HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 11 2017 AS KK AdHoc_Comm_Recc
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 considered previously
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. [Seems like there should be a sentence here recommending the Council
determine probable costs for a new City Hall for two of the three alternatives (Civic Center and Briscoe)
since the second sentence in the next paragraph references Council determining probable costs before
placing a GO bond on the May 2018 ballot.]
COA050130
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 2
Given the uncertain costs, the Committee is unable to recommend a specific general obligation
bond amount for voter approval. However, once the City Council determines probable costs for
a new City Hall, the committee recommends placing a GO bond on the May 2018 ballot, which
should include $1M to implement the Phase II Police Station 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 Phase II of 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, and the December 2015
City Hall seismic evaluation. 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.
[Maybe you should include a sentence about the work Darrell did evaluating square footage
costs. See August 16 minutes.]
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 project 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
COA050131
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 3
exception is the Briscoe School option, which was presented later than others. The estimated
cost for that option shown below only includes seismic upgrades, and architectural, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing improvements seismic upgrades 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
COA050132
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 4
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.
COA050133
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 5
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.
COA050134
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 6
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 fairly 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 (recently approved
by the voters) 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 would cost more but would preserve the historic façade. Some
members thought preserving the façade was important and that the 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. All felt the Council would be in the best
position to make a decision after better estimates for a more detailed project proposal could be
obtained. [Staff is confused by this last sentence.]
This sentence suggests two things: 1) you want a second opinion on the cost to preserve the historic façade and 2) you want a more detailed proposal supporting the cost. Please refer to the detailed proposal listed below and copied directly from Appendix 3 (beginning on page 33) of
the ORW report to preserve the existing veneer. The complexities of the Structural Strategies to
preserve the existing veneer developed by the three independent local contractors (ORW, Ciota
COA050135
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 7
Engineering, and Adroit Construction) are detailed in #4: Preservation of the URM north and west two story walls.
Then refer to the Cost Modeling Assumptions on page 30 of the ORW report. The complexities
of preserving the wall are reflected in the higher cost assumptions of an additional cost of $60 per square foot e.g. $325 per square foot for on-site replacement without exterior preservation and $385 per square foot for on-site replacement with exterior preservation. Once inflation, contingency and soft costs are factored into the total estimate for 2021 (see page 31 of the ORW
report) those extra $60 per square foot add up to an additional $1.2 million.
If you wish to retain the statement above please include the additional level of detail the committee is recommending and the basis for why the professional estimate is in question.
SCENARIO #2: On Site Replacement of City Hall with preservation.
Description: Existing building would be demolished while retaining the north and west unreinforced
masonry walls (URM) for historic value. The new 4-story civic building would be constructed within footprint. Assumes two stories of concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls with wood or cold form steel (cfs) light framing above. Option includes basement.
Structural Strategy:
1. Roof Framing: a) Low pitch pre-engineered trusses or open web TJL type roof joists at 24" oc w/ 5/8" plywood sheathing. b) Steel columns at gridlines w/ girder trusses. c) Parapet incorporated into truss design or braced parapet wood frame walls. d) Utilize parapet as mechanical screen.
2. 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor Framing: a) Open web TJL type joists at 16" oc. b) Steel or wood girder beams at column grid lines. c) Gyp-crete topping slab assumed over 7/8" floor sheathing.
3. Lateral Force Resisting System: a) Upper two levels - 2x6 conventional wood shear walls or cfs. b) Lower two levels - solid grouted reinforced CMU walls.
4. Preservation of existing URM north and west two story walls: a) Construct new CMU wall directly behind URM walls for anchorage. b) Reinforce/stabilize URM with combination of heli-ties, epoxy anchors w/ screen tubes, fiber reinforced polymer (FRP). Extent and strategy is TBD. Potential in-situ
brick and mortar testing to aid in design strategy. c) Shoring of URM challenge during demo of existing building and construction of new building due to proximity of plaza and public circulation. Braced within footprint possibility. d) Shoring will likely be specialized and performed by outside agency.
5. Foundation (may vary due to Geotechnical requirements): a) Continuous concrete strip footings around east and south CMU walls. b) Drilled helical piles (or equal) installed at close proximity to existing north and west URM walls with concrete grade beam spanning between for CMU wall bearing. c) Interior isolated spread footings at steel column grids.
6. Basement option: a) Concrete retaining walls. b) Slab on grade basement floor. c) Added steel columns, beams and floor joists over basement. d) Location at minimum allowable horizontal distance from existing building and from URM walls as determined by soil type and Geotechnical Engineers direction. 7. Other: a) Steel canopies and marquee. b) Elevator pit, shaft and hoist beam/columns. c) Steel and/or
wood stairs. d) Mechanical screens or utilize parapet framing. e) Brick veneer cladding and seismic
anchorage anticipated for 2-stories with panelized cladding incorporated above. (TBD by Architect) f)
COA050136
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 8
Challenging site for construction staging and phasing due to proximity of existing structures and plaza
public circulation.
• 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.
• 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 that 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.
COA050137
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 9
• 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
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.
COA050138
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 10
• 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
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.
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.
General Comments
• 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. 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.
• 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
COA050139
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 11
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 conduct a space utilization study to ensure that existing space and any new construction is used in the most cost effective and efficient
way. [I know that some members did not agree with the space needs analysis by ORW
but I can’t find in the minutes the suggestion that the City conduct another space needs
study. ORW was hired to do the space needs study for $55,750. Page 4 of the feasibility
study reads: “ORW Architecture surveyed spaces within City Hall and the Community
Development Services building, and interviewed City staff in each department to
determine optimal adjacencies and quantify projected staff and are needs…”] Since
eleven of the twelve ten of the eleven members do not recommend that all City services be relocated to one location, careful consideration should be given to placement of staff to ensure that departments that need to work together are placed in close proximity. Is this
comment necessary? Including personal opinions without a factual basis does not help the Council make an informed decision. Committee members with personal opinions can submit their comments separately as a minority report with factual references.
• 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
Respectfully Submitted:
________________________________
Juli DiChiro, Chairperson
Ad Hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
COA050140
10 03 2017 Recommendation
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 12
Tab A
City Hall Advisory Committee Scope of Work
Approved by Ashland City Council April 4, 2017
[see following page]
COA050141