Board debates whether to demolish and surcharge Barbara Roberts site now as funding remains uncertain

The board heard a detailed update from project consultants about the Barbara Roberts redevelopment, including an analysis that demolition plus site surcharging would improve long-term soil stability and shorten the future construction schedule.

“We're in 50% construction documents…and once we have that, we'll go in for permit, which will include demolition permit. We're hoping to demo the building in August,” one presenter said while describing the design schedule and next permitting steps. Consultants explained the geotechnical approach: place roughly 4–7 feet of rock as a surcharge, allow it to sit for weeks to compress underlying soils, then remove much of that surface rock for reuse on site; doing that work ahead of full construction could reduce future settlement by a few inches and speed later completion.

Cost estimates discussed at the meeting put the demolition plus surcharging at about $1.1 million, with the demolition portion under $200,000 and the rock/surcharging representing the larger share. Board members expressed concern about proceeding without having half the estimated phase‑one funds in hand. “If we don't have at least half the money to start this building…and we're just we tore it down and it's just sitting out there vacant, then what do we do?” one board member asked.

Staff and consultants said there are funding avenues being pursued: applications for federal community-project funds (two $2.5 million requests under discussion with members of Congress), ongoing work with state legislators, a $1 million donation from Hampton Lumber and in‑kind material donation conversations with suppliers for rock and rebar. Staff also noted submitted and pending grants (including a solar construction grant and previously awarded $500,000 that positions the project in federal systems) and recommended a short May 1 special meeting so the board could approve a resolution to spend the Hampton Lumber donation and submit the solar-grant application.

Board members raised practical concerns about the temporary rock pile: safety and attractive‑nuisance risks, fencing, erosion control and whether the fire-tower grant (a separate grant linked to site development) would require altering grade. Consultants recommended covering and fencing the surcharge, using erosion controls and a secondary fence if needed. They also said they had done borings and two environmental site assessments that identified only minimal hydrocarbons in a dirt pile and that a septic tank will be checked during demo.

Why it matters: the decision to demolish and surcharge now affects the project timeline, grant eligibility and reporting, equipment storage and public safety. Board members asked staff to produce a clear funding timeline and a visual schedule showing application deadlines and expected notifications so the board could decide whether to proceed with early site work or wait until a higher share of funds is secured.

The board did not vote on demolition at this meeting; staff and consultants will return with more detailed financial breakdowns and schedule options.