HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1017 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, October 17, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5: 30 p.m. Study Session
1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum)
2. Look Ahead review
3. Status update on the feasibility study for the replacement of city hall
Immediately following the study session the Council will hold an Executive Session for
legal counsel pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
CD
N
N
O
ti
a-- `
C7 U
O
Un a-
N'
N
N
O~
d co
x
r
C~ Q) 0
•K
-0 W 0 w z z 3: Un N
cC0 tea - z z~ o
Z o
Q
Q = r' Un
.Y U C
o0 U) a
U
W It It u
- w
a~ m x N
W w
_ 0
N
vJ ~ ~ I
W p
C Q r ~ of ca
z O a
~ Q
V F-
'a LL
c Q
U
N
Q Q ~ m
c
O = >i (1) (1) i ° a~ ° Lm m LL m
U
L c p c p°°° c_ _ c c c
U2 E EmoEo EE °E
° a o ° a o° c m m° m a
W a- Q U --j Q ULL Q~ U- Q~ af< QQ ~Q
-x
* O
c O
O to to
O G
CD E
F N _ N
co o o U o ° o !C
CD O O U a o Q p o 2 m
0 (n 'a ° L I c L
E o co ° 15 E '
O _ U o p a> O O o _ p
co -
o -9,) O _
a~ O C/) c c ca ca o U > - } Yj
c x c c° m m c _ c
07
o m Y U o fl ai ° o `L° m ° O > ~ Z m co
m di
~c U E v0. g E 3 Y E U~ E °c a~ -2 a p a~ o U a'
N
m.~ ~.~m
-0 0 (D 0)
Q a~~iQ c °7 in 0 ~U ~m m N X U)
N
c d 0 c c W W c c m a c
0) 2
-0 cr. z
Y to - 0) E E o ~ O a o d O
O V Up ca m m CL o' aa'i o' o L) c v°i c E II'
o ai o •U' V d E m C V
.2 C) E~ m L NE m`-°~a~>o C) L yX0 °ca°E~ ca
Ca -r
n O c 0 y 0 a C O c E <n O
y O L7 c6 O y
y 3 7 U W U O w m~ O U d :3 O c
d c~ its ° d 2 m 0) m d •E ° 1:1 ° E m U! o ''I) d U d 'u d
m u1 c L > c m °
U w LL n - c.E - w c cU y
O cn U c L a U c c O (n
c N .y - -0 is O ° p co Q c ° c y O c G~
L c y c O c > U Ca N-0 O E U - (n
N u) O c E o c ch o O c° O "Co E c to u) o-0 co
_ a) U L U c c
CD- O O c M W (n C O W M O O CO 4- L ►r
m0~ C) o L) 0 cm o (n cc 0a) o° ° c~ c 0 O o c c ° c to
O
o a) c c m 0 o U U m m m c E c c o
L) o U a d m a Q =a o c c E m E o a o o W cr, is
4) cn (n
•L _ CO Lu L C6 L "O ~ Cd ~J E c O L CO
O c 0 O > > c E L N N O O O > c c W CU U
° O c U U n E cn in co v U m
W ~Oc~ ~N Q°~LLp pct QQQQQU q cw L p0W
_ ~ ~r cn rn o
M: N M V tf) c0 I~ co rn O N M 'a' t17 O ti N N M (p
N N N N T O O `
r ~ ~
N
• N
_ C3
N O
N CD
N
N
~ O
• N
W co
N Cn
•
it
jt
-x
it
''Wnn
~ V
Q~ Z
aQ
lie U
0
00
J ~
U
W
0 ~M
W N
O
~ N
Z d
0 Q
U ~
a LL
c Q
t p
Q Q
O
U) c
U
H ,Q
~ c
~ L QJ
O
>
U cC c E `o
c p n L' -
O x O
O N a)
r+
U d c o o U
O o ii o c o
0
O in ui c
Q' (1) U ca
O d O d
Y v ~ .w ~ <O ~ ~ O u>
(!1 r c E
U o c
U C C N p L 'o 0
C O O O N .N O a) a)
cn U) =3 -
O C
C L) U OV L <n c c
oc a,
O O E o.L.~ u)
c o E 0"~ a s
3 O U E cn E _ E m a o cUi
d o C 0 o U E o E w c E
U d O d w o .o '(n c E U E o E m o o 0 0
a O N r 'ia I o o c U U co Cod E aci w cn
n cco
U o
m
U d d ~0 E E. o cn C c ' U °
m Eo o° a o U c
m m `o
c its w c"I
j L c6 U U L - cr. o
_ co ti L c C U O
TJ o L? a~ m J C Q~ 2 m z5 a m x
O
a ~Uoa d UcoL oE
o
U N~_ N 0 o N 0 o
N mLL co ~ c c V c c c c
(D F= U3
-14
co o L c6 D 0 U o N ti N w w
UL-QCnOZ0 oo(D
O
CO
N N
N
N N
~ N
I ~ N
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
October 17, 2016, Study Session
Status Update on the Feasibility Study for the Replacement of City Hall
FROM:
Kaylea Kathol, Public Works Project Manager
SUMMARY
In May 2016, the City commissioned Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture (ORW) to conduct a
feasibility study of City Hall reconstruction or relocation, including an analysis of the space and
programmatic needs of affected City departments, an evaluation of siting alternatives, and a robust
public involvement component. ORW has completed all major components of the study and will
present the results during this study session. The final product, a study report, is on track for
distribution by the end of October.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Status
At the time of this submission, ORW has completed the information gathering and synthesis of all
major components of the feasibility study. The results currently available to City engineering staff are
described below.
Results
Space needs evaluation
Leadership from all departments located in City Hall (Administration, Administrative Services, Legal,
and City Recorder) and the Community Development building (Community Development and Public
Works) were surveyed to identify each department's current and projected space needs over a 15-year
planning period. Two rounds of interview-style surveys were conducted to identify the space needs
pertaining to individual work stations and offices, conference rooms, document storage, communal
areas, areas for public interaction, etc. The analysis identified a combined projected need of
approximately 23,500 square feet of space.
Siting alternatives analysis
The findings of the space needs study were applied toward the feasibility analysis of five siting options
for a new building including: (1) construct a new City Hall at its current location, sized appropriately
to consolidate City Hall and Community Development functions; (2) retain the historic features of City
Hall and expand vertically to consolidate City Hall and Community Development functions; (3)
vertically expand the Community Development Building and consolidate City Hall and Community
Development functions; (4) retain City Hall and expand vertically, and retain Community
Development and reconfigure as necessary to accommodate space needs; and (5) construct a new,
centralized municipal building on a City-owned parcel at Lithia Way and North Pioneer Street. The
Page 1 of 3
Irr
RIA
CITY OF
ASHLAND
analysis found that expansion and consolidation at the current City Hall location would not
accommodate the City's space needs, and options 1 and 2 were therefore deemed not feasible. Options
3 through 5, however, were deemed spatially feasible and were further evaluated in terms of planning
requirements and restrictions, and cost modeling. The table below describes the spatial provisions of
each alternative.
Alternative Space Provided Feasibility
(23,500 square feet needed) Status
1. Expand/consolidate at current City Hall location 18,500 sf not feasible
(new construction)
2. Expand/consolidate at current City Hall location 18,500 sf not feasible
(retain historic features)
3. Expand/consolidate at current Community 22,070 sf feasible
Development location
4. Retain two buildings and expand/remodel as needed 24,500 sf feasible
5. Consolidate at new construction at Lithia Way and N 26,135 sf feasible
Pioneer St.
Adroit Construction is presently providing cost modeling services for the three siting options deemed
feasible. Site work, hard costs, soft costs, and project cost offsets will be factored into the estimates.
The estimates will not be available in time for this submission, but will be presented in detail during
the Study Session presentation.
Public involvement
ORW and the City promoted a robust public involvement component to the feasibility study, wherein
the community was invited to help the City set priorities for a new City Hall. Two forums were
offered to the public for expressing their priorities, including Open City Hall, the web-based tool for
civic engagement, and an interactive open house presentation. Participants of both forums were
invited to rank the following list of priorities in order of importance:
• Building Safety • Historic Preservation.
• Public Access • Workplace Efficiency
• Centralized Services • Aesthetically pleasing
• Parking Availability • Other
• Energy Efficient
In addition, participants were given the option to define their commitment to their priority rankings by
specifying how project cost could influence rankings.
The Open City Hall forum was publicized through an email notification to subscribers of the City's
new website content" mailing list. The forum received 140 visitors, of which 28 shared their
priorities. The open house was publicized via multiple outlets, including mail invitations in residents'
utility bills, a press release, advertising on Jefferson Public Radio, and fliers posted in public spaces.
The meeting was attended by 50 to 60 members of the community, many of whom provided input on
Page 2 of 3
~M
IWA
CITY OF
ASHLAND
their priorities. A summary of the community input is not available at the time of this submittal, but a
detailed synthesis will be presented by ORW during the study session presentation.
History
The feasibility study for the replacement of City Hall was directed by Council as part of a greater effort
to conduct a comprehensive examination of options for replacing City Hall. The study was initiated on
the heels of a seismic evaluation completed in January 2015, which found that the cost of a seismic
retrofit at City Hall would likely exceed the cost of building a new structure, as detailed in the
February 1, 2016 Council Communication (Exhibit A). The cost estimates that emerged from the
seismic evaluation marshaled in the next logical phase in the City Hall replacement effort, the
evaluation of replacement options. Last May engineering staff contracted with ORW to conduct a
study of the feasibility of replacing City Hall. At the Council's June 20, 2016 study session, staff
introduced Dana Ing-Crawford, the project manager from ORW assigned to lead the feasibility study.
Ms. Crawford described the methodology ORW planned to implement for the space needs evaluation,
siting alternatives analysis, and public involvement component. Additional details are provided in the
attached Council Communication from the June 20, 2016 study session (Exhibit B).
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Organization (2014)
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
4.3 Examine city hall preplacement and other facility needs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The current budget includes $100,000 to fund a study for City Hall replacement. To date staff has
expended $13,000 in engineering fees related to the seismic upgrade evaluation. The expected cost of
this feasibility study is $55,750, plus miscellaneous costs of approximately $1130 (building plan prints,
catering, and advertising). The total project cost will be approximately $68,863 upon completion of
the feasibility study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
This communication is purely informative; staff recommendations and requested actions are not
presented at this stage in the study.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. June 20, 2016 Council Communication
2. February 1, 2016 Council Communication
Page 3 of 3
Ir~
PIA
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
June 20, 2016, Study Session
Continued discussion of planning for City Hall replacement
FROM:
Kaylea Kathol, Public Works Project Manager, ka• llea.kathol(L~ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This update is being provided to inform Council on the status of the ongoing examination of options
for replacing City Hall. The City has commissioned Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture (ORW) to
study the feasibility of replacing City Hall, following a 2015 seismic evaluation that indicated the cost
of a necessary seismic upgrade to City Hall would exceed the cost of replacing the structure. ORW's
commission includes provisions for a space and programmatic needs analysis and an evaluation of
three possible siting alternatives for a new building, including (a) substantially remodeling and
expanding City Hall in sitzt; (b) expanding the Community Development building; and (c) constructing
a centralized municipal building on the City-owned parcel at the corner of Lithia Way and North
Pioneer Street. Findings will be presented to City Council in September.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
History
At the Council's February 1, 2016, study session staff provided the findings of a seismic evaluation of
City Hall, directed by Council as part of a greater effort to conduct a comprehensive examination of
options for replacing City Hall. The report identified seismic deficiencies in the structure, and
described the upgrades necessary to bring City Hall into compliance with applicable seismic provisions
in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. The presentation was supplemented by cost estimates of the
seismic upgrades, as well as preliminary cost estimates for two new construction alternatives, either of
which would be more economical than performing an upgrade on the existing structure. Additional
details are provided in the attached Council communications from the February 1, 2016, study session.
The cost estimates that emerged from the seismic evaluation marshaled the next logical phase in the
City Hall replacement effort, the evaluation of replacement options.
Status
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was crafted for personal services with of fixed budget of $75,000 to
evaluate space needs and study the feasibility of replacing City Hall. The RFP was released to nine
local architectural or design firms in late March of 2016; four proposals were returned. Through a
graded selection process, ORW was identified as the most suitable bidder and was awarded the
commission. The City and ORW developed a refined project scope through a collaborative process.
The scope (attached) includes the following components:
Space needs evaluation
Page 1 of 3
1
r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ORW will explore each department's current and projected space needs pertaining to individual work
stations and offices, conference rooms, document storage, communal areas, areas for public
interaction, etc. The assessment will also address important departmental adjacencies and future
growth over a 15-year planning horizon. Leadership from all departments located in City Hall
(Administration, Administrative Services, and Legal) and the Community Development building
(Community Development and Public Works) will be surveyed. Information gathered from the space
needs evaluation will inform the second component, the siting analysis.
Siting alternatives analysis
The consultant will examine the feasibility of the three siting alternatives summarized in the table
below. The alternatives are described in greater detail in the attached Scoping Document that was
issued as Attachment A to the RFP.
Alternative Description
Expansion/new City Hall would be substantially demolished, although exterior facades may be
construction at existing maintained for historical preser~,!ation at the community's direction. A new
City Hall site larger structure would be built on the existing City Hall site.
Expansion of Community A second floor would be added to the Community Development building to
Development consolidate oil-ices of City I Tall and Community Development buildings. The
City would divest itself of the existing City Hall structure.
New construction at A new municipal building would consolidate City Hall and Community
Lithia Way and North Development offices. The City would divest itself of the two existing
Pioneer structures and use any profits to offset construction costs.
Public involvement
At least one public open house meeting will be scheduled to provide the community with an early
opportunity to learn about the City's larger goal of replacing City Hall. The intent of the meeting is to
ensure the public is informed at a very early phase of the larger replacement project in order to develop
an environment of public inclusion throughout the project. In addition, written communications will
be delivered to the Historic Commission, Planning Commission, and Conservation Commission. Input
from these commissions will be important during the design phase of the project, and the City feels
that it is important to keep them updated and informed early on.
Deliverables
The final production, a comprehensive feasibility study report, will address construction costs and
implementation schedules for each alternative. The siting alternatives analysis will address planning,
parking, circulation, and solar potential at each location. Temporary relocation logistics and structural
feasibility issues will also be explored for the existing City Hall and Community Development site
options. In addition, the report will include a space needs program, site plans and floor plans for the
three alternatives, and 3D massing views for each alternative (excluding architectural or stylistic
detail).
Schedule
Page 2 of-3
M411
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The study began in early June and is on track to be completed in early to mid-September. The final
report in tentatively planned for presentation to City Council at the September 20t" business meeting.
The presentation will signify the end of this phase of the project, and will lead into the next phase:
selection and design of Council's approved alternative.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
4.3 Examine city hall preplacement and other facility needs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The current budget includes $100,000 to fund a study for City Hall replacement. To date staff has
expended $12,000 for the seismic upgrade analysis and an additional $1;000 for a building contractor
to provide preliminary cost estimates for two of the siting alternatives. The expected cost of this
feasibility study is $47,250.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
This item is for information only.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Communication from February 1, 2016 Study Session RE City Hall replacement
• ORW's proposed Scope of Work (Exhibit C of Contract)
• Scoping Document (Attachment A of RFP)
Page 3 of 3
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
February 1, 2016, Study Session
Continued discussion of planning; for City Hall replacement
FROM:
Michael R. Faiight, Director of Public Works, Public orks, Mike.F'aught(u~ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council at its .tune 15, 2015! study session requested that the City conduct a seismic evaluation of
City Hall to determine the cost of bringing the building Up to current seismic codes. Necessary seismic
upgrades would involve removing the roof, the floor on the second floor- and all of the drywall on the
interior of the north and west ,k,alls, then building a svstcm of ties and braces to secure the building.
The estimated cost (including contingency but excluding soft costs and temporary staff relocation) is
$176/sq. ft., or $1,363,757. The seismic upgrades will require the relocation of city staff for
approximately nine months at a cost of just under $ 157.000. Soft costs would be roughly $322;000. If
the City did necessary and long-overdue I-IVAC and phi mbing replacement as well as fire suppression
and ADA improvements, the total cost of the project exceeds the cost of simply demolishing and
rebuilding City Hall or building a new City Hall at a dillcrent location on City-owned property.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the Council's June 15, 2015, Study Session, City Administrator Dave Kanner proposed a
comprehensive examination of options for replacing C'ity I fall using the $100.000 appropriated in the
current budget for a long-term facilities master plan. Tc that end, Mr. Kanner provided background
information on past plans to replace City Hall which included a detailed history of City Hall remodels,
additions, spacing needs, and needed seismic mitigation based on a 1994 seismic evaluation (see
attached June 15, 2015, council communication).
Based on the agc of the existing seismic report, Council directed staff to complete a new seismic study
on City Hall and the Parks and Recreation buildings. The City I fall seismic evaluation has been
completed by Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. (see attached report). The consultant's report outlines
a plan tivith estimated costs to upgrade City Hall to allow occupants to safely exit the building after a
major earthquake which, as he indicates in his executive summary, "may not be the case in its current
state.'' The estimated cost to upgrade the existing facility to meet seismic requirements only
(excluding soft and relocation costs) is estimated to be 5176 per square foot or a total cost of
S 1.363,757. If the City Council were to choose this option. a] I employees in the existing building
would have to be relocated for about nine months at an estimated cost of $17,426 per month or_just
under $157.000.
Given that a seismic renovation of the existing facility requires a major rebuild to the building,
Michael Morrison, Public Works Superintendent, recommended evaluating costs associated with
modernizing all of the existing (aging) plumbing, IIVA(--' systems and electrical systems. To assist
with development of additional planning level cost estimates, staff hired Matt Small, Kistler Small
N~:~c t of
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
White Architects. and John Kennedy, chief estimator with Vitus Construction. to provide economy of
scale cost estimates for the following four options (sec attached estimate):
1. Include soft cost and "Temporary relocations costs to the to the seismic estimate
2. Estimated square foot costs for mechanical, electrical and plumbing, egress, ADA. fire
suppression and tenant improvements
3. Estimated square foot costs to rebuild on the current City Hall site. replacing everything
except the existing north and west historic facades.
4. `Dotal estimated square foot costs to construct a new building elsewhere on City-Owned
property, including parking and other issues arising out of its location.
"These costs are shown in table I .
TahIe 1:
Seismic Upgrades Additional cost for Total Remodel Rebuild on the New building on
plus soft costs mechanical. Costs current City hall City Owned
and relocation electrical and site replacing Property
costs plumbing, egress, everything except
ADA, hire the existing north
Suppression and and west wall
Tenant
Improvements -
$236 $338 $576 $405 $450
*All costs are per-square foot
COUNCIL GOALS:
Organization
4 Evaluate real property and City assets to strategically support city mission and goals
4.3 Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The current budget includes $1 00,000 to fund a study For City f call replacement. To date staff has expended
$12.000 for the seismic upgrade analysis and an additional $1,000 for a building contractor to estimate cost
for additional remodeling costs, rebuild in place costs and to build a new building in a different location on
city owned property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Given the seismic report and the need for additional capital improvements at City Hall, staff
recommends that the City move forward with a comprehensive examination of options for replacing or
rebuilding City Hall. Staff seeks approval to issue an RIT to select a consultant team to examine
options for replacing or rebuilding City Hall.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
N,,c ? o f
~1
Ir