In just under 20 years, the Kansas State University Lyon County Extension Office has moved a total of three times. The last move — to the former Deer Trail building near the Lyon County Fairgrounds — cost taxpayers more than $750,000 with the costs of buying a building, remodeling it and moving the staff and equipment.
Former Lyon County Commissioner Myron VanGundy, who served on the commission until December 2006, said the cost of the former Deer Trail building was a bit high when the county bought it.
“It cost more to bring that building up out there to what they wanted than I thought it probably should,” VanGundy said.
Commission Vice-Chair Marshall Miller said the cost surprised him a bit, but it will serve the extension office for years to come.
“I don’t think we’ll lose our investment there on the Deer Trail building,” Miller said. “I think our investment will hold.”
By statute, counties are required to provide quarters for extension offices, which are part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Extension office budgets around the country are a mix of federal, state and county funding. Every time the extension office has moved, it’s been at the behest of county commissioners.
The first move, in 1988, came when county commissioners needed to rearrange offices in the old courthouse, now known as the Lyon County Annex. This move was prompted by the county’s need to move the motor vehicle office into a space large enough to contain new computer equipment mandated by the state. The extension office moved from the basement of the old courthouse to 618 Commercial St.
The latest move began in March 2006 when negotiations started for TFI Family Services to buy the building at 618 Commercial St. The county sold the building for $405,450, according to financial records requested from the county. The building was listed on county property tax rolls slightly higher, at $406,000. The move took on momentum after commissioners decided to buy the old Deer Trail building.
They purchased it for $345,000, $56,390 above its appraised value of $288,610. In November 2006, then commission chair Marshall Miller said that the property was prime real estate and could have brought more than its assessed value on the open market.
VanGundy recalled recently that the property’s location next to the fairgrounds and extension staff’s desire to be closer to the fairgrounds clinched the deal.
“That’s why we bought that building,” he said.
Remodeling of the building was estimated at $200,000. In reality, the contract to remodel was signed for $303,000 with Markowitz Builders. Then came change orders, which extended the length of the project and the cost.
Markowitz Builders went 43 days over contract, said Dan Slater, the county’s controller. The overage was waived because there were so many change orders along the way. There also was some debate as to what or who actually held the remodel up and whether the drawings were submitted in a timely manner.
“There were a lot of things that happened that weren’t planned out in the beginning,” Slater said.
The final cost of the remodel, including some equipment and furniture purchases, was $422,118.75, based on county financial records examined by The Gazette. With 4,515 square feet to remodel, the project averages $93.49 per square foot.
“The building costs were pretty reasonable,” Slater said of the big picture. “If we had kept 618 we would have had to do a major remodel.”
According to change order documents provided by the county, the extension remodel contract started out at $303,000. Then came eight change orders:
- Changing plate-glass spans on three sides to stucco, $2,306, 10 additional days;
- Insulation on top of new ceiling tile, $3,153, two days;
- Raising the sewer system, $1,345, two days;
- Adding data openings, outlets and light fixtures, $1,948, two days;
- Cutting out bad joints and caulking, $3,899, no specific contract extension because weather was a factor
- Installing a roof-mounted combustion air intake hood, $1,706, no specific time extension; and
- Painting, net cost $869 (total cost of $1,337, but a deduction of $468 for not painting one room.
- Electrical items including an extra outlet, light switch and data ports, $335.
Although the remodeling is “officially” done, expenses keep coming in as more items are needed. Commissioners approved another $725 for window treatments in the building during a recent commission meeting. There are still expenses that will be associated with signage, paving of the parking lot and landscaping. Lyon County Commissioner Bob Davis announced recently that he would donate a stone from his rock quarry that can be engraved for the extension office. Davis said the expense of engraving the sign will fall on the extension office. He suggested the office raise funds to help pay for the engraving.
While the project was being completed, the extension office made its second move — back to its roots in the Lyon County Annex. That move was temporary and came because the old Deer Trail building wasn’t ready by Nov. 30, when TFI took over the building at 618 Commercial St. On Jan. 17, the extension office finally moved to its new home.
It’s a move that former and current commissioners applaud although they wish it could have gone farther.
Miller said he would have preferred the extension office be located on the Lyon County Fairgrounds.
“The ideal location would have been to put them on the end of a new pavilion on the fairgrounds,” Miller said.
Davis said it’s important for the county to support the Lyon County Extension Office. He said the program is a K-State program and most of the funding comes from the state. From the county standpoint, the extension does a lot for area schools and other programs. He said the meeting room in the building is frequently used.
“We look at a lot of the county funded programs and it fits in,” Davis said. “It’s at the top of the list of the worthwhile programs.”
Miller said the thought of moving the extension onto the fairgrounds could still happen — someday. Because the former Deer Trail building isn’t encumbered as part of the fairgrounds future commissions could do what they want with the building. But money is going to have to be allocated for improvements and new buildings to the fairgrounds before that concept can happen.
“We are going to have to allocate tax dollars to that,” Miller said. “I think the county commission has a responsibility to see that goes in the right direction.”
Extension agents, meanwhile, are pleased with their new quarters. Agents Brian Rees and Michele Koenig said the new location, which is near the Lyon County Fairgrounds, is serving the agency well. Their former home was in the heart of downtown — where parking came at a premium and people with large vehicles with trailers had a hard time stopping in.
“We love the location,” Koenig said. “Love it. Love it. Love it. It will be really nice during the fair.”
Rees said the location is a real asset.
“From the agriculture perspective they can get into here with any vehicle,” Rees said of the parking lot. “A number of people have commented on the availability of parking.”
Lyon County Commissioner Scott Briggs agreed that the location is ideal.
“I think they are in their final home,” Briggs said. “This is a good fit for them. During the fair it will be good for them.”
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Sounds like a broken record with city and/or county commissioners. They think up a big project, don't think it all the way through and it costs way more than expected and takes longer. I agree the agents' current location is much better than their old one. I just wish the people spending our tax dollars would LEARN from past mistakes and do more research and planning before jumping into projects. Buy high and sell low? Good thing they're not stock investors!
February 27, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"...the property’s location next to the fairgrounds and extension staff’s desire to be closer to the fairgrounds clinched the deal." I guess this means the fairgrounds are there to stay.
February 27, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
logical (anonymous) says...
What the article does not mention is that the county is using the building to store the L-CAT buses and has since it was purchased. Extension only has about 1/3 of the building. Why did it only list the expenses toward extension and fail to mention who else is utilizing the building?
February 27, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Here is a blast from the past.
The 1st 3 posts are from the original story date of 2008.
March 15, 2012 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
This is all old news from 2008, even Brandy Nance's story is from 2008 .
However, just goes to show the spend it, if you want it attitude of our leaders.
JMO
March 15, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )