HomeMy WebLinkAbout!Final Product! Committee Recomendation
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 1
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
Final Report and Recommendation to the City Council
October 3, 2017
The ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee is pleased to make its recommendation to the City
Council.
Introduction
The existing City Hall building is a historic, unreinforced masonry building. Due to the
vulnerability of that building to seismic activity, the City Council has previously considered
options for City Hall, including a feasibility study done by City Staff and ORW Architecture that
was presented to the Council in October 2016. In January 2017, the City Council approved
formation of an ad hoc advisory committee to consider alternatives for City Hall, including
additional alternatives to the ORW Study. In April 2017, the City Council approved the ad hoc
committee appointments and scope (Tab A).
The central charge of the committee was to evaluate options for improving or replacing City Hall
that address work space needs for City employees through 2031 (as laid out in the ORW Study)
and that provide a reasonable degree of seismic safety for employees. The committee was also
asked to recommend timing and amounts of any general obligation (GO) bond, or other
financing, needed to implement the recommended alternative.
Summary of Recommendation
The committee did not reach a unanimous recommendation on a site. Eight of the eleven
members recommend rebuilding the City Hall on its current site, expanding the structure to
accommodate the future square footage needs of the City, and retaining the Community
Development (ComDev) Building. Two committee members recommend building a new
structure on the Civic Center site and retaining the ComDev Building. One committee member
recommends consolidating all City Hall and ComDev uses at the Briscoe School site. The
criteria developed and applied by the committee and the explanation for the recommendations
are explained in detail below.
Costs will depend both on the Council’s final decision on an alternative and on the design of the
project. Accordingly, the Committee is unable to recommend a specific general obligation bond
amount for voter approval. However, once the City Council makes final decisions for a new City
Hall, the committee recommends placing a GO bond on the May 2018 ballot, which should
COA050001
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 2
include $1M to complete Phase II construction of the Police Department and Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) facility, as directed by Council. If the timing proves infeasible for a
City Hall bond issue, we recommend spring of 2019 for the City Hall bond issue but going
forward in May 2018 with the $1M bond issue for the EOC project.
Committee Process
The eleven-person committee met ten times over the past four months. We received
presentations from staff on the condition of City Hall, the Community Development Building
and the Civic Center. We toured City Hall, the Community Development Building, the Civic
Center, the Police Station and the proposed location for the EOC at that facility. We received a
presentation from the Ashland School District and toured Briscoe School. We reviewed the
ORW Feasibility Study and received a presentation from ORW’s Dana Crawford who explained
the process utilized for the study and its space needs analysis. We reviewed a number of
additional presentations and materials, including analysis of the 1888 Helman deed to the City
that included the City Hall site, City Staff reports on cost estimations, the December 2015 City
Hall seismic evaluation, and a committee review of the square footage costs from committee
member Darrell Boldt. We had informative discussions on the identified space needs, the criteria
utilized in the prior feasibility study, and additional criteria deemed important by the committee
for any recommendation, including cost effectiveness, opportunities for operational flexibility,
preservation of the existing civic use and downtown presence, and parking for customers and
employees. We heard numerous comments from members of the public. Agendas, minutes and
materials were posted online as a Hot Topic on the City’s website.
Alternatives Considered
The starting point for feasible alternatives was the ORW Feasibility Study. The only alternatives
carried forward were those that met the City’s 2031 additional space requirements as estimated
in the ORW Feasibility Study as an increase of 4,846 square feet over existing square footage
available at City Hall and the Community Development building. Two new options were
brought forward and considered as set forth below. The committee believes it was thorough in
its research. While some other options were mentioned to us, the list in Table A below are the
ones that we deemed sufficiently feasible to analyze.
Construction timeline estimates were done by City staff.
Cost estimates were provided by City staff based on the methodology used in the ORW
Feasibility Study. Since there is no actual design from which to estimate, these numbers are
necessarily quite general. A number of committee members, particularly those with construction
experience, felt that some of the cost estimates (e.g., for seismic strengthening) were quite high.
With one exception, the committee felt that the estimates were sufficiently similar in
methodology that they provided a legitimate basis for comparison purposes. The exception is the
Briscoe School option, which was presented later than others. The estimated cost for that option
COA050002
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 3
shown below only includes seismic upgrades, and architectural, mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing improvements for use as a school (less a presumed sale price for the Community
Development building of $2.5M). We did not have any estimates for the purchase price of the
land and buildings, for any demolition and construction of surface parking, or for the
improvements to the building that would be required for it to function for the combined uses now
in City Hall and the Community Development Building.
Table A - Alternatives
Alternative Cost Estimate Construction
Timeline
(months)
1 City Hall Expansion (2 options)
1a Rebuild and expand existing City Hall $8.5 M 11
1b Rebuild and expand existing City hall and retain
historic facades
$9.7 M 16
2 Expand ComDev to include City Hall
$9.5 M 16
3 New construction at Lithia Way and Pioneer parking
lot (2 options)
3a Consolidate ComDev and City Hall at Lithia Way
and Pioneer with 50 underground parking stalls
$16.1 M 17
3b Consolidate ComDev and City Hall at Lithia Way
and Pioneer with 100 underground parking stalls
$19.6 M 19
4 Civic Center (2 options)**
4a New City Hall at Civic Center and keep ComDev
downtown**
$11 M 16
4b New City Hall at Civic Center and incorporate
ComDev**
$12.9 M
16
5 Briscoe School as new City Hall and ComDev** $8.1 M
(est. is for
structural
rehab only)
16
** Options developed by City after ORW completed Feasibility Study. Costs and timelines were
estimated by staff, based on construction assumptions used in the Feasibility Study.
Decision Criteria
The committee spent considerable time developing the criteria by which to evaluate the options
listed above and ranking each criterion. The list of criteria with brief explanations is set out in
Table B below.
COA050003
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 4
Table B –Criteria
1 Option Is Cost Effective Whether the City is spending public
dollars wisely
2 Option Provides Flexibility Whether the option would provide the
City with design and operational
flexibility to meet current and future
needs.
3 Preserves Civic Use of Existing City
Hall
The existing civic use on its key corner
Downtown was seen as an important
factor
4 Option is Acceptable to Voters Whether the option would be something
for which voters would be willing to tax
themselves
5 Retains a Downtown Presence The existing presence in Downtown was
seen as an important factor
6 Option Addresses Parking for
Employees and Customer
Whether the option would improve
parking for employees and customers of
City Hall.
7 Provides centralized services Whether the option would centralize
services for the convenience of the public
and City staff coordination
8 Potential to increase public parking
Could the option provide for additional
public parking, especially in the
Downtown area
9 Preserves historic façade of the existing
City Hall
The preservation of the historic façade of
the existing National Register building is
a factor
10 Is outside the Hosler Dam zone
Whether the option is within the FEMA
inundation path of a Hosler Dam failure
event
11 Built to LEED standards
Whether the option could meet Livability
through Energy and Environmental
Design (or other ‘green building’)
standards
12 Construction time-line and impact
What would be the construction impacts
to neighboring uses and to traffic
The committee determined that the six highlighted criteria were the most important for its
decision-making, but it considered all the criteria. Some of the criteria deemed of lesser
importance are fairly included in the six highlighted criteria. The order in Table B above reflects
the number of votes each criterion received when the committee assessed the criteria. Individual
members naturally place greater weight and importance to different criteria, which helps explain
the non-unanimity in the committee’s recommendation. Note that the criteria often address
competing goals, so some balancing of interests was required. None of the alternatives
considered could meet all of the criteria deemed important.
COA050004
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 5
Analysis of Alternatives
The finalist alternatives analyzed by the committee were:
1A Rebuild and expand the existing City Hall and retain ComDev Building
1B Rebuild and expand the existing City Hall, retain the historic facades, and
retain ComDev Building
4A New City Hall at the Civic Center and retain ComDev Building
5 Briscoe School – consolidate both City Hall and ComDev at Briscoe
Other alternatives did not get enough support to be carried forward.
With respect to Alternative 2 (Expand ComDev to include City Hall plus expansion for
future), adding two stories to that building would be a challenge and would result in a
bulky and inefficient design; that building is relatively new and functions fairly well;
parking downtown would worsen (assuming some alternate use would occupy the current
City Hall); and the City would still have the problem of what to do with the seismically
unsafe current City Hall building.
With respect to Alternatives 3A and 3B (Consolidate City Hall and ComDev in a new
building at Lithia/Pioneer with either 50 or 100 underground parking stalls), those
options did provide some parking in the Downtown area but were far more expensive
than other alternatives and did not meet other important decision criteria.
With respect to Alternative 4B (New City Hall at Civic Center including ComDev uses),
that alternative was also not cost effective, and the committee felt that abandoning the
ComDev Building was unwise because it is a relatively new building that functions fairly
well currently.
Alternatives 1A and 1B – Rebuild and Expand on Existing Site
Eight of the eleven committee members recommend rebuilding and expanding City Hall on the
existing site and keeping the ComDev Building. These are close to the same alternative – the
only difference being that 1B is estimated to cost more but would preserve the historic façade.
Some members thought preserving the façade was important and that the estimated extra costs of
that work ($1.2M) was overstated. Others felt that the difference in cost was more important, a
new building would be faster to rebuild (less construction impacts to Downtown), and other
mitigation for impacts to historic resources is possible.
This alternative is the most cost effective of the four finalists.
New space, whether in a new building or in the shell of the existing structure, could be
designed to be flexible, without all the internal walls and grade changes in the existing
structure.
COA050005
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 6
Alternatives 1A and 1B are the only alternatives that preserve the existing civic use on
the existing location. It was felt that the City Hall on that key corner of Downtown was
a signature part of Ashland.
For that same reason, many committee members thought this alternative could be more
readily acceptable to voters. This would not only provide additional space for City
functions, it would also preserve something that is unique and historic about Ashland.
The alternative would better retain a Downtown presence than other alternatives.
The alternative would not provide additional parking for employees and customers.
Some members pointed out that parking Downtown is a far larger problem than just City
employees and just one building, however, and there are other ways to address parking
problems as shown in the City’s recent Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan.
As one member stated, it is difficult to build your way out of parking issues – rather, you
need an overall management strategy. The two other alternatives (4A and 5) could
provide on-site parking for users of the building itself, but may not have much impact on
Downtown parking, depending on what replacement use went into the vacated City Hall
building.
This alternative would retain reasonably centralized services, because the two City
administrative buildings would still be only one block apart.
Other Issues. Construction Impacts Downtown - the City Hall building requires seismic
upgrades for safety reasons, so some construction impacts will occur under any
alternative selected, but the more extensive construction contemplated under
Alternatives1A and 1B would have greater construction impacts to Downtown.
Rehousing Staff – current uses in City Hall would have to be relocated during
construction; that impact might be avoided under other alternatives. Historic
Consultation – any major renovations or demolition of the existing structure will require
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer under state law.
Alternative 4A – New City Hall at Civic Center / Retain ComDev Downtown
Two of the eleven committee members recommend Alternative 4A, which would keep the
ComDev Building in Downtown and build a new structure at the Civic Center.
This alternative would be less cost effective ($11M) than the alternatives discussed above
– Alternative 1A ($8.5M) and Alternative 1B ($9.7M).
The alternative would provide good flexibility in design of the new building.
The alternative does not preserve the use of the existing City Hall on its prominent place
in Downtown. But retaining the ComDev Building would retain a Downtown presence
for those City uses appropriate for a Downtown location.
The 4A alternative can address parking for employees and customers. The proponents of
this alternative explained that functions accessed less frequently by the public, such as
administrative functions and perhaps the Mayor’s office, could be relocated to the
ComDev building, and functions accessed more frequently (and which need more
COA050006
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 7
parking) could be in the new building at the Civic Center. Depending on what alternate
use went into the vacated City Hall building, there may be a different impact on
Downtown parking from the current City Hall use.
Proponents of this alternative have a different opinion of what would be acceptable to
voters and what would make a saleable bond issue than the majority of the committee
members.
The alternative would not provide centralized services. The advocates for this alternative
point out that putting the most-accessed services at the Civic Center could mitigate that
drawback.
Proponents of this alternative point out that construction impacts would be less for a new
structure at the Civic Center. Others point out that whatever uses go into the old City
Hall Building, there will likely be some construction needed to upgrade that building,
although likely less than enlarging it for City Hall uses.
Alternative 5 – Briscoe School / Relocate all City uses from City Hall and ComDev to Briscoe
One committee member recommends Alternative 5, which would centralize all the functions
currently in the ComDev Building and the City Hall Building to the Briscoe School site. Some
offset in costs would be available by selling the ComDev Building. This committee member
points out the unique opportunity afforded by the School District wanting to divest itself of the
Briscoe site, which is a large property near Downtown.
The cost effectiveness of this alternative is not known with certainty. The Briscoe
building has not been updated for some time. Based on an Ashland School District study
of how much it would cost to upgrade the facility for use as a school, City Staff has
estimated that the cost of that retrofit would be $10.6M, which would be reduced to about
$8.1M if the City sold the ComDev Building for $2.5M. There are a number of unknown
costs for this alternative, including the cost of purchasing the land and building from the
School District (Jackson County shows a current assessed value of the land and buildings
of approximately $3.16M, which is likely well below fair market value; the land itself is
currently assessed at only $240K). Other unknown costs for this alternative include the
cost of internal improvements to the building to make it usable for City purposes, the cost
of demolishing a wing of the building to provide for additional on-site parking, and the
cost of constructing on-site parking. Several committee members commented that it
would be the most costly alternative and it would take a great deal of work to retrofit for
City Hall and ComDev uses.
Briscoe is a large building on a very large site (3.74 acres). Without a specific
development proposal it is not clear how easily the existing building can be developed
into flexible work space for City uses.
The proponent of the Briscoe site points out that the site is quite close to Downtown.
Because it is a large site, a plan for the Briscoe site could provide some additional surface
parking for customers and employees. Whether there would be any positive effect on
COA050007
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 8
Downtown parking would depend on what types of replacement uses occupied the
vacated City Hall Building and ComDev Building.
The Briscoe alternative would not preserve the civic use of the existing City Hall site.
It is unclear if this alternative, which includes vacating the relatively new ComDev
Building, would be acceptable to voters. The committee heard from a number of
neighbors who would like the City to buy the site. A portion of the site currently
provides one of the few green open spaces in the neighborhood.
Briscoe is the only alternative that is outside of the Hosler Dam failure event flood zone.
Both the existing City Hall and the ComDev Building are in that flood zone.
General Obligation Bonds
Given the cost uncertainties of the various alternatives, and the very general nature of the cost
estimates to date, the committee was unable to recommend a specific, proposed bond amount at
this time. Once a specific proposal is selected and more detailed estimating is obtained, the
financing can be better estimated.
The committee recommends that the best date for the bond issue would be the May 2018
election. If that date proves too soon to be feasible for the City Hall bond issue, the best date
would be the spring of 2019. The committee recommends putting the EOC bond issue ($1M) on
the May 2018 ballot, even if time is too short to get a City Hall ballot ready by that date.
General Comments
The following comments reflect important parts of the committee’s discussion. As noted below,
not all committee members would endorse every comment.
The committee recognizes that existing City facilities are cramped, with little meeting
space, but encourages the Council to carefully consider during the building design phase
how flexible work spaces and greater use of technology can limit the need for additional
building square footage.
Even though not recommending it for a unified City Hall site, several members of the
committee thought that the Briscoe School property was an exciting opportunity for the
City to locate more open space and/or housing on this important site near Downtown.
Some committee members feel strongly that the amount of space identified in the ORW
Feasibility Study to meet the City’s 2031 space needs was excessive. That study called
for an increase from the current square footage of 19,506 square feet to 24,352 square
feet in 2031. These members encourage the City to consider that, given advances in
technology, more employees will be working remotely and will need less space in
building offices in the future.
COA050008
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 9
Several committee members commented that, for any alternative that proposed changing
the use of the existing City Hall Building from a “Town Hall” use or “Plaza” use, it will
be important for the City Attorney to resolve the reversionary interest in the original deed
for that property before the new use is implemented. That deed conveyed most of the
existing Plaza as well the City Hall site itself.
Some members recommend that the City take a hard look at space utilization during final
design to ensure that existing space and any new construction is used in the most cost
effective and efficient manner. Ten of the eleven members did not recommend an
alternative that would consolidate all City functions in one location, and a number of
members felt that centralization concerns could be addressed by planning that would
ensure that departments that need to work together are placed in close proximity.
Members of the committee were concerned about the total amount of bonded debt that
the City would have with a new GO Bond issue. To mitigate this, they felt that the City
should consider retiring any existing debt that could be paid off more quickly than the
current schedule. For instance, the bond that covers Fire Station 1 could be considered
for this strategy.
There are a large number of older buildings near existing City Hall. If there were a large
seismic event, access to the current City Hall might be impaired, even City Hall itself was
rebuilt and remained functional.
The committee was asked to include $1M in the bond offering for Phase 2 of the Ashland
Police Department. We understand that this money would be used primarily to construct
a new Emergency Operations Center. Some members felt that it might be more
acceptable to voters if the wording in the ballot statement focused on the Emergency
Operations Center rather than on the Police Department.
The committee appreciates the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the City Council
on this important issue. At the discretion of the City Council, the committee offers to continue to
be involved in the City Hall process, which could include review of project designs and
recommendations regarding GO bonds.
Respectfully Submitted:
________________________________
Juli DiChiro, Chairperson
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
COA050009
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 10
Tab A
City Hall Advisory Committee Scope of Work
Approved by Ashland City Council April 4, 2017
[see following page]
COA050010