Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-16 City Hall PACKETAgenda ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee August 16, 2017 Methodist Church, 175 North Main 1:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Approval of minutes 3. Cost analysis review of City Hall 15 minutes (Darrell Boldt) 4. Discussion of Larry Cooper email 15 minutes (Jerry Kenefick) 5. Analysis of each option based on approved criteria 60 minutes (Ballot process) 6. Public Input 7. Adjourn Upcoming meetings and agendas • Wednesday, August 30: Discussion and final recommendation. (Siskiyou Room, Winburn Way) • Wednesday, September 5: If needed. • Tuesday, October 3, presentation/report to the City Council Purpose of Committee The purpose of this committee is to: • Identify the best option for improving/replacing City Hall (meets the work space needs through 2031 and provides reasonable degree of seismic safety for employees) • Determine the amount needed for the identified option • Determine whether or not the City should seek voter approval of a General Election Bond (or series of bonds) to fund the identified option and phase 2 of the Police Station • If a GO Bond is recommended which election date is recommended • If a GO Bond is not recommended identify options funding sources • Provide a recommendation to the Council and the committee’s rational for the recommendation by early September Email from Larry Cooper July 24, 2017 To the Ad hoc City Hall Committee: Dear Committee Members: Thank you for the opportunity to share this. I am very concerned that the study that future city staff space needs is based on is flawed when it comes to projecting future space needs for city staff based on staff population. The model that was used to project "workstation" space needs, etc, was apparently based on what most of us in the room have experienced in our work places: one desk/cubicle per worker plus some additional "floating" workstations for serving customers. This model is becoming obsolete as I write this. In more cutting edge work places today, workers are not tied to specific office spaces. They have their office with them on a phone, tablet or very lightweight and portable laptop. They often or sometimes always work from wherever in the world they currently reside. The central corporate or government office is primarily a virtual space that is cloud based and includes all the data, emails, apps, etc that workers need to complete their tasks and communicate with co-workers and customers. Weekly staff meetings happen on line with full video conferencing amenities so that workers do not have to travel and work spaces do not need large conference rooms in order for collaboration to occur. This is all happening right now. It is a trend that will, in the next 5-10 years, become the norm in corporate, professional, and yes, small government organizations. Ashland has been a bit slow to adopt telecommuting and definitely slow to embrace this future, but it is coming and will be here before any new building is completed. The point of all this is to point out that the study for future work space is dictating the need for more space than is unfolding in current reality: fewer workers work onsite and they don't drive cars to work as often mass transit or not! Please ask staff about these discrepancies between the study and what is clearly indicated by present work trends as they move into the near future. Ashland needs a City Hall and staff facilities that fit future changes. I'm old enough to remember when the City funded and built a sewage treatment plant based on a similarly flawed analysis that sent the City on the path of building a plant designed for "present" conditions that turned into an opposite future. We ended up with an overbuilt, expensive solution that smelled bad for years and we're still feeling financial pain from. Please don't let a similar thing happen with our current space needs. Submitted by Larry Cooper, 259 B Street, Ashland 541 210-1458 P.S. I worked for 10 years as an information technology manager in the late 90's and 2000's and learned many lessons about how quickly change comes upon the work place. 1 August 16, 2017 Options Ballot Approved Criteria 1) Option is cost effective: The City is spending public dollars wisely. 2) Option provides flexibility: Provides the City with design and operational flexibility to meet current and future needs. 3) Preserves civic use of the existing City Hall. 4) The option is acceptable to voters. 5) Retains a downtown presence. 6) The option addresses parking for employees and customers. Options Score each criteria for each of the following options using the corresponding list above with a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The following options correspond to the August 10 memo from Kaylea. I. City Hall Expansion (2 alternatives) a. Rebuild existing City Hall $8.5 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. b. Rebuild existing City Hall and retain stucco veneer $9.7 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. II. Community Development Expansion/Consolidation $9.5 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. III. Consolidate at new Construction at Lithia/Pioneer (2 alternatives) a. Include 1 level of underground parking (50 stalls) $16 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. b. Include 2 levels of underground parking (100 stalls) $19.6 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. IV. Courts/Civic Center (2 alternatives) a. Partitioned (retains ComDev) $10 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. b. Centralized (incorporates ComDev) $13 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. V. Briscoe School $8.1 M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Memo TO: Ad-hoc City Hall Advisory Committee FROM: Kaylea Kathol, Engineering DATE: August 10, 2017 RE: Final list of tenable options for the replacement of City Hall When the Committee first met on April 26, 2017, staff presented a list of 13 alternatives for the replacement of City Hall. In the time that has passed, some alternatives have been eliminated over uncertainty relating to property acquisition, including alternatives proposed for the railroad property and the Elks parking lot. Other alternatives, specifically an in-kind rebuild of City Hall and seismic rehabilitation of the existing building, have been removed from the list due to their inability to accommodate the City’s current and projected space needs. The following list enumerates the alternatives that remain consistent with the Committee’s charge to identify the best option for replacing City Hall that meets the work space needs through 2031 and provides reasonable degree of seismic safety for employees. Alternative* Cost Estimate Timeline (months) 1. ComDev: Expand & Consolidate $ 9.5 M 11 2. Right-Size City Hall + Keep ComDev $ 8.5 M 16 3. Right-Size/Keep Stucco City Hall + Keep ComDev $ 9.7 M 16 4. New @ Pioneer Parking & 50 UG Stall $ 16.1 M 17 5. New @ Pioneer Parking & 100 UG Stall $ 19.6 M 19 6. New @ Civic Center + Consolidate** $ 12.9 M 17 7. New @ Civic Center + Keep Com Dev** $ 11 M 16 8. Briscoe School + Consolidate** $ 8.1 M 16 *Alternative descriptions provided on following pages **Alternatives developed by City after ORW completed Feasibility Study. Costs and timelines were estimated by staff, based on construction assumptions used in the Feasibility Study. City Hall On-Site Expansion (2 Alternatives) Rebuild City Hall on site, including a basement and three floors, in order to meet the City’s space needs. Reconfigure Community Development building to ensure room for growth. One alternative offers a total rebuild, and the other alternative proposes to retain the historic stucco veneer on the north and east surfaces of the building  Proposed total area of completed project: 14,800 ft2  Cost (2 alternatives): Total rebuild/expand: $8.5 M ($574/sf) Rebuild/expand, preserve facade: $9.7 M ($655/sf) Community Development Expansion/Consolidation Add an additional two floors to the Community Development building in order to consolidate functions currently housed in City Hall and Community Development.  Proposed total area of completed project: 22,070 ft2 (inc. new area and renovated area)  Cost: $9.5 M ($430/sf) Consolidate at New Construction at Lithia/Pioneer (2 Alternatives) Consolidate functions housed in City Hall and Community Development in a new building on the existing City-owned parking lot at Lithia Way and N. Pioneer Street. Profit from the sale of the Community Development Building would be applied toward construction. One alternative offers one level of underground parking and the other offers two levels.  Proposed total area of completed project: 26,135 square feet  Cost (2 alternatives): 1 level of UG parking (50 stalls): $16 M ($612/sf) 2 levels of UG parking (100 stalls): $19.6 M ($750/sf) Courts/Civic Center (2 alternatives) Build a new City Hall at the location currently occupied by Courts/Civic Center. The new structure would necessarily incorporate the courts and council chambers. The first alternative, termed “centralized”, would incorporate the functions at the courts building, City Hall, and ComDev. The second alternative, described as “partitioned”, would result in the City retaining ComDev and building a smaller structure at the current courts location.  Proposed total area of completed project: 17,520 ft2 (partitioned) to 27,470 ft2 (centralized)  Cost (2 alternatives): Partitioned: $10 M* ($570/sf) Centralized: $13 M* ($473/sf) * These estimates were developed by Staff using the cost modeling assumptions provided in the architect’s feasibility study. Professional estimate is advised. Briscoe School Move City Hall and Community Development functions to Briscoe School.  Proposed total area of completed project: 33,980 ft2 (existing structure)  Cost: $8.1 M ($238/sf) * In 2005, Ashland School District commissioned a facilities report and seismic evaluation of Briscoe School to develop a cost estimate for necessary upgrades and repairs. Briscoe has been closed since 2004, so the facilities report naturally evaluated conditions through the lens of school operations. The study evaluated architectural, mechanical and plumbing systems, electrical systems, and structural (seismic) conditions. Total costs to implement all improvements was $6.5 million. It should be noted that costs included the addition of some parking (approximately 18 or 19 spaces). The City has updated the construction costs to 2016 values based on the actual national average Historical Cost Index1 . Most items originally evaluated by the District were included in the City’s updated estimate, with the exception of a line item for expanding the kitchen and replacing its equipment. The total 2016 estimate was approximately $8 million (including $2.5 million in seismic retrofits). The 2016 estimate was then escalated by 5.5 percent per year for five years to provide a cost estimate of $10.6 million in 2021. If the City sells the Community Development building for $2.5 million2, proceeds could be applied toward the project for a total cost of $8.1 million. Professional estimate is advised. 1 http://info.thegordiangroup.com/RSMeans.html. City used actual 2005 cost index (151.6) and actual 2016 cost index (207.3). 2 Real Market Value in 2016, Jackson County Property Data Online Page 1 of 2 August 2017 Karns City Hall Memo __________________________________________________________________________________ DATE: August 9, 2017 TO: ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee FROM: John Karns, interim city administrator RE: Another perspective I recently sent an email to employees in both the Community Development building and in City Hall to inform them of your work and the criteria/priorities you have developed as you vet the alternatives for the replacement of City Hall. I was interested to hear from city employees how they would rank the criteria you developed and invited them to use colored dots to “vote”. A large “ballot” was posted in both buildings and employees were allocated three dots. I am also interested in how customers of both City Hall and Community Development/Public Works might rank the criteria and will soon post similar ballots in the lobby of both buildings inviting customers to participate in the process. In order of highest to lowest, here are the employee rankings by City Hall employees. 1) Provides consolidated services (within the same building) 2) Provides off-street parking for employees and customers 3) Services are conveniently located (within a short walk) 4) Cost effective (wise use of public money) 5) Outside Hosler Dam inundation zone 6) Retains downtown presence, Preserves historic façade of an existing building. The remaining criteria did not receive any dots: • Site (location of new building) provides flexibility • Preserves historic use of existing City Hall (not necessarily current administrative functions) • Provides parking that can be converted to other uses • Potential to increase public parking (may accommodate a surface lot or parking structure) • Located on the Plaza • Avoids legal cloud relating to current deed • Construction Impact (on traffic, parking, pedestrians, businesses, residences) Here are the employee rankings, highest to lowest, by Community Development/Public Works employees. 1) Provides off-street parking for employees and customers 2) Retains downtown presence 3) Site location provides flexibility, Services are conveniently located (within a short walk), Outside Hosler Dam inundation zone (each received the same number of dots) 4) Preserves historic use of City Hall, Provides consolidated services (within same building), Potential to increase public parking (may accommodate a surface lot or parking structure) (each received the same number of dots) 5) Acceptable to voters, Preserves historic façade (each received the same number of dots) 6) Cost effective (wise use of public money) Page 2 of 2 August 2017 Karns City Hall The remaining criteria did not receive any dots: • Located on Plaza • Avoids legal cloud relating to current deed • Construction impact (on traffic, parking, pedestrians, businesses, residences) Obviously, this is simply a snapshot of the sentiments of city employees in both buildings but I think it offers an interesting and different perspective. I hope to have the “ballots” posted for customers in the next couple of days and will forward the ranking results to you soon. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this important issue.