District staff presented three options for a consolidated administration facility and the board discussed trade-offs between cost, functionality and future growth.

District Manager Christian J. Heine reviewed the history: the district had planned a new 15,000-square-foot building at 20 East Civic Center Drive and estimated preliminary construction costs in the $6 million to $8 million range, with design estimated around $680,000. After a market search the board looked again at two existing buildings: 63 East Spalding (current lease location) and 713 East Spalding (the former Intellatech/Spradley property, listed at $3.5 million when it was first posted). Heine said 63 East Spalding had previously been listed at about $1.29 million and the seller later reduced the asking price to about $1.112 million; the adjacent parcel at 79 East Spalding is listed separately, which could allow a district-built addition of roughly 5,000–7,000 square feet.

Architectural options and ballpark renovation figures for 713 East Spalding were presented in three tiers: “good” (essential, minimal renovations) at about $1.7 million and an estimated five-month construction timeline; “better” (more finishes and hard-wall offices) at roughly $2.5 million with an estimated seven-month timeline; and “best” (comprehensive remodel including new facade and extensive improvements) at about $3.8 million and an estimated 10-month timeline. Heine emphasized the district could phase renovations over multiple years if desired.

Board members spoke at length about trade-offs. Director Brian Gray and others favored acquiring or expanding near 63 East Spalding to gain an immediately usable facility and reserve capital for an aquatic center, while some directors raised concerns about parking availability and utility easement constraints at 63 East Spalding. Director Axworthy noted potential conflict-of-interest questions that have arisen in prior discussions and emphasized that any disclosure obligations would be honored; director Vickers and Director Gray said they preferred a lower‑cost solution that would preserve funds for community projects such as the promised aquatic facility.

Why this matters
The district has operated from leased space for more than five years and staff said consolidating into a district-owned facility would reduce recurring lease expense and create a long-term asset. The choice affects available capital for other projects the board has prioritized — notably an aquatic center — and could require road or parking improvements, changes in utility access, and possible phased construction.

Next steps
Staff said they will prepare a letter of intent and supporting materials for board direction and that an executive session could cover negotiation strategy. If the board pursues purchase-and-renovate options, staff will bring more-detailed financing and construction cost estimates for board review.