The Football Stadium Committee met Friday to decide which architectural and engineering firm to go with in order to move ahead with the feasibility study.

“In previous discussions the group felt in order to move forward we needed professional advice,” said Tom Murry, committee chair.

They sent out requests for proposal and received bids back from two firms, with a third sending in information at a later time.

The local firm of PKHLS, which partnered with Professional Engineering Consultants (PEC), bid, as well as Schaeffer-Johnson-Cox and Fry. Murry received information later from Kara Douglas with HOK out of Kansas City.

“They are the stadium company,” said Herb Llewellyn, city manager, of HOK.
He had contacted them previously to get some information but said they would not return his phone calls.

“A year ago they would not give us or this project the time of day,” he cautioned.
Ted Albright, Butler Trustee board member, said he knew of a similar experience with the company in Hutchinson.

The committee received presentations from the other two entities the previous week and followed up with additional questions from the committee.

Once they decide on a firm, presentations will be made to each of the public entities to seek their approval and let them vote on what to do next.

But there was some disagreement over what the committee should do next before anything was taken to the entities.

“To me it’s critically important we sit down and discuss who’s going to pay what in terms of finance and ownership,” Larry McCully, USD 490 appointee, said.

Some of the things this will affect include how it is financed, such as if it’s through a bond issue with the schools or financed through the city.

McCully felt Schaeffer-Johnson-Cox and Fry had more expertise on bond issues, so if it were to go that way, they would be the best choice.

“The city has a lot of expertise if it goes to the other site we talked about,” he said.
“The college has a different uniqueness,” he continued, adding that they have a lot of success with private donors.

He also pointed out that if it was a bond issue that would go to a county-wide vote, that would stop it dead in the water.

Not only are there different ways the entities have of doing things, but also different requirements.

“We cannot participate in a project his big with a bond issue,” said Sue Givens, USD 490 superintendent.

“We can’t participate without private funding,” added Jackie Vietti, Butler Community College president.

“I think we need to decide what everybody’s role is going to be,” McCully said. “The critical thing to me is who is doing the selling here in the community.”

Llewellyn said he, Vietti and Givens have discussed the issues involved with the partnership between the college, city and school district.

He said they were planning to have a meeting to brainstorm what opportunities are out there since they all have a different way of doing things.

“Why couldn’t this be the area you discuss this because we’re all going to be involved?” Albright asked.

Murry felt the site chosen would have a lot to do with deciding who would lead the project and how it would be funded.

“I was under the assumption we decided we needed outside expertise to outline the options,” Vietti said.

She mentioned two options: what to do at the current site and what they would do at a new site.

“Until we know those two things, I think it is hard to know what the options are,” she said.

“To me it’s about us learning together,” Llewellyn said of looking at the issues between the three entities. “At some point you will need to hear but I don’t know that you need to hear today.”

Albright felt they needed to decide on a firm before they went any further.

McCully pointed out that Schaeffer-Johnson-Cox and Fry did work with private funding before.

“To me it really is a critical decision point in an architectural firm that is going to help make this a success,” Vietti said.

“I fully expect whoever we hire, we’re going to have to sell this,” Murry said.
Vietti threw out a different question to the group.

“Can we visit a project each of them has done?” she asked.

Others didn’t see it as necessary though.

“I feel we could select a firm, then go visit a stadium they did for ideas,” Murry said.

City Commissioner David Chapin said he would like to see Llewellyn, Givens and Vietti move ahead with their discussions and expressed his choice of firms as PKHLS.
He felt because they are local they would be looking out for them more.

McCully also wanted someone who would give objective evaluations of the sites at which they are looking.

“I think one firm has made its mind up on where it would be,” he said.
“There is no doubt in my mind they will be objective in the three sites we’ve proposed,” Murry said, adding their community presence and instinct would be a plus.

Chris Locke, USD 490 Board member, said he too felt they needed someone with a vested interest.

The concern was the local firm of PKHLS was charging a $10,000 fee up front that Shaffer Johnson was not, and had their percentage of the project a percentage higher, being at 7 to 8, rather than Shafer Johnson’s proposed 6 to 7 percent.

“Why couldn’t the rates be negotiated?” Locke asked.

Givens agreed they needed to see if PKHLS would offer the same contingency as Shafer Johnson, which was if the project did not get approved by voters and move ahead, they would not be paid anything.

She also preferred to use local companies when they could, but she wanted the same cost.

“I don’t think the quality of their work is different in any way,” Givens said.

She asked if it was fair to renegotiate a bid after the request for proposal process was completed, to which she was told it was.

Locke agreed if PHKLS would agree to the same contingency, then that would be a good way to go.

Murry said they would see if they would blend the $10,000 into the project and limit their cost at 7 percent.

But not everyone was in agreement.

“I still favor Schaeffer-Johnson,” McCully said. “I have sat on a board many times when the vote taken is the vote.”

Albright also preferred Schaeffer-Johnson-Cox and Fry.

“I think Shafer Johnson is much stronger,” he said.

It was pointed out that Schaeffer-Johnson-Cox and Fry had designed several stadiums, while this would be the first new stadium for PKHLS, although they have helped redesign some. Also Professional Engineering Consultants (PEC), with which they are partnering, does have some experience.

“Someone has to give them the first one,” Chapin said.

“I think the partnership with PEC will get them where they need to be,” Murry said.

Murry said he would call PKHLS and see if they would agree to the new terms.

There are some obstacles the group faces with this project.

“We have challenges with the three public entities with their own tax bases,” Murry said.  “We don’t want to draw any lines in the sand of what we will do or won’t do."

Vietti pointed out that it was the opinion of the steering committee that something needs to be done.

“Now we’re defining the ‘what,’” she said.

“I think we have the opportunity to see this as more than a stadium and field and track.”
“It’s a reflection of our quality of life,” Murry said.

There are several things the group would like to see for the stadium.

Llewellyn hopes to see it be more than just a stadium.

“If we could make the stadium more than a stadium where it was used every day for something,” he said.

The stadium is planned to seat from 4,500 to 5,500 people.

Llewellyn also wanted the coaches to tell them what they would like to have in the stadium and what they should copy from other venues.

Givens pointed out that they hadn’t even completed the feasibility study yet, which would come before talking about what amenities are needed in the facility.

“I think the community input is the most important,” she said.

There has been a lot of talk around town about potential sites for the stadium.

Murry pointed out that they have no preconceived notions about where it would go or what it would cost.

Currently, the group is looking at three possible sites.

One is the current site of Galen Blackmore Stadium.

The second is a location east of town that the college already owns.

The third is the American Legion site, which would replace the Legion golf course. They do have a contingency on this site so that it could be considered, but if it was decided this was the best location, the American Legion membership would have to vote on selling them the property.

He said they would be combining what the community wants with what they can afford to come up with a plan.