HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: City Hall Complex Priority IssueECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: City Hall Complex Priority Issue
Meeting Date: July 19, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547
ISSUE STATEMENT
The purpose of the July 19, 2006, work session is to narrow the “Renovate,” “Hybrid,” and “New”
design options for use in future studies such as site selection and concept design.
BACKGROUND
Decision-making criteria were developed with the council to assist in evaluating the options,
illuminating different viewpoints, and promoting consensus when discussing the options. The
criteria are listed below.
The second of four community forums was held Thursday, May 25, 2006, from 6–8:30 p.m. at
the First United Methodist Church. Nearly 100 people participated. The program included an
introductory presentation regarding two renovation options, two hybrid options, and two new
options, as well as information relating the options to the three values ranked highest at the first
community forum: fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, and planning for the future.
After the presentation, attendees participated in small group exercises, large group discussions,
and indicated their preferences regarding each option. The forum was videotaped and copies
have been made available at Eugene’s three libraries. A copy of the Community Forum #2
Summary Report was provided in the June 22, 2006, City Council packet. Refer to Attachment
A for a public involvement update.
Criteria for the Renovate, Hybrid, New Decision
Sustainable Design
?
- Incorporate green building features
Accommodation of Employee Needs
?
- Includes ergonomics, good lighting, security, parking, and structural integrity
User-Friendly
?
- Physically, visually, and symbolically receptive and accessible; well lit and secure;
ability to transact business in one location and with one visit; easy and close access to
parking and multiple transportation modes, and flexible space for a variety of uses
Plan for the Future
?
- Capacity for future expansion, structural integrity, flexibility, and longevity of design
Accommodation of Space Needs and Overall Efficiency
?
- Appropriate allocation of space and flexibility for the public, staff, and council;
efficiencies related to consolidation, and building organization and design
Architectural Significance
?
- Includes architectural preservation, architectural value, and aesthetics
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060719\S060719A.doc
Impact on Overall Project Financing
?
- Capacity to result in a passing bond measure, capacity to receive other funding through
revenues or grants
Cost
?
- Initial construction, life-cycle, project-related costs, savings from consolidation (both
staff efficiencies and energy/maintenance costs of multiple buildings)
Results from the Indication of Preferences at Community Forum:
In a small group format, community members discussed the six options and were asked to
consider the pros and cons of each. After small and large group discussions, attendees indicated
their preferences using remote control technology (refer to Attachment B for images of the six
options). The results are:
Option Explore option further Eliminate this option
Renovate Option 1 17 people 57 people
Renovate Option 2 16 people 59 people
Hybrid Option 1 23 people 52 people
Hybrid Option 2 35 people 39 people
New Option 1 58 people 16 people
New Option 2 32 people 44 people
The question “How would you rate your emotional attachment to our current City Hall facility?”
was also asked, with the following results:
No sense of attachment: 41 people
?
Some sense of attachment: 19 people
?
Great sense of attachment: 15 people
?
Additional Cost Information:
The council requested the design team to provide additional cost information such as land,
demolition, relocation, and life cycle costs (utilities and maintenance) for each option. The
following costs include the initial project costs and all of the above items. Life cycle costs
include 50 years of utilities and maintenance shown in 2006 dollars (refer to Attachment C for an
expanded summary of costs):
Renovation Option 1: $189,623,600
Renovation Option 2: $198,935,900
Hybrid Option 1: $183,146,400
Hybrid Option 2: $174,749,400
New Option 1: $169,707,300
New Option 2: $174,243,800
Sustainability:
Options were studied in relation to sustainable design features, energy use, and recycling/reuse.
General findings include:
New options provide maximum flexibility and thus the greatest potential to incorporate
?
sustainable design features such as daylighting, passive ventilation, ground water heat
recovery, and stormwater management.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060719\S060719A.doc
Renovation options use the most energy because they include a companion building to
?
accommodate the total area required and multiple buildings increase energy use. New
options are estimated to use the least energy because of their greater potential to incorporate
sustainable design features.
Building higher density on a small site results in more efficient land use, but larger (full-
?
block) sites provide the most flexibility and best potential for incorporating sustainable
design features.
Demolishing an existing building, whether the existing City Hall or a building on an alternate
?
site, creates both waste and some opportunities for salvage and recycling. Due to the extent
of work required to provide a safe, efficient, and sustainable building, in the renovation and
hybrid options all but a portion of the existing structural elements—and in some cases
parking—is replaced.
If the council wishes to preserve the existing building, the best method is to move the City
?
Hall function to a different location and offer the building to an alternate use.
Planning for the Future:
Options were studied in relation to their opportunity to accommodate space needs and future
expansion. General findings include:
All options can accommodate the space needs.
?
Site selection has a great impact on future expansion. Preserving some space on a full block
?
or purchasing an adjacent parcel provides an opportunity for horizontal expansion.
For “Renovation” options, the site selection and configuration of the companion building will
?
determine the opportunity for future expansion. For “Hybrid” options, future expansion can
be accommodated by building additional space, but not preserving open space within the
block. For “New” options, site selection and configuration will determine the opportunity for
future expansion.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The City Hall Complex master planning and public participation process relates to the council
goals of an effective, accountable municipal government, a safe community, and sustainable
community growth and change.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may decide to narrow the Renovate, Hybrid, and New options for use in future
planning studies.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the project team eliminate Renovation and Hybrid options,
and continue using New construction options when considering site selection and concept design.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to eliminate the “Renovation” and “Hybrid” options and adopt “New” construction options
for use in future planning studies until the council is prepared to adopt a single option in relation
to an overall development plan.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060719\S060719A.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. Public Involvement Update April – June 2006
B. Renovation, Hybrid, and New options
C. Additional Cost Summary
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
Telephone: 682-5547
Staff E-Mail: michael.j.penwell@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060719\S060719A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Eugene City Hall Complex Master Plan
Public Involvement Update April-June, 2006
This is an update of design team activities to inform and engage Eugene’s public in the Devel-
opment Plan phase of City Hall Complex Master Planning. Community forums are the main
mechanism for timely and specific public input to city council, but efforts are ongoing to expand
the pool of those aware of and involved in the master planning issues.
In the first half of 2006 the design team has had productive discussions with hundreds of resi-
dents. This has informed us of a lack of awareness of why the city is engaged in master plan-
ning. While continuing the involvement efforts initially planned, we are adapting to address this
by adding tours of city hall, developing fact sheets about the major issues and disseminating the
information through community and media networks. We are also adding three focus groups
(multiculturalism, youth, and accessibility) to gather specific community input for conceptual
design.
Community Forums
The design team has completed the second of four Community Forums slated for 2006. Like the
th
first forum held in March, the May 25 forum was attended by approximately 100 people. 36
participants attended both forums. The forums are designed to gather specific and timely com-
munity feedback for the City Council, foster dialogue between the community and the project
team, and expand awareness of the ongoing master planning process. Forum content is designed
with the IAP2 Guideline #6 in mind: “Public participation provides participants with the infor-
mation they need to participate in a meaningful way.”
Initial recruitment for the Community Forums was based on the list of names submitted by coun-
cilors in January. Though almost all of those recommended were available for small group in-
In late July the design
terviews in February, that group is less well represented at the forums.
team will give each Councilor a list of the names you submitted to us and request that you
th
personally invite those whom you recommended to the August 24 Forum.
Another cornerstone of recruitment was outreach to Neighborhood Associations. Slightly more
than 20% of forum participants are affiliated with their Neighborhood Association and we are
working to expand this contact using neighborhood newsletters and e-mail lists for communica-
tion, as well as attending General Meetings. The City’s Neighborhood Association staff has
helped immensely in this accomplishment.
With the support of the Human Rights Commission we have been working to make the Commu-
nity Forums a model of accessible public process. We have been able to provide hearing assis-
tance technology and the Power Point presentations in Braille. We have also received many
thankful comments for providing childcare. Racial diversity needs a lot of improvement. We
will focus on this through other means addressed later in this update, and welcome all sugges-
tions and support.
To begin to address zip code imbalances in forum participation, the design team focused poster
efforts in the Bethel and River Road commercial districts. Recruiting at summer community
events may help as well. We want the pool of participants to grow and so we are working on
Dedicated sections at our 3 libraries
ways for newcomers to get up to speed. and the project
website are good ways to catch up on background.
The design team writes to those who give us input in accordance with the IAP2 Guideline #7,
“Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.” For
th
example, we will report your decisions on July 19 to all those who submitted input through us
on the issue of renovate, hybrid, or new.
We have 382 people signed up in our database to receive information on the City Hall Complex
Master Planning process. Note that though most people do have internet access, more than 50
people require conventional mail communication.
Neighborhood Associations
The design team is beginning a second round of outreach to Neighborhood Associations. On June
7, 2006, the Downtown Neighborhood Association sponsored a meeting devoted to this issue. We
coordinated to invite Downtown Eugene, Inc. members to attend as well. (Please see the end of
this update for their input on the issue of renovate, hybrid or new.) Usually, Neighborhood Asso-
ciation General Meetings will not afford sufficient time to go into the background necessary for
meaningful, informed input to Council. It is more likely that we attend general meetings and
make a short presentation for the purpose of exposure to the project and recruitment to the forums.
th
City Project Manager, Mike Penwell, attended the Crest Drive Citizens meeting on June 20and
had an opportunity to speak with about 20 association members in this more typical setting.
Neighborhood Association newsletters provide a unique opportunity to reach residents and we are
learning to use this more effectively.
Speaking Engagements
Chamber of Commerce, Government Affairs (Please see end of this update.)
nd
All City Employee Meetings, June 1 and 2
2 Neighborhood Association General Meetings and DEI
Events
Community events are a good way to have conversations and reach out to different populations.
At We are Bethel on June 3, we signed up 25 for forums and to receive more information. We
are scheduled for several more community events in 2006. The next three community events we
plan to attend are:
?
Whiteaker Neighborhood River Festival 7/21
?
Multicultural Festival at Sheldon Community Center 8/11
?
Eugene Celebration 9/9-10
Website
As a central source of information, the www.eugencityhall.com website supports the City Hall
public outreach process with meeting notices, reports, background materials, photos, and ways to
contact project staff. From April – June, the website has had a total of 1,987 page views.
web casts
Working with Metro TV, we will promote the of related City Council workshops and
work sessions.
Comment line
This phone line provides a way to leave comments regarding the project, RSVP for upcoming
events, and contact project staff. It also announces dates and times of upcoming community
forums. Three residents have used this dedicated line to submit their comments regarding the
project, while the majority of callers use it to RSVP for community forums. The project is util-
izing the Eugene Public Library’s TTY line for the hearing impaired.
Media
Media is an important tool to get the word out about the project. We use print ads and press re-
leases to announce the forums, and made a concerted effort to use additional media for outreach
to the May Forum. Design Team Project Manager, Dana Crawford, did interviews at three TV
stations and five radio stations in advance of the May forum. City Project Manager, Mike Pen-
well, and local Public Involvement Manager, Ellen Teninty, did a half hour interview on In the
Public Interest on Public Access TV.
Print media has had fairly consistent coverage in both The Register-Guard and Eugene Weekly.
Mayor Piercy had a Guest Viewpoint published prior to the forum that extended an invitation for
participation. Working with City community relations staff, more media is planned for the sec-
ond half of 2006 in an effort to inform and interest Eugene residents in city hall master planning.
Newsletters
We are building a growing list of organizational newsletters that allow us to insert information
and updates about the city hall complex project. This expanding inventory reflects suggestions
from forum participants, citizen interviews, events, and presentations.
Display
The consulting staff is developing a standing display for use at community festivals and speaking
engagements to illustrate key facts and events relevant to the Eugene City Hall Master Plan.
Tours
To give the community direct experience, the consulting team will lead a series of tours of City
Hall in late summer and autumn that will focus on the dominant issues driving master planning.
video
Thus far, over 60 community members have signed up for a tour. We will also produce a
tour of City Hall
to be available through the website and for use at civic events.
2006 Focus Groups
In an effort to reach traditionally under-represented populations and to gain their input into the
concept design process, the design team will organize three focus groups this fall on:
?
Multiculturalism
?
Youth
?
Accessibility
Latino outreach
We are working on specific outreach strategies for this growing portion of Eugene’s population.
This spring was a particularly challenging time to gain attention for city hall master planning as
there were pressing issues about immigration law pertinent to the Latino community. We have
been looking for opportunities that allow for in-depth contact so that there is time for education
about the issues and meaningful input to the process. Possibilities identified for further investi-
gation include Birth to Three, LCC ESL classes funded through Civics grants, and specific
church services held in Spanish. Resources have been earmarked to pursue this throughout the
year.
FAQ’s
We are developing fact sheets about the reasons for master planning and answers to Frequently
Asked Questions. Mainly, people were unaware of the issues with city hall and need background
on why the council has begun master planning.
Feedback from venues other than Community Forum
Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee May 19, 2006
Fill the potholes before you try to move this issue!!! (Emphasis intended.)
1)
2)It is disingenuous to say that “Do nothing” is an option. Tell us what the minimum
option is.
3)Sustainability is the only saleable point.
4)Want to see: Operational costs, functional efficiency savings, and what properties can we
sell
5)Explanation was given by Michael Roberts about why public buildings cost more than
private projects due to different requirements.
6)Public spaces should be nice. Office building should be nice—not great.
7)Want to explore the concept of private building leased by city.
8)Want to see the System Development Charges attached to project.
9)I like the mural. Get rid of the rest.
Downtown Neighborhood Meeting 6/7/06
1) How would you rate your emotional attachment to our current City Hall facility?
A. No sense of attachment 8
B. Some sense of attachment 4
C. Great sense of attachment 1
2) Renovate Option #1
A. Explore this option further 3
B. Eliminate this option 10
3) Renovate Option #2
A. Explore this option further 2
B. Eliminate this option 11
4) Hybrid Option #1
A. Explore this option further 3
B. Eliminate this option 11
5) Hybrid Option #2
A. Explore this option further 4
B. Eliminate this option 9
6) New Option #1
A. Explore this option further 12
B. Eliminate this option 1
7) New Option #2
A. Explore this option further 9
B. Eliminate this option 4
DNA/ DEI Comments
1.Thank you for your excellent presentation.
2.The city leaders have done such an incredibly poor job; you do not deserve a new build-
ing. You must do your job first; then ask us for something.
3.It is difficult to evaluate the six options without knowing how the different departments
interact. The most important element of sustainability is longevity of a building. The
building should be loved by users and public. If the existing building in its essential lay-
out has exceeded its longevity, then renovating it and investing further into it would be a
huge mistake.
4.New half block Option 2 if used in conjunction with half block of open space.
5.Good luck!
R1R2
ENOVATION OPTION ENOVATION OPTION
EXISTING CITY HALL WITH ADDITIONAL VOLUME
EXISTING CITY HALL VOLUMEADDITIONAL VOLUME NEEDED
ADDITIONAL VOLUMENEEDED
84,000 GSF216,000 GSF
84,000 GSF EXISTING AND 52,000 GSF 169,000 GSF
Existing
Secure
Secure
Existing
and Non-
Parking
Secure
Secure and
Secure
Parking
Non-Secure
Fleet Park-
Fleet
Parking
H1H2
ybrid OPTION ybrid OPTION
Secure Police
Secure Police
Parking
Parking
Non-Secure
Non-Secure
Fleet Parking
Fleet Parking
Secure Police
Parking
Secure Police
Parking
Non-Secure
Fleet
Non-Secure
Parking
Fleet
Parking
N1N2
ew OPTION ew OPTION
Secure Police
Secure Police
Parking
Parking
Non-Secure
Non-Secure
Fleet Parking
Fleet Parking
OPTIONS LEGEND
Existing City Hall
New Police Functions
Other New City Hall Functions
Parking
ATTACHMENT C
Eugene City Hall Complex Master Plan
Additional Cost Summary
This following cost summary shows initial project costs, utilities and maintenance costs for 50
years, average land costs within downtown Eugene, demolition costs for the existing building
(demolition for other sites depends on the site selected), and relocation costs. Additional infor-
mation on the composition of the utility and maintenance costs follows this table.
Table 1. Summary of Total Costs.
Option Project Cost (a) Utilities Maintenance Land (d) Demo (e) Relocate (f) Total Cost
50 years (b) 50 years (c)
R 1 $128,193,300 $8,216,000 $49,440,000 $1,681,800 Unknown $2,092,500 $189,623,600
R 2 $134,962,200 $8,433,400 $50,486,000 $1,681,800 $1,000,000 $2,372,500 $198,935,900
H 1 $122,066,600 $7,947,300 $50,180,000 $0 $ 300,000 $2,652,500 $183,146,400
H 2 $112,944,600 $7,548,300 $50,044,000 $0 $1,000,000 $3,212,500 $174,749,400
N 1 $110,209,500 $6,934,100 $48,682,700 $3,363,500 Unknown $ 517,500 $169,707,300
N 2 $114,487,800 $7,521,700 $50,035,000 $1,681,800 Unknown $ 517,500 $174,243,800
Assumptions
All options accommodate 300,000 gross square feet of building area.
(a) Project costs include initial construction cost and 1.35 soft cost multiplier.
(b) Includes energy, water, and sewer costs for 50 years adjusted to 2006 dollars. Renovation
options include energy, water, and sewer costs for the renovation and a companion building.
(c) Includes building operations and major maintenance costs for 50 years. Renovation options
include operations and major maintenance costs for the renovation and a companion building.
(d) Market value for downtown land ranges from $30-38 per square foot. Values above reflect
average cost of $35 per square foot. Renovation options include a half block to accommodate
companion building; New 1 option assumes purchasing a full block; New 2 option assumes
purchasing a half block. Hybrid and New options are not offset by potential sale of existing
building and/or site.
(e) Demolition costs will depend on the existing improvements and constraints surrounding the
selected site. Sites that have substantial existing structures or have adjacent buildings on mul-
tiple sides will have higher demolition costs. Renovation options may require demolition costs
for the companion building site; Hybrid options will require the demolition of some or most of
the existing building; New options will be site dependent.
(f) All options will require at least one move. Renovation and Hybrid options will require two
moves (to a temporary location during construction and back when the project is complete).
Relocation costs include $2.50/square foot for moving and $2/square foot/month to lease space
for 18 months. Total costs for options N1 and N2 do not include multiple relocation costs. If
the existing City Hall site is used for new construction, total costs would increase by
$2,695,000.
Utilities and Maintenance Cost Summary
The estimated life cycle costs associated with energy, water, sewer, and ongoing building mainte-
nance are presented in Table 2 for each of the six primary options. Estimated average initial pro-
ject cost is also shown, in order to provide an order-of-magnitude comparison between the life
cycle operating costs and anticipated first cost. In general, the new options are expected to exhibit
the lowest operating costs while the hybrid options exhibit the highest. Total operating costs are
expected to vary by about 12% from most expensive to least expensive. Utilities costs, while not a
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 2
large component of operating costs, are expected to have greater variation (about 18%) from most
expensive option to least expensive.
Table 2. Summary of Project, Utilities, and Maintenance Costs.
Project Cost, Utilities Cost, Maint. Cost, Total Cost,
2006$ [a] 2006$ [b] 2006$ [c] 2006$
Option
Renovation 1 128,193,300 8,331,513 50,251,300 186,776,113
Renovation 2 134,962,200 8,433,365 50,485,698 193,881,263
Hybrid 1 122,066,550 8,046,084 56,007,571 186,120,206
Hybrid 2 112,944,600 7,705,557 51,622,528 172,272,684
New 1 110,209,500 7,049,626 49,494,015 166,753,140
New 2 114,486,750 7,647,028 50,868,848 173,002,627
[a] Total construction cost (average) and 1.35 multiplier for soft costs, 2006$.
[b] The value of 50 years worth of utilities costs (energy, water, and sewer) in 2006$.
[c] The value of 50 years worth of building operations and major maintenance costs, in 2006$.
250,000,000
200,000,000
Total Cost, 2006$
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
0
R1R2H1H2N1N2
Option
Total First CostEnergy and WaterMaintenance and Repair
Figure 1. Summary of Total Costs.
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 3
Background Research and Documentation
Energy Costs.
Current annual energy costs have been collected and analyzed for the existing
City Hall complex, Eugene Public Library, and the Public Works office at 858 Pearl. These are
summarized below (Table 3) in the form of energy cost index in $/SF. These costs, in combination
with an extensive database and experience base of energy costs associated with similar new pro-
jects throughout the Pacific Northwest, are used to develop expected energy cost targets. Projec-
tions of energy costs associated with the six primary options have been developed based on three
“construction cases”, as summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 3. Summary of Existing Building Energy Costs.
Energy Cost
Facility Index, $/SF Source
Eugene City Hall $2.32 Last 2 years of utility bills (steam and electricity)
858 Pearl (PW) $0.89 Last year of utility bills (steam and electricity)
Eugene Public Library $0.94 Last 3 years of utility bills (gas and electricity)
Review of the primary options resulted in the establishment of three construction cases where
energy costs could logically be considered to differ. All cases are assumed to strive for maximum
energy and water efficiency. Differences between the cases are summarized briefly in the list
below.
?
New construction with maximum design flexibility: New construction located on larger sites
(such as the full block site) was considered to have the highest degree of flexibility in design,
orientation, massing, and other considerations that are key to achieving the lowest practical
energy use within a new high performance building.
?
New construction with some limitations on design flexibility: In general, new construction is
anticipated to create the possibility of maximum practical energy efficiency in design. Some
new construction options are located on smaller sites (1/2 block) where building orientation,
massing, height, footprint dimensions, and other basic parameters will have to respond to the
site in ways that may restrict design options to a degree. For these cases, it is logical to
assume that the maximum energy and water efficiency performance may be compromised
somewhat, relative to new construction on larger, more flexible sites.
?
Major renovation: Major renovation of existing buildings is expected to present the greatest set
of limitations to flexibility in design of high performance buildings. Design considerations such
as building orientation, footprint, floor-to-floor height, as well as other parameters will be more
or less fixed by the existing conditions. While it is expected that such renovation will result in a
significant reduction to the existing City Hall energy cost index, this case is anticipated to rep-
resent the highest energy cost index case.
Table 4 summarizes the energy cost indices that are assigned to each of the construction cases.
Table 4. Energy Cost Targets for Three Construction Cases.
Construction Case Energy Cost Notes
Index, $/SF
New construction, maximum flexibility in $0.67 Assume at 60% energy of public works/library inflated
design and siting by 5%.
New construction, with some limits to design $0.71 Assume midway between new unlimited and major
and flexibility renovation (closer to unlimited than major renovation)
Major renovation of existing City Hall $1.11 Assume similar to public works/library inflated by 5%
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 4
Energy costs and energy cost indices were estimated for each option, by performing simple
weighted averages using the construction case costs (listed above) and the area break-downs
summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Summary of Anticipated Energy Costs per Option.
Options Renovated New area New area Energy Cost, Energy Cost
area, SF (unlimited), SF (limited), SF 2006$ Index, $/SF
Renovation 1 84000 221000 0 $ 241,353 $ 0.80
Renovation 2 84000 169000 52000 $ 243,671 $ 0.81
Hybrid 1 30000 0 275000 $ 229,542 $ 0.77
Hybrid 2 4400 0 300600 $ 219,273 $ 0.73
New 1 0 305000 0 $ 203,913 $ 0.68
New 2 0 0 305000 $ 217,508 $ 0.73
Life Cycle Costs. Life cycle costs were calculated using a 50 year study period, and assuming an
average annual energy cost escalation rate of 3%. A discount rate of 5% was also used, to com-
pute net present cost of the entire 50 year set of energy costs. Table 6 summarizes the cash flows
and life cycle cost calculations.
Table 6. Life Cycle Cash Flow for Energy Costs.
Year Renovation 1 Renovation 1 Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 New 1 New 2
0
1 $ 248,594 $ 250,981 $ 236,428 $ 225,851 $ 210,031 $ 224,033
2 $ 256,052 $ 258,510 $ 243,521 $ 232,626 $ 216,332 $ 230,754
3 $ 263,733 $ 266,266 $ 250,826 $ 239,605 $ 222,822 $ 237,676
4 $ 271,645 $ 274,254 $ 258,351 $ 246,793 $ 229,506 $ 244,807
5 $ 279,794 $ 282,481 $ 266,102 $ 254,197 $ 236,391 $ 252,151
6 $ 288,188 $ 290,956 $ 274,085 $ 261,823 $ 243,483 $ 259,715
7 $ 296,834 $ 299,684 $ 282,307 $ 269,678 $ 250,788 $ 267,507
8 $ 305,739 $ 308,675 $ 290,777 $ 277,768 $ 258,311 $ 275,532
9 $ 314,911 $ 317,935 $ 299,500 $ 286,101 $ 266,061 $ 283,798
10 $ 324,358 $ 327,473 $ 308,485 $ 294,684 $ 274,042 $ 292,312
11 $ 334,089 $ 337,297 $ 317,739 $ 303,525 $ 282,264 $ 301,081
12 $ 344,112 $ 347,416 $ 327,272 $ 312,630 $ 290,732 $ 310,114
13 $ 354,435 $ 357,839 $ 337,090 $ 322,009 $ 299,454 $ 319,417
14 $ 365,068 $ 368,574 $ 347,203 $ 331,669 $ 308,437 $ 329,000
15 $ 376,020 $ 379,631 $ 357,619 $ 341,620 $ 317,690 $ 338,870
16 $ 387,301 $ 391,020 $ 368,347 $ 351,868 $ 327,221 $ 349,036
17 $ 398,920 $ 402,751 $ 379,398 $ 362,424 $ 337,038 $ 359,507
18 $ 410,888 $ 414,833 $ 390,779 $ 373,297 $ 347,149 $ 370,292
19 $ 423,214 $ 427,278 $ 402,503 $ 384,496 $ 357,563 $ 381,401
20 $ 435,911 $ 440,097 $ 414,578 $ 396,031 $ 368,290 $ 392,843
21 $ 448,988 $ 453,300 $ 427,015 $ 407,912 $ 379,339 $ 404,628
22 $ 462,458 $ 466,899 $ 439,826 $ 420,149 $ 390,719 $ 416,767
23 $ 476,331 $ 480,905 $ 453,021 $ 432,753 $ 402,441 $ 429,270
24 $ 490,621 $ 495,333 $ 466,611 $ 445,736 $ 414,514 $ 442,148
25 $ 505,340 $ 510,193 $ 480,609 $ 459,108 $ 426,949 $ 455,412
26 $ 520,500 $ 525,498 $ 495,028 $ 472,881 $ 439,758 $ 469,075
27 $ 536,115 $ 541,263 $ 509,879 $ 487,068 $ 452,950 $ 483,147
28 $ 552,199 $ 557,501 $ 525,175 $ 501,680 $ 466,539 $ 497,642
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 5
29 $ 568,764 $ 574,226 $ 540,930 $ 516,730 $ 480,535 $ 512,571
30 $ 585,827 $ 591,453 $ 557,158 $ 532,232 $ 494,951 $ 527,948
31 $ 603,402 $ 609,197 $ 573,873 $ 548,199 $ 509,800 $ 543,786
32 $ 621,504 $ 627,473 $ 591,089 $ 564,645 $ 525,094 $ 560,100
33 $ 640,149 $ 646,297 $ 608,822 $ 581,584 $ 540,846 $ 576,903
34 $ 659,354 $ 665,686 $ 627,086 $ 599,032 $ 557,072 $ 594,210
35 $ 679,135 $ 685,656 $ 645,899 $ 617,003 $ 573,784 $ 612,036
36 $ 699,509 $ 706,226 $ 665,276 $ 635,513 $ 590,998 $ 630,397
37 $ 720,494 $ 727,413 $ 685,234 $ 654,578 $ 608,727 $ 649,309
38 $ 742,109 $ 749,235 $ 705,791 $ 674,216 $ 626,989 $ 668,789
39 $ 764,372 $ 771,712 $ 726,965 $ 694,442 $ 645,799 $ 688,852
40 $ 787,303 $ 794,863 $ 748,774 $ 715,275 $ 665,173 $ 709,518
41 $ 810,922 $ 818,709 $ 771,237 $ 736,734 $ 685,128 $ 730,803
42 $ 835,250 $ 843,271 $ 794,374 $ 758,836 $ 705,682 $ 752,727
43 $ 860,307 $ 868,569 $ 818,205 $ 781,601 $ 726,852 $ 775,309
44 $ 886,117 $ 894,626 $ 842,752 $ 805,049 $ 748,658 $ 798,569
45 $ 912,700 $ 921,465 $ 868,034 $ 829,200 $ 771,118 $ 822,526
46 $ 940,081 $ 949,109 $ 894,075 $ 854,076 $ 794,251 $ 847,201
47 $ 968,283 $ 977,582 $ 920,897 $ 879,698 $ 818,079 $ 872,617
48 $ 997,332 $ 1,006,909 $ 948,524 $ 906,089 $ 842,621 $ 898,796
49 $ 1,027,252 $ 1,037,117 $ 976,980 $ 933,272 $ 867,900 $ 925,760
50 $ 1,058,069 $ 1,068,230 $ 1,006,290 $ 961,270 $ 893,937 $ 953,533
Net
Present
$7,677,905 $7,751,636 $7,302,163 $6,975,480 $6,486,873 $6,919,331
Cost
Other Utility Costs (Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer).
Current annual costs for water,
sanitary sewer, and storm sewer service have been collected for the existing City Hall complex.
These are summarized below (Table 7).
Table 7. Summary of Existing Building Water and Sewer Costs.
Water/Sewer
Facility Cost Index, $/SF Source
Eugene City Hall $0.11 Last 2 years of utility bills (water, sanitary, and storm)
Projections of other utility costs associated with the six primary options have been developed in a
manner similar to energy costs, based on three “construction cases.” The estimated costs and
cost indices are shown in Table 8 and 9.
Table 8. Water, Sewer, and Storm Sewer Cost Targets for Three Construction Cases.
Water/Sewer
Cost Index,
Construction Case $/SF Notes
New construction, unlimited flexibility in Assume at 50% of existing cost at existing City
$0.058
design and siting Hall.
New construction, with some limits to design Assume midway between new unlimited and major
and flexibility $0.075 renovation
Major renovation of existing City Hall $0.092 Assume at 80% of existing cost at existing City Hall
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 6
Table 9. Summary of Anticipated Water, Sewer, and Storm Sewer (WSSS) Costs per Option.
Options Renovated New area New area WSSS Cost, WSSS Cost
area, SF (unlimited), SF (limited), SF 2006$ Index, $/SF
Renovation 1 84000 221000 0 $ 20,256 $ 0.068
Renovation 2 84000 169000 52000 $ 21,430 $ 0.071
Hybrid 1 30000 0 275000 $ 23,044 $ 0.077
Hybrid 2 4400 0 300600 $ 22,534 $ 0.075
New 1 0 305000 0 $ 17,400 $ 0.058
New 2 0 0 305000 $ 22,500 $ 0.075
Life Cycle Costs. Life cycle costs were calculated using a 50 year study period, and assuming an
average annual cost escalation rate of 3%. A discount rate of 5% was also used, to compute net
present cost of the entire 50 year set of water, sewer, and storm sewer costs. Table 10 summa-
rizes the cash flows and life cycle cost calculations.
Table 10. Life Cycle Cash Flow for WSSS Costs.
Year Renovation 1 Renovation 1 Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 New 1 New 2
0
1 $ 21,162 $ 22,073 $ 24,087 $ 23,638 $ 18,221 $ 23,561
2 $ 21,797 $ 22,735 $ 24,809 $ 24,347 $ 18,767 $ 24,268
3 $ 22,451 $ 23,417 $ 25,553 $ 25,078 $ 19,330 $ 24,996
4 $ 23,125 $ 24,120 $ 26,320 $ 25,830 $ 19,910 $ 25,746
5 $ 23,818 $ 24,843 $ 27,110 $ 26,605 $ 20,508 $ 26,518
6 $ 24,533 $ 25,589 $ 27,923 $ 27,403 $ 21,123 $ 27,314
7 $ 25,269 $ 26,356 $ 28,761 $ 28,225 $ 21,756 $ 28,133
8 $ 26,027 $ 27,147 $ 29,623 $ 29,072 $ 22,409 $ 28,977
9 $ 26,808 $ 27,961 $ 30,512 $ 29,944 $ 23,081 $ 29,847
10 $ 27,612 $ 28,800 $ 31,427 $ 30,843 $ 23,774 $ 30,742
11 $ 28,440 $ 29,664 $ 32,370 $ 31,768 $ 24,487 $ 31,664
12 $ 29,294 $ 30,554 $ 33,341 $ 32,721 $ 25,222 $ 32,614
13 $ 30,172 $ 31,471 $ 34,342 $ 33,703 $ 25,978 $ 33,593
14 $ 31,078 $ 32,415 $ 35,372 $ 34,714 $ 26,758 $ 34,600
15 $ 32,010 $ 33,387 $ 36,433 $ 35,755 $ 27,560 $ 35,639
16 $ 32,970 $ 34,389 $ 37,526 $ 36,828 $ 28,387 $ 36,708
17 $ 33,959 $ 35,421 $ 38,652 $ 37,933 $ 29,239 $ 37,809
18 $ 34,978 $ 36,483 $ 39,811 $ 39,070 $ 30,116 $ 38,943
19 $ 36,028 $ 37,578 $ 41,006 $ 40,243 $ 31,020 $ 40,111
20 $ 37,108 $ 38,705 $ 42,236 $ 41,450 $ 31,950 $ 41,315
21 $ 38,222 $ 39,866 $ 43,503 $ 42,693 $ 32,909 $ 42,554
22 $ 39,368 $ 41,062 $ 44,808 $ 43,974 $ 33,896 $ 43,831
23 $ 40,549 $ 42,294 $ 46,152 $ 45,293 $ 34,913 $ 45,146
24 $ 41,766 $ 43,563 $ 47,537 $ 46,652 $ 35,960 $ 46,500
25 $ 43,019 $ 44,870 $ 48,963 $ 48,052 $ 37,039 $ 47,895
26 $ 44,309 $ 46,216 $ 50,432 $ 49,493 $ 38,150 $ 49,332
27 $ 45,639 $ 47,602 $ 51,945 $ 50,978 $ 39,295 $ 50,812
28 $ 47,008 $ 49,030 $ 53,503 $ 52,507 $ 40,473 $ 52,336
29 $ 48,418 $ 50,501 $ 55,108 $ 54,083 $ 41,688 $ 53,906
30 $ 49,871 $ 52,016 $ 56,762 $ 55,705 $ 42,938 $ 55,524
31 $ 51,367 $ 53,577 $ 58,464 $ 57,376 $ 44,226 $ 57,189
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 7
32 $ 52,908 $ 55,184 $ 60,218 $ 59,098 $ 45,553 $ 58,905
33 $ 54,495 $ 56,840 $ 62,025 $ 60,871 $ 46,920 $ 60,672
34 $ 56,130 $ 58,545 $ 63,886 $ 62,697 $ 48,327 $ 62,492
35 $ 57,814 $ 60,301 $ 65,802 $ 64,578 $ 49,777 $ 64,367
36 $ 59,548 $ 62,110 $ 67,776 $ 66,515 $ 51,271 $ 66,298
37 $ 61,334 $ 63,973 $ 69,810 $ 68,510 $ 52,809 $ 68,287
38 $ 63,175 $ 65,893 $ 71,904 $ 70,566 $ 54,393 $ 70,336
39 $ 65,070 $ 67,869 $ 74,061 $ 72,683 $ 56,025 $ 72,446
40 $ 67,022 $ 69,905 $ 76,283 $ 74,863 $ 57,705 $ 74,619
41 $ 69,032 $ 72,003 $ 78,571 $ 77,109 $ 59,437 $ 76,858
42 $ 71,103 $ 74,163 $ 80,928 $ 79,422 $ 61,220 $ 79,163
43 $ 73,237 $ 76,388 $ 83,356 $ 81,805 $ 63,056 $ 81,538
44 $ 75,434 $ 78,679 $ 85,857 $ 84,259 $ 64,948 $ 83,984
45 $ 77,697 $ 81,040 $ 88,433 $ 86,787 $ 66,896 $ 86,504
46 $ 80,028 $ 83,471 $ 91,086 $ 89,390 $ 68,903 $ 89,099
47 $ 82,428 $ 85,975 $ 93,818 $ 92,072 $ 70,970 $ 91,772
48 $ 84,901 $ 88,554 $ 96,633 $ 94,834 $ 73,100 $ 94,525
49 $ 87,448 $ 91,211 $ 99,532 $ 97,679 $ 75,293 $ 97,361
50 $ 90,072 $ 93,947 $ 102,518 $ 100,610 $ 77,551 $ 100,282
Net
Present
$653,608 $681,729 $743,922 $730,077 $562,753 $727,698
Cost
Maintenance Costs
In addition to the cost of utilities (primarily energy), the City of Eugene tracks other building main-
tenance costs in three general areas for City space related to City Hall:
?
Building operations costs, such as custodial service, window cleaning, security services, etc.
?
Major maintenance costs, such as minor repair and ongoing preventive maintenance.
?
Capital replacement costs, representing a “sinking fund” that can be applied toward ultimate
renovation or replacement of existing City Hall space. (This budget category is unique for
spaces that are targeted for ultimate inclusion in a new or renovated City Hall. Other City facili-
ties, such as fire stations, are not set up with a capital replacement sinking fund).
Historically, the City has maintained major maintenance budgets between 2% to 2.5% of the value
of the building on an annual basis. Recently, those budgets have fallen slightly below 2%, which is
also below the lower threshold for building maintenance budgeting as established in work by the
National Research Council.
Deferred maintenance represents accrued and accumulated major maintenance investments that
have not been made. Deferred maintenance issues relating to the existing City Hall are discussed
in three categories, sometimes resulting in different values of the deferred maintenance:
?
Deferred maintenance: Major maintenance investment not made as of 2004.
?
“Current” deferred maintenance: Major maintenance investment identified but not yet made for
the period of 2004-06.
?
Emerging maintenance: Anticipated major maintenance investment over the next 5 years
(2006-11).
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 8
General discussion about maintenance costs associated with the existing City Hall have been dis-
cussed with the City of Eugene’s Facility Management Division, followed by a focused review of
maintenance budgets for fiscal year 2007. Based on the information collected in these activities,
the maintenance cost categories indicated in Table 11, have been developed.
Table 11. Summary of Existing Building Maintenance Costs.
Annual
Building Major Capital Deferred
Operations Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance,
Facility Costs, $/SF Costs, $/SF Budget, $/SF 2006 $ [1] Source
Eugene City Hall $ 4.56 $2.50 $5.59 $8,800,000+ Glen Svendsen,
personal interview
and FY07 budgets
858 Pearl (PW) $4.41 $2.40 $7.04 -- FY07 budgets
Eugene Public Library $8.99 $2.37 $3.35 -- FY07 budgets
Atrium Building TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3]
Eugene Hotel [2] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3]
City Prosecutor Office [2] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3]
Parcade [2] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3] TBD [3]
Average Existing Cost [4] $ 4.48 $2.45 N/A N/A
[1] For existing City Hall, this includes deferred maintenance (pre-2004) and “current” deferred maintenance (2004-2006) of $5,000,000.
Anticipated emerging maintenance for the next 5 years is projected to increase deferred maintenance to $28,900,000 by 2011.
[2] City occupied space in larger building.
[3] To be determined; Current WSSS use and cost information is being obtained for these buildings but has not yet been analyzed and
converted to a cost index.
[4] Based on the average of the Eugene City Hall and 858 Pearl costs.
Similar to the analysis applied utilities cost, ongoing maintenance cost indices or target costs have
been projected for each of three construction cases. The expectations for cost reductions were
developed and discussed jointly by the design team and Facility Management Division representa-
tives, and are based on the team’s mutual experience relating to maintenance of municipal build-
ings. Table 12 summarizes the established maintenance cost targets. Table 13 summarizes the
results of a weighted average calculation that results in estimated maintenance costs for each of
the six options.
Note that Annual Capital Maintenance and Deferred Maintenance are NOT included in the pro-
jected life cycle cost associated with ongoing building maintenance. These categories of mainte-
nance cost do not, in general, apply to newly constructed or renovated buildings, and are therefore
not included in the following cost discussion. They do, however, have special meaning relative to
the existing City Hall infrastructure. To the extent that Annual Capital Maintenance and/or Defer-
red Maintenance is significant to any option, consideration of the cost impact can be based on
costs presented in Table 11 above, and more detailed discussion with City Staff outside the scope
and context of this document.
Table 12. Maintenance Cost Targets for Three Construction Cases.
Building Major
Operations Maintenance
Construction Case Cost, $/SF Costs, $/SF Notes
New construction, maximum Assume 10% reduction of average cost for
$4.03 $2.20
flexibility to integrate sustainability City Hall and 858 Pearl.
New construction, with some limits Assume 7.5% reduction of average cost for
$4.15 $2.26
to design and flexibility City Hall and 858 Pearl.
Major renovation of existing City Assume 5% reduction of average cost for City
$4.26 $2.33
Hall Hall and 858 Pearl.
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 9
Table 13. Summary of Maintenance Costs per Option.
Total
Maint.
New area New area Building Cost
Renovated (unlimited), (limited), Operations Major Maint. Total Maint. Index,
area, SF SF SF Cost, 2006$ Cost, 2006$ Cost, 2006$ $/SF
Options
Renovation 1 84000 221000 0 $ 1,249,123 $ 682,161 $ 1,931,284
$ 6.33
Renovation 2 84000 169000 52000 $ 1,254,949 $ 685,343 $ 1,940,292
$ 6.36
Hybrid 1 30000 0 275000 $ 1,392,209 $ 760,302 $ 2,152,511
$ 7.06
Hybrid 2 4400 0 300600 $ 1,283,208 $ 700,775 $ 1,983,983
$ 6.50
New 1 0 305000 0 $ 1,230,298 $ 671,881 $ 1,902,179
$ 6.24
New 2 0 0 305000 $ 1,264,473 $ 690,544 $ 1,955,017
$ 6.41
Life Cycle Costs. Life cycle costs were calculated using a 50 year study period, and assuming an
average annual cost escalation rate of 2%. A discount rate of 5% was also used, to compute net
present cost of the entire 50 year set of maintenance costs. Table 14 summarizes the cash flows
and life cycle cost calculations.
Table 14. Life Cycle Cash Flow for Maintenance Costs.
Year Renovation 1 Renovation 1 Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 New 1 New 2
0
1 $ 1,969,909 $ 1,979,098 $ 2,195,562 $ 2,023,663 $ 1,940,223 $ 1,994,118
2 $ 2,009,307 $ 2,018,680 $ 2,239,473 $ 2,064,136 $ 1,979,027 $ 2,034,000
3 $ 2,049,494 $ 2,059,053 $ 2,284,262 $ 2,105,419 $ 2,018,608 $ 2,074,680
4 $ 2,090,483 $ 2,100,235 $ 2,329,948 $ 2,147,527 $ 2,058,980 $ 2,116,174
5 $ 2,132,293 $ 2,142,239 $ 2,376,547 $ 2,190,478 $ 2,100,159 $ 2,158,497
6 $ 2,174,939 $ 2,185,084 $ 2,424,078 $ 2,234,287 $ 2,142,163 $ 2,201,667
7 $ 2,218,438 $ 2,228,786 $ 2,472,559 $ 2,278,973 $ 2,185,006 $ 2,245,701
8 $ 2,262,806 $ 2,273,361 $ 2,522,010 $ 2,324,553 $ 2,228,706 $ 2,290,615
9 $ 2,308,063 $ 2,318,829 $ 2,572,450 $ 2,371,044 $ 2,273,280 $ 2,336,427
10 $ 2,354,224 $ 2,365,205 $ 2,623,899 $ 2,418,465 $ 2,318,746 $ 2,383,155
11 $ 2,401,308 $ 2,412,509 $ 2,676,377 $ 2,466,834 $ 2,365,121 $ 2,430,819
12 $ 2,449,335 $ 2,460,759 $ 2,729,905 $ 2,516,170 $ 2,412,423 $ 2,479,435
13 $ 2,498,321 $ 2,509,975 $ 2,784,503 $ 2,566,494 $ 2,460,672 $ 2,529,024
14 $ 2,548,288 $ 2,560,174 $ 2,840,193 $ 2,617,824 $ 2,509,885 $ 2,579,604
15 $ 2,599,253 $ 2,611,378 $ 2,896,997 $ 2,670,180 $ 2,560,083 $ 2,631,196
16 $ 2,651,238 $ 2,663,605 $ 2,954,937 $ 2,723,584 $ 2,611,284 $ 2,683,820
17 $ 2,704,263 $ 2,716,877 $ 3,014,036 $ 2,778,056 $ 2,663,510 $ 2,737,496
18 $ 2,758,348 $ 2,771,215 $ 3,074,316 $ 2,833,617 $ 2,716,780 $ 2,792,246
19 $ 2,813,515 $ 2,826,639 $ 3,135,803 $ 2,890,289 $ 2,771,116 $ 2,848,091
20 $ 2,869,786 $ 2,883,172 $ 3,198,519 $ 2,948,095 $ 2,826,538 $ 2,905,053
21 $ 2,927,181 $ 2,940,835 $ 3,262,489 $ 3,007,057 $ 2,883,069 $ 2,963,154
22 $ 2,985,725 $ 2,999,652 $ 3,327,739 $ 3,067,198 $ 2,940,730 $ 3,022,417
23 $ 3,045,440 $ 3,059,645 $ 3,394,294 $ 3,128,542 $ 2,999,545 $ 3,082,866
24 $ 3,106,348 $ 3,120,838 $ 3,462,180 $ 3,191,113 $ 3,059,536 $ 3,144,523
25 $ 3,168,475 $ 3,183,255 $ 3,531,423 $ 3,254,935 $ 3,120,727 $ 3,207,413
26 $ 3,231,845 $ 3,246,920 $ 3,602,052 $ 3,320,034 $ 3,183,141 $ 3,271,562
27 $ 3,296,482 $ 3,311,858 $ 3,674,093 $ 3,386,434 $ 3,246,804 $ 3,336,993
28 $ 3,362,411 $ 3,378,095 $ 3,747,575 $ 3,454,163 $ 3,311,740 $ 3,403,733
Eugene City Hall Master Planning Utility and Maintenance Costs
June 29, 2006 Page 10
29 $ 3,429,660 $ 3,445,657 $ 3,822,526 $ 3,523,246 $ 3,377,975 $ 3,471,807
30 $ 3,498,253 $ 3,514,570 $ 3,898,977 $ 3,593,711 $ 3,445,534 $ 3,541,244
31 $ 3,568,218 $ 3,584,862 $ 3,976,956 $ 3,665,585 $ 3,514,445 $ 3,612,068
32 $ 3,639,582 $ 3,656,559 $ 4,056,495 $ 3,738,897 $ 3,584,734 $ 3,684,310
33 $ 3,712,374 $ 3,729,690 $ 4,137,625 $ 3,813,675 $ 3,656,429 $ 3,757,996
34 $ 3,786,621 $ 3,804,284 $ 4,220,378 $ 3,889,948 $ 3,729,557 $ 3,833,156
35 $ 3,862,354 $ 3,880,370 $ 4,304,785 $ 3,967,747 $ 3,804,148 $ 3,909,819
36 $ 3,939,601 $ 3,957,977 $ 4,390,881 $ 4,047,102 $ 3,880,231 $ 3,988,015
37 $ 4,018,393 $ 4,037,137 $ 4,478,699 $ 4,128,044 $ 3,957,836 $ 4,067,776
38 $ 4,098,761 $ 4,117,879 $ 4,568,273 $ 4,210,605 $ 4,036,993 $ 4,149,131
39 $ 4,180,736 $ 4,200,237 $ 4,659,638 $ 4,294,817 $ 4,117,732 $ 4,232,114
40 $ 4,264,351 $ 4,284,242 $ 4,752,831 $ 4,380,714 $ 4,200,087 $ 4,316,756
41 $ 4,349,638 $ 4,369,927 $ 4,847,887 $ 4,468,328 $ 4,284,089 $ 4,403,091
42 $ 4,436,630 $ 4,457,325 $ 4,944,845 $ 4,557,695 $ 4,369,771 $ 4,491,153
43 $ 4,525,363 $ 4,546,472 $ 5,043,742 $ 4,648,848 $ 4,457,166 $ 4,580,976
44 $ 4,615,870 $ 4,637,401 $ 5,144,617 $ 4,741,825 $ 4,546,309 $ 4,672,596
45 $ 4,708,188 $ 4,730,149 $ 5,247,509 $ 4,836,662 $ 4,637,235 $ 4,766,048
46 $ 4,802,351 $ 4,824,752 $ 5,352,459 $ 4,933,395 $ 4,729,980 $ 4,861,369
47 $ 4,898,398 $ 4,921,247 $ 5,459,509 $ 5,032,063 $ 4,824,580 $ 4,958,596
48 $ 4,996,366 $ 5,019,672 $ 5,568,699 $ 5,132,704 $ 4,921,071 $ 5,057,768
49 $ 5,096,294 $ 5,120,066 $ 5,680,073 $ 5,235,358 $ 5,019,493 $ 5,158,923
50 $ 5,198,220 $ 5,222,467 $ 5,793,674 $ 5,340,066 $ 5,119,883 $ 5,262,102
Net
Present
$50,251,300 $50,485,698 $56,007,571 $51,622,528 $49,494,015 $50,868,848
Cost