I want to also point out that Ald Frazier voted against a study on a new public works building. Is he also going to be against funding a feasibility study? It will have to be done but since its not on his agenda how will he vote? I guess we will find out just how much he really belives himself when the time comes. It will be expensive of course so would a study for a new building. Should be interesting.

Well I am glad all of you have the answers. I happen to know the mayor(Mr.Chesmore) is still looking into this building. I also happen to know that all options will be looked at. And there are not two votes against it as stated. The mayor can only vote to break a tie. This is all in the infant stage and to not look at future costs such as engineering of the old building to meet future PD needs would be neglectful on the part of the city council. Plus the PD needs garage space what would that cost to construct? There are alot of if's here and for anyone to come out and attack this early is childish. I would suggest that people come to meetings to learn more about whats happening.

I am so GLAD I voted for Brett Frazier!
He gets it.

Why restore the history of a town/city when you can just bulldoze and build something shiny and new? Striegl and Chesmore should be ashamed of themselves. Especially Chesmore, who I know has spent most or all of his life in Milton. Take some pride in what you have, folks, and quit trying to be something your not. Old fashioned charm goes a long way in attracting visitors. More shiny new properties in Milton aren't going to bring any more folks to town. People come to Milton for the historical, quaint and friendly feel. Not because Milton finally got a 2nd stoplight.

Thank you, Brett (and Jim), for at least thinking about the feasibility of repurposing buildings. Milton is losing a lot of people too due to plant closures, etc. Many homes are for sale and some have even left them empty not able to rent them. City Council? Please look at ALL options before making decisions. Sure, everyone wants new, but it sometimes just isn't feasible.

Maybe the people that Tom Chesmore is talking to are the city workers and THEY WANT a nice shiney NEW building to work in. WANTS and NEEDS are two different things.

It seems a majority of people would rather live in the past than accept that the future will be filled with monolithic domes. I peronally don't care if the landscape changes in a fashion that bespeaks natural conservatism and an Arthur C. Clarke sci-fi conventionalism, but I would endorse it. Change IS inevitable. I hope the Milton city council adapts accordingly. As far as being bullet and earthquake-proof, I doubt those factors will carry any weight in the council's eyes, but maybe those eyes will light up when they realize that people will see the city of Milton as having adopted a postion of forward thinking and I believe that at least SOME of those people will bring their business and money to the area. People who are concerned with what their children will have to live with in the future are the ones we want around, in ANY area. Of course, placement is an issue...

If Milton can't use the Daland building for a police station and decide a new building, the city council should consider building a Monolithic Dome.
http://www.monolithic.com

In addition to being fireproof, tornado-proof, termite-proof and even earthquake-proof, Monolithic Domes only require about half the energy to heat in the winter and cool in the summer, which will save the taxpayers a lot of money down the road.
"According to Jones, during the first five years they were in the domes, their local gas company would pull its meters each spring. The gas company could not believe the low readings, so they pulled the meters to check them for accuracy."

Price, Utah, had a set of 4 domes built, one for a fire station, another for a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, one for storage and a smaller 4th dome for an administration building.

After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA started taking a look at Monolithic Domes as emergency community shelters, and in 2009 funded a combination tornado shelter/preschool classroom in NIANGUA, Missouri.
http://www.monolithic.com/stories/februa...

One other thing the Milton PD might appreciate about Monolithic Domes, they are bullet-proof.
http://www.static.monolithic.com/thedome...

I hope an honest effort is made during the feasibility study. Open minded has to be the approach when seeking a solution. I would much rather pay for functional preservation, than to pave paradise.

This is Milton Alderman Brett Frazier.

Jim's got it right in his blog. I am the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission in addition to my responsibilities as an Alderman so I'm naturally interested in the repurposing of these buildings. I'm hopeful that a viable use for each of the buildings of Milton College can be found, but after thirty years (my whole lifetime!) I'm done waiting around.

As most people who follow the Council's meetings in Milton (hopefully both of you are posters here) I'm a bit conservative when it comes to spending tax dollars. That sets the stage for a pretty painful year for me in 2010 since there is most likely a majority on this Council who will vote in favor of not one, not two, but three new buildings and the borrowing that goes along with it. I don't disagree that there are needs with our facilities. I've previously posted and spoken at meetings about my plan to attack these building projects over the span of the next 25 years, but this post is about the reuse of the Daland Building specifically.

This building underwent extensive remodeling as Jim points out about ten years ago. There is ample space for the department and it's proximity to City Hall would also be a benefit. This building would centralize the department and the additional space would provide immediate and cost effective solutions to our departments needs for increased and higher caliber evidence storage, proper locker facilities (right now there is one "locker room" for all officers- male and female officers take turns utilizing them) as well as addressing space for growth in general. We can utilize a building, provided the numbers aren't out of control, in order to meet the needs of a growing professional department that is moving toward accredidation while at the same time minimizing the impact on taxpayers. A project like this could very well be eligible for grant money not to mention the proceeds from the sale of the current station.

Jim is correct on another point- this Council does not seem all that interested in looking at options other than building new to address facilities needs. Maybe I'm alone in my desire to meet real needs in our city through means other than tax tax tax...I hope not. Sometimes you have to spend money and it's never popular, but sometimes you can spend way less money and get the same if not better results. I'm just trying to be responsible when we're talking about investing the people's money.

It takes a gallon of gasoline to replace every 8 bricks. If people understood the energy cost of building new, preservation, rehabilitation, and reuse would be the norm instead of the exception.

The Milton I remember is proud of "re-purposing" and "sharing" and "making do." Very, very few cities do joint ventures with the city and school district working together the way Milton always has. Heck, isn't the library still housed with the School District (and CESA did have some offices in that building at one point, too?). I agree with you that most of the people I remember would rather see an existing building "re-purposed" if at all possible. On top of it,people are proud of Milton College and want its buildings in use and in the public view.