Solving Vineyard’s Space Puzzle

June 21, 2025

Architectural Plans and Bond Parameters

I first became aware of the need for new city space before I was selected to fill Council Member Rasmussen’s seat in November. In January, I voted to contract for architectural plans for the Vineyard Center because regardless of financing the plans continue to have value. In April, I voted to approve the bond parameters based on the worst case analysis provided by Vineyard’s fiduciary LRB and with the stipulation that the council have an opportunity to reevaluate them in our May 14th meeting. My intent is and always will be to take the time to understand the details of city projects with additional focus on large projects that require debt financing. I do not take debt lightly. Every city expenditure I vote for affects me as well. I am also a Vineyard citizen and taxpayer.

I have carefully listened to the voices of our residents. I have read opinions, reached out personally to those that vehemently disagreed with me and met with those that just wanted to understand. Although I believed in the proposal, when I saw the concern and questioning from reasonable and informed citizens trying their best to weed through the conflicting information, I saw a clear signal. It became clear that enough of our community is not comfortable with the current bond financing that it would be irresponsible of me as a representative of the people to continue it as it was.

Before making this decision, I spent many days learning about the Vineyard Center, the needs that prompted it and the proposed financing to construct it. I firmly believe that the proposed bond plan was affordable and fiscally responsible for our growing city. However, it is disappointing that we, as a city, were not able to effectively communicate the critical need for the Vineyard Center, the creative financing structure, and its overall affordability to all of you. I recognize that this communication gap created a ripe environment for misinformation to spread, making it even more challenging to have a productive dialogue. I have been critical of the city for this communication gap, but as I reflect on how to solve the communication problem, I realize that our communication struggles are also a reflection of all of the amazing things happening in Vineyard. When I review the City Manager report and see just how much our staff are doing, it no longer surprises me that we, as a city, are limited in how much we can dedicate to the slow methodical communication that we all crave. I believe that collaboration between council and staff with a little more focus can alleviate some of this.

The Problem Remains

While repealing the bond parameters may be a relief to those uncertain of the feasibility of the bond, it is critical to understand that the underlying problem that necessitated the bond parameters in the first place, the critical need for adequate city office space and community facilities, remains unsolved.

There may be some that believe there is no problem to be solved and city staff should be able to operate as they are. To that I would share an anecdote from early in my own career. I found myself working for a consulting firm with a contract with Nextel. I was assigned to a room with several six foot tables with 3-4 folding chairs at each table and a power strip. Each day, I would arrive with a laptop, plug in, sit on one of those famous folding metal chairs and work my day. In my 25 year career, I have walked off of two jobs without notice. This was one of them. While the work environment was not the only reason, it played a large part in my decision. As the collective owners of Vineyard City, what culture do we want for our employees?

While I do not believe that they need $1200 Herman Miller office chairs, I also do not believe that they should have my Nextel experience or the experience of 3 employees in an office designed for 1 or a desk setup in a printer alcove. The last two are a current experience for city staff.

In my 25 year career, I have seen what happens when employees are unhappy repeatedly. As morale drops, engagement drops, as engagement drops quality suffers. In a city, that translates to the service you get from our city staff. We have an amazing staff in Vineyard that genuinely love our city. However, the long we leave our space issues unaddressed, the more likely it is that we see service levels drop and staff turnover increase.

So how do we solve this problem? It’s more complex and nuanced than most of us would like to admit. An oversimplified state of the problem is:

We want service levels to rise.
We need people to raise service levels.
We have no space for people.
We need space for people.

Evaluating Potential Solutions

When I approach a solution to a big systemic problem, I evaluate multiple dimensions of the problem. Three dimensions I often use are:

Desirability: Is the solution something that those experiencing the problem actually want?
Viability: Will the solution last the test of time?
Feasibility: Can the solution be implemented?

Ideally, I can research and collaborate to find a solution where the answer to each is yes. However, the bigger and more complex the problem, the less likely it is that a solution with a simple yes to each question is possible. The more likely solution scores on a range for each dimension.

What we need to solve Vineyard’s space issue is a solution that reaches an acceptable level for each dimension. Let’s look at some options that I’ve thought about. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list with complete analysis, but rather a quick qualitative evaluation of known options.

Do nothing: This is always an option.
- Potential Consequences:
  - Service levels likely drop
  - Staff likely lose morale
  - Staff turnover likely increases
  - Lease costs in the HBA building continue to rise
  - Vineyard is unable to staff in order to maintain new infrastructure
  - Vineyard’s residents likely increase complaints
  - MAG partnership is not an option to share costs
  - We eventually arrive at a tipping point where this is no longer a viable option
- 🔴 Desirability: This may be desirable short term to taxpayers, but will quickly become undesirable as time passes.
- 🔴 Viability: This really isn’t a viable solution as service levels will drop below acceptable levels.
- 🟢 Feasibility: Yes, this is 100% feasible.

Temporary 2-4 year space: I believe that this is what our rented space that is already full represents. However, there are suggestions for additional trailers or similar temporary space.
- Potential Consequences:
  - Additional temporary space is likely installed in the space dedicated for the Skate Park and the residents who want the Skate Park will wait, not only for Skate Park funding, but also for Vineyard office space
  - The City’s ability to hire is temporarily improved
  - Those requiring service may be sent to multiple locations perpetuating and likely compounding the experience that exists today
  - Lease costs in the HBA building continue to rise
  - Parking becomes an issue at city offices
  - MAG partnership is not an option to share costs
  - We eventually arrive at a tipping point where this is no longer a viable option
  - Land for a more permanent solution is less available as the downtown area has multiple years of development filling the space
- 🟡 Desirability: This may be a desirable short term solution, but definitely presents issues with staff morale and will lose desirability because it is not a viable long term solution.
- 🔴 Viability: Short term, this is viable, but temporary is in the name of the solution which by definition means that it is not solving the problem and is therefore not viable.
- 🟢 Feasibility: Yes, this is 100% feasible.

Fire Station Solution: Similar to how Vineyard is moving forward with the Fire Station, the city buys a home and temporarily uses it as office space until a more permanent solution can be found.
- Potential Consequences:
  - The City’s ability to hire is temporarily improved
  - Those requiring service may be sent to multiple locations perpetuating and likely compounding the experience that exists today
  - Lease costs in the HBA building continue to rise
  - Parking becomes an issue at city offices
  - We eventually arrive at a tipping point where this is no longer a viable option
  - The city incurs expense to remodel a residence being used as office space back into a residence
  - MAG partnership is not an option to share costs
  - Land for a more permanent solution is less available as the downtown area has multiple years of development filling the space
- 🔴 Desirability: This may be a desirable short term solution, but presents more problems such that I cannot imagine desirability for long.
- 🔴 Viability: Not only does this not provide a long term solution, it essentially provides the same temporary benefits as adding trailers but then adds the cost of a remodel when it outlives its use.
- 🟡 Feasibility: Technically, this is feasible, but it sure feels like it shouldn’t be.

Repurposed Recreation Center: Use the space at Gammon Park designated for a recreation center. Build a structure that will ultimately be a rec center but initially use it as office space until more permanent city office space is needed and available.
- Potential Consequences:
  - The City’s ability to hire is permanently improved
  - Departments are co-located and the issue of sending people to multiple locations is solved
  - No more lease costs at the HBA building
  - MAG partnership is not an option to share costs
  - We eventually arrive at a time when the building needs to be used as a rec center
  - We are faced with the decision of permanently keeping offices in a building designed to be a rec center or incurring the expense of a new building
  - Land for a more permanent solution is less available as the downtown area has multiple years of development filling the space
- 🟡 Desirability: This actually solves some problems at a potentially reduced cost which is desirable to both staff and taxpayers. But, it still ends with the same difficult decision that we face today which reduces its desirability.
- 🟡 Viability: This will last much longer than other options but likely ends with the same problem we have today or the option to find a different solution for a rec center.
- 🟡 Feasibility: Yes, this is a feasible solution but the impact on the rec center and loss of MAG partnership to share costs lowers its feasibility.

In Recreation Center Location: Decide now that we will not have a recreation center at Gammon Park and build a city building on that location.
- Potential Consequences:
  - The City’s ability to hire is permanently improved
  - Departments are co-located and the issue of sending people to multiple locations is solved
  - No more lease costs at the HBA building
  - MAG partnership is not an option to share costs
  - We are faced with a recreation center problem that now needs a solution
- 🟡 Desirability: This definitely solves some problems at a lower financial cost, but replaces a prime location for a rec center which lowers its desirability.
- 🟢 Viability: This is absolutely a viable long term solution.
- 🟡 Feasibility: This is a feasible solution, but it is less feasible because of the loss of shared costs with MAG.

City Hall Only in an alternate downtown location: Build a minimal city building in a different location than the current proposal.
- Potential Consequences:
  - The City’s ability to hire is permanently improved
  - Departments are co-located and the issue of sending people to multiple locations is solved
  - No more lease costs at the HBA building
  - MAG partnership is not an option to share costs
- 🟢 Desirability: This solves the problems of today and what we anticipate for the future.
- 🟢 Viability: This is absolutely a viable long term solution.
- 🟡 Feasibility: This is a feasible solution, but it is less feasible because of the loss of shared costs with MAG.

Vineyard Center as Proposed: This is the proposal in discussion for the last 18 months and for which architectural plans are in progress. It includes a building on the main promenade with community space, an event space, offices for MAG and city offices.
- Potential Consequences:
  - The City’s ability to hire is permanently improved
  - Departments are co-located and the issue of sending people to multiple locations is solved
  - No more lease costs at the HBA building
  - MAG shares construction and maintenance costs
- 🟢 Desirability: This solves the problems of today and what we anticipate for the future while also adding additional amenities.
- 🟢 Viability: This is absolutely a viable long term solution.
- 🟡 Feasibility: This is a feasible solution, but comes at a higher cost which reduces its feasibility.

For my part, I believe that options 6 and 7 are our current best solutions. Not only would I be interested in deeper discussions of these options or other potential solutions, but I believe that every candidate for office should be able to show that they have a solution in mind and be able to speak to why that solution is the best long term solution for Vineyard.