will be coming from there.
• Gordon stated the Commission is looking at more parking lot activity, such
as the purchase of Montana Hall or other properties for parking. Lots are
very badly needed for downtown employees so they stop parking on street.
The Commission would like to have free parking available for downtown
business owners and employees in the near future.
Ed Gallagher stated that there is a tax increment committee and all
requests for TIF monies will go to that committee, as well as the budget
hearing process and council. He stated that if the tax increment
committee recommends certain requests to council, there then can be a
line item established.
There was lengthy discussion of employee parking, making lots free, the
impact of the college's move on parking, replacing parking meters, etc.
When asked if monies that the Commission might be allocated had to be
used by the end of the fiscal year, the Mayor stated that it could be
carried over to the next fiscal year. Mayor Kennedy asked if there are lots
owned now that are not being fully utilized that could possibly be sold and
other, more useful, lots be purchased. Gordon suggested the Commission
members think of solutions to these problems and they will be placed on
the agenda next month.
1
O'Neil Property: Kevin Calnan presented two letters to the commission
from architects stating their opinions of the structure on this property.
(attached) The appraisal from Bob Brown addressed the land only for
$105,000.
Howard Fryett asked what the City policy was on purchasing property, are
appraisals used as guidelines or what. Ed explained that appraisals are
used as a guideline, but it is the Council that makes the final decision.
Howard moved that the Commission recommend to Council to purchase the
O'Neil property, Block 75, Lots 5-8, for $120,000, contingent upon there
being enough funds left after the purchase of FVCC properties. Steve
Cooney seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Steve opened discussion on the garbage bins in First Alley W. and the
possibility of putting in a trash compactor instead. The compactor would
be centrally located, could be placed on the cement slab located over the
bunker, and not take up any parking spaces. This will be on the agenda
next month.
Meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM.
•
9
Gordon Pirrie
420 Lake HIlls Lane
• attn:: Mi. Gordon Pirrie
re: O'Neil Building
Dear Gordon,
At the request of a friend, I am
and rehabilitation study my fi'{�-ier!
feasibility study this spring whose s
preliminary designs for a main
and a quantity survey (COL Est), gte T
•
Unfortunately the
impediments were the cost
required by the law firm, a
and paving the adjacent p
costs of rehabilitation
This is not inferrin;
sound foundation and *Isut
of a
minimal`asbestos coi
apounts«The curre
D.
OijOest ih.a.1 i`
sq. ft, of .tl%4 main'l
new comeyeial4wij
3 Jan 1999
Aithis letter outlining a recent evaluation
ArO-m',th, :b'Neil Building. We conducted a
; cTiked evaluation of the existing building.
b -a- cy and second floor law office
plept�0 the proposed rehabilitation.
tojFdi: i,d',agt progr s;tie}]ond this stage. The major
f provtdhig a;hydrau c'ierevatnr for handicapped access
the ost f operl., mo6hing, compacting, draining
6-tp
ns. Otir-dients' budgets could not accomodate the
a pP �ng, isbod1drivalue.l0ur investigations revealed a
adla(cbpL+ill�tn'i"txterior brick walls are
ril.A. VC_bf th etisEng built -up -layer and
ro , TJtis condttlio is shared by most older
:. g Tiding are the clear -span
coil a d w 6{yro m 4 rehabilitation and the
)mething hait a isUng£Fr 1+�:;tdings contain in large
rwptjge£imhe it dual access to de second floor.
�bifi-!I-g,tu �Vu� cgwoiYed OU�a �p I a�IY $ 20.00 a
k 26 (Ib f#tr`:fk oa'secaiTd 1%tifi,iF r 1_9m i'tivii sake . the
could allo� o n
535.00/sq. �•!l �c��,,bUtl'AO_.
Tbt5y-A Aifi$ fias�atue
rehabilitadea as`4iesgktl
.o• Yializeia s0ings In tc struewee of roughly
i
J 1,
r op mat - vest-Aifferepce.between '
on and re ni&u -this tuilding Ia
lb potential b eainswWad aev coastructioi.
C
en Willi S.
CC: Mr. %ev) C6lnaacl ["'INIE EL.t-VAI10N t r DOVE t: S TRH;' l:;t-.1 T
!There exists one portion on the second floor,west wall which has sustained some
moisture damage. The extent of the damage is minimal and repairable.
rrvl;ng i MISS
sgn V V ELILRAMS
f o t tt 1 /88 with a fct.
A R C H I T E C 'T
1 3 7 M AIN STREET K A L I S P E L L, M O N T A N A
5 9 9 0 3 - 1 7 4 1 (406)752-1169
0
•
• BRINKMAN & LENON
248 THIRD AVENUE EAST P.O. Box 1095
Mr. Gordan Pirrie
Chairman
Kalispell Parking Commission
Kalispell, MT
Re: "O'Neil Building" Valuation
Dear Gordan:
• ARCHITECTS ANC ENGINEERS •
TEL 1406) 755-5075 KALISPELL. MONTANA 59903.1095
December 29, 1988
I have been asked to provide a valuation of the "O'Neil Building". I am
happy to share with you some of our thoughts about the valuation of the
property.
Before I get started I must point out that we are not in the business of
appraising property. We do, however, have a feeling of what the property is
worth or at least what it was worth to us. Our interest and evaluation came
when we looked at buying the property and investing money in the renovation
of the building to be used as our office.
We approached the building in two ways. First, is the land more valuable
than the building. In this case we would tear the building down and start
over. Second, is the building worth saving. In this case we would remodel
the building to suit our needs.
If we were to build a new structure we calculated it to be a $90,000 building
project (1,500 SF x $60/SF). The total cost of the land and building would
have been $215,000 ($125,000 property + $90,000 building).
If we were to remodel the existing structure we calculated a cost of $40,000
to remodel it to our needs. That broke out to be about $21,000 for the
general work, $9,800 for the mechanical, $7,600 for the electrical, and
$1,600 for miscellaneous costs. Thus the total cost under this scenario was
$165,000.
Our feeling for the project was that the best solution was to remodel the
existing structure. While we would have liked to build a new building (who
wouldn't?) it worked out to be much cheaper for us to remodel it. Our
decision not to pursue the matter further came about because of a very
favorable renegotiation of our lease on our present office space.
Sincerely,
BRINMAN and LEMON, PC
Tan Hoinecke, P.E.
TH;rcd
cc: Kevin Calnan
HARRY SCHMAUTZ. A.I.A.. P.E. JAMES B. STEPHENS, A.I.A. KENNETH A. MILLER. A.I.A. THOMAS C. HEINECKE. P.E.