The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08 20 17 draft response to Juli_KKDear Ann and John, Hi Juli are responses are in red. I would like for you to get some information together and sent to the committee before our next meeting. There was a lot of discussion yesterday about doubting the estimate for a seismic retrofit for the existing city hall. George Kramer stated that he is working on a 8-story hotel project in Portland that is being gutted and retrofitted, and he says that project is less than the $3 estimated for the city hall. Without knowing the methodology used to determine the cost for the Portland hotel, how the hotel differs in structure and design from City Hall in Ashland, the age of the systems etc., comparing the two projects is apples and oranges. Here is what I would like to know: 1. What was the methodology used to come to the $3 million estimate? Was a particular solution costed out, or was it a formula based on square footage times a standard factor? If it was a formula, what is the factor meant to represent? Please refer to the 2015 Seismic Evaluation by Miller Engineering here: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/2015%20Seismic%20Evaluation.pdf The information in Appendix A and B may help you arrive at an answer. I understand that Darrell Boldt gave a very thorough and thoughtful presentation on the cost per square foot at the August 16 meeting. Perhaps he would be willing to explain the information included in the appendices and possibly address your question above. There is no $3M estimate. However, there is a $6.5M estimate for a seismic rehabilitation of City Hall (includes necessary upgrades). This estimate was developed based on the seismic upgrade estimate provided by Miller Engineering, plus additional upgrade estimates developed by Vitus Construction. The Committee is advised to look at the last 2 pages of the Seismic Evaluation link provided in this letter, where we’ve attached Vitus’s figures. Specifically, please add the total costs for Preliminary Budgeting Items no. 1 and no. 2. The total is $602 per square foot for seismic upgrades, roofing, soft costs, relocation, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, ADA upgrades, fire suppression, and tenant improvements. This square footage cost is how we get to $6.5M. 2. If the current city hall is repurposed for some other "town hall" utilization, what is the minimum that needs to be done to make is seismically sound, and what would that cost? As shown in Appendix A of the Miller Engineering report, a seismic retrofit alone would cost about $1.4 M (2015 value). When escalated to 2021 at 5.5% per year, the cost may be closer to $1.9 M. Say, for instance, that the mayor's office and council chambers were allocated to this space, and only the bottom floor was utilized, would all the systems still needed to be replaced, or could the current systems meet that minimal use? To drill down to this level of detail would likely require an additional contract with Miller Engineering. The reason that this is cogent is that if we propose building a new city hall at the East Main civic center, we would still need to provide funds to make the current location safe COA050093 and usable. The committee has not been asked to determine what is to be done with the existing building if it will no longer function as a City Hall and it is not the charge of the committee to provide funds to make the current location safe and usable. We understand the committee wants to keep talking about this but it is not a problem for the committee to solve. If the committee recommends a new City Hall in a location other than the existing City Hall, the committee can include in the recommendation to the City Council that the current building be retained as a civic space and that funds be identified to retrofit the building. It will be up to the City Council to determine the next steps for the existing building which may include directing staff to identify a funding source for the seismic retrofit or directing the legal department to file a quick claim and divest the city of the property and/or any number of other options. The other discussion centered around the difference between the cost estimates for Briscoe and other options. I know that a different methodology was used by the school district to come up that estimate than the city used for the other options. How reliable is that estimate, and what does it include? Please refer to the August 10 memo from Kaylea which I sent to the committee as part of the packet for the August 16 meeting. It can also be viewed here: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/08%2016%2017%20Memo%20Tenable%20Options%20%282% 29.pdf The memo addresses the ASD report, and how the City arrived at the estimated cost. The same paragraph advises that a professional estimate be conducted. Was the fact that classroom space is not appropriate for offices, and that all of those large spaces would have to be subdivided taken into account? The City has not conducted a feasibility study on Briscoe School and therefore has not determined if the classroom space is appropriate for offices and what division of large spaces would need to be taken into account. Finally, the committee is still focused on the square footage needs estimates. Some members don't believe that the city staff will grow by 8 positions, and that we should not accommodate for this. The feasibility study indicates the space needs for 2031 is 24,400 square feet and includes additional work stations (not positions). The charge of the committee is to accommodate the 2031 space needs identified in the feasibility report. Members who do not want to accommodate for the space needs could submit a minority position paper. There is also a belief that most staff will be operating remotely in the future, and will not require office space. This is their personal opinion and they are stating it as a fact. Members holding this opinion have not offered any documentation supporting their speculation that most (definition?) municipal employees will be working remotely in the future. This position is not tenable in its current speculative form. Credible evidence that municipal governments will be operating primarily remotely by 2031 will be needed to justify building a facility that does not meet the City’s 2031 space needs. . As you know, there is a difference between the business and operating structure of the private sector and the public sector. The members stating their opinions as fact may not understand how the two differ specifically the parameters of working with labor unions and face to face interaction with the public. If those committee members could point to a City that has used “staff COA050094 will be operating remotely in the future” as an assumption used to determine future space needs for a civic building, that might be useful. A quick google search reveals numerous articles about private sector companies that had a policy allowing employees to work remotely and that have reversed that policy or modified the policy for a various reasons. I cannot point to any articles about local jurisdictions with policies that allow employees to work remotely. And I have not found an example of another City that has used the assumption “staff will be operating remotely in the future” as a means of determining future space needs. I need some way to counteract these perceptions. The only counter I can suggest is to acknowledge their personal opinion is not a fact. It would be speculation and therefore inappropriate for staff to offer a counter opinion on what the employee operating structure might be in the year 2031. {Ann, I would suggest shifting the burden of proof to these members (currently it’s on us). I think Julie could address this at the beginning of the meeting – asking committee members to submit any credible documentation of remote operation trends in the municipal sector. She could reinforce this request every time a member brings up work-from- home. As we say during the scientific peer review process, “please cite your source”. We already have our credible source – the ORW report. Nobody has yet to provide a source that counteracts ORW’s finding.} Juli, I wonder if you could get the committee to look beyond cost estimates for each project and instead get them to focus on a short list of locations as their recommendation. Location that meet the function of a civic building. The Council could then direct staff to conduct a more in depth cost analysis. Thanks, Ann with John and Kaylea COA050095