Bowling Green is looking into its options for a new City Administration Building.
The site of the current city building is the logical choice, according to Brian O’Connell, city utilities
director.
He recommended at Monday’s Board of Public Utilities meeting that the city start the process to evaluate,
study and plan for a new city building on the city-owned property between North Church Street and North
Main Street.
The city owns the site of the Wood County Senior Center at 305 N. Main St., and also purchased the home
at 316 N. Church St., adjacent to the administration building, at 304 N. Church St. The total acreage of
the parcel is 1.86.
“That does provide some additional opportunities that this site didn’t have in previous years. This might
be a good time to move forward investigating this site for what we could put here and how it would
look,” O’Connell said.
The city building, built in 1903, originally was a school and later a library. The city has located
administrative offices there since the mid-1970s.
In 2015, then-Police Chief Brad Conner said the old structure restricts the possibility of security
upgrades, and Public Works Director Brian Craft said the building lacks a sprinkler system and will soon
require a roof replacement, among other maintenance issues.
None of those deficiencies have been addressed, and added to that are tight office and meeting spaces,
under-utilized space such as the third-floor lobby and inefficient heating.
One office doesn’t even have a window, O’Connell said.
“Obviously this building has known deficiencies and problems,” he said. “Now we’ve got the opportunity …
to do a study to determine what size of building could go here and costs … those have to be done in
planning for our future.”
There are 14 offices in the three-story building, and “While the building may seem bigger, we can’t put
offices out there in the hallway,” he said.
The maximum capacity of council chambers is 66 people, meaning during well-attended meetings, people have
to stand out in the hall.
After O’Connell started in 2004, the carpet has been changed and some more efficient lights have been
added, but parking remains limited and employees have to park one block over in City Lot 4.
He would like to see a building with a drive-up drop-off for utility payments, and better access for
pedestrians.
He did not know how long it will take for a study to be completed, but he is hoping the preliminary plan
is in place by the end of the year.
Also under consideration is whether the senior center building can be reused in any way, he said.
“I think the public will want to know for sure what kind of reuse that building could possibly have. We
have to know also if that’s a possibility, what costs are involved, what limitations does that put on a
future building,” O’Connell said.
The first step, he said, is to advertise for requests for qualifications from architectural/engineering
firms. The goal is to find firms with previous experience with government buildings as well as firms
that have performed projects on similar sites in a downtown area.
The study would be paid for with $50,000 from the City Building Feasibility Study in the utilities
budget, and $50,000 from the city.
If approved by city council at its meeting in May, the RFQ process could be concluded in June, he said.

“I’m excited to begin looking at possibilities,” said City Council President Mike Aspacher. “I’m
supportive of the idea of keeping the city building in the downtown area.”
It’s too soon to tell about the feasibility of keeping the senior center, he said.
“I think that is one of the things that the consultants will analyze, is the condition of that building …
and take into account the most efficient use of the entire site,” Aspacher said.
At the meeting, O’Connell recommended the scope of work could include:
• Review the current administration building size, operation, layout, parking, buffer zones, and access

• Recommend the new building size and layout, including the new building, parking, buffer zones, and
access
• Evaluate the existing facility for deficiencies and costs to correct them. This evaluation can be
incorporated into a new building without sacrificing functionality, access, architectural aesthetics and
maintenance. Identify and pros, cons and associated costs
• Recommend architectural styles and durability of building materials to aesthetically fit with the
downtown while considering life expectancy and maintenance costs
• Provide architectural renderings of the building and site options
• Recommend sustainability options beyond the standard building code to consider incorporating into the
building and site, including associated costs
• Develop cost estimates for design, engineering, demolition, construction, equipment, furniture and
annual operating and maintenance costs
• Recommend the phasing of construction, including utilizing the existing city building during
construction or the temporary relocation of offices and the associated costs
• Recommend a design and construction schedule
The city donated the land at 104 S. Grove St., site of the former BG Schools District’s Central
Administration Building, to the Wood County Committee on Aging. That department is currently designing
and securing funds for its new senior center.
The current senior center was built in 1913 as a post office, but was taken over by the committee on
aging in the late 1970s. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The topic of a new city building has been discussed for many years, and originally was planned on what is
now Wooster Green, which the city purchased in 2012. Other locations also have been discussed.
Early in 2015, Mayor Richard Edwards said the city did not have the funds for a new building and that he
did not currently support such a structure on the green space. At the same meeting, he said there had
been interest in utilizing the former Mid-Am Bank building downtown as the site for city offices. Using
a vacant building in the city, or even constructing a new building on the city-owned green space on
South Grove Street (future site of the senior center) also was discussed at that time.