Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: City Hall/Police Building Priority Issue EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ~ Work Session: City HalllPolice Building Priority Issue Meeting Date: November 23, 2005 Department: Central Services www.eugene-or.gov Agenda Item Number: B Staff Contact: Mike Penwell Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547 ISSUE STATEMENT The purpose of the November 23,2005, work session is to conclude Phase I-the Policy Advisement Phase-of the City HalllPolice Building Action Plan and to introduce Phase 2-the Development Plan Phase. Specific components of Phase 2 and their associated costs will be presented in detail in an Agenda Item Summary prior to the December 14, 2005, City Council workshop. The policy issues to be resolved at the November 23 work session are twofold: . Should the council adopt a set of project values? . How should the council resolve the key issues identified in the Policy Advisement Phase? BACKGROUND On May 25, 2005, the council approved the City HalllPolice Building Action Plan which identified the major policy issues to be addressed, the overall description of project phasing, the nature of work to be accomplished, resource needs and proposed proj ect outcomes. The action plan stated, "... the principal task for the Policy Advisement Phase is to facilitate a workshop with the Eugene City Council for the purpose of identifying and providing direction on policy issues relevant to the City Hall Complex. . . with resolution of as many issues as possible at the front end of the process." The Project Team of Thomas Hacker Architects facilitated the council workshop on October 19, 2005. Based on discussion in preparation for and during the workshop, this Agenda Item Summary addresses project values, key policy issues, and options for addressing these issues. Proiect Values The following project values emerged from pre-workshop interviews with the mayor and council, and were presented during the workshop: 1. Exercise fiscal responsibility 2. Produce government efficiency 3. Be user-friendly 4. Embody environmental stewardship 5. Enhance downtown 6. Inspire civic pride The proposed values are intended to continuously guide the project's decision-making process as staff engages the community in the technical discussions relevant to the proj ect. The discussions should help to reveal public priorities to be considered by the council in project decisions. As such, they would remain flexible and open to ideas garnered from the public to be considered by the council. City Council discussion at the workshop seemed to indicate support for the concept of using the project values in this way. The council also indicated a desire to formally adopt Guiding Values for this project after having time to consider them more fully. LICMOl200S Council AgendaslMOSl123lS0S1123B.doc During the workshop, three additional project values were suggested: 7. Physically manifest the principles of democracy 8. Strive for simplicity 9. Plan for the future Key Issues The following key issues emerged from pre-workshop interviews with the mayor and council, and were presented during the workshop: 1. Sustainable Design 2. Planning Horizon 3. Consolidation of General City Services 4. Downtown Plan Conformance 5. Combining Uses 6. Parking and Transportation 7. Site Selection 8. Renovate or Replace Based on discussion at the workshop, issues that appear to have a high degree of consensus are "Sustainable Design" and "Planning Horizon." Issues that have a high degree of consensus with qualifiers are "Consolidation of City Services" and "Downtown Plan Conformance." Some of the remaining issues require either more technical analysis and/or more clarity about the level of public involvement desired to propose a position statement at this time. Though the question of whether to renovate or replace did have a fairly high degree of initial consensus, analysis and input generated during the first few months of Phase 2 will result in a more informed position on this issue. The following position statements reflect staff/consultant understanding of council agreement on the four issues with the highest degree of consensus: 1. Incorporate meaningful sustainable design goals. 2. Utilize a long-term planning horizon of25 years (or 20 years from projected building occu- pancy). 3. Consolidate general City services to the greatest practical extent, postponing decisions on the inclusion of police functions until further technical analysis is complete. 4. Develop the project in consideration of the Downtown Plan while acknowledging reserva- tions about the concept of 8th Avenue as the Great Civic Street. Finally, an unanticipated outcome of the City Council workshop has been the realization that much of the technical work and public involvement steps originally envisioned for Phase 3 of the City Hall Complex Action Plan are desired in Phase 2, in order for both the council and the public to make more informed decisions earlier in the process. As a result, the scope and cost for Phase 2 are expanding to include much of the work originally slated for Phase 3. At the December 14 work session, the council will be presented with clear choices about the approach to the next phase of work with detailed information on project elements and costs. 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. LICMOl200S Council AgendaslMOSl123lS0S1123B.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS The council has several options related to both the project values and key issues. For project values: 1. Postpone adoption of the project values. 2. Adopt a modified version of the values. 3. Adopt the values presented at the workshop as an official starting point with the understand- ing that the project values will be revisited by the council after being informed by the public involvement process. F or the key issues: 1. Postpone adoption of the position statements. 2. Adopt the position statements as written on the four issues with a high degree of consensus. 3. Adopt modified position statements on the four issues with a high degree of consensus. 4. Adopt position statements on the four issues with a high degree of consensus plus an addi- tional policy statement on the Renovate or Replace issue. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends adopting the project values presented at the workshop as an official starting point and adopting the position statements as written on the four issues with a high degree of consensus. The council will have the opportunity to update the project values and add position statements on other key issues as the master planning and public participation process progress. The City Manager recommends against adding a policy statement related to the Renovate or Replace issue as this is an important issue with portions of the community that should be included in the public involvement process. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the six project values presented at the October 19, 2004, City Council workshop and the four position statements as written. -OR- Move to adopt the six project values presented at the October 19, 2004, City Council workshop plus the three additional project values proposed above, and adopt the four position statements as written. ATTACHMENTS A. City Council Workshop Summary Report B. Comparative Cost Statement Report C. City HalllPolice Building Action Plan D. Preliminary Task List and Schedule FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mike Penwell Telephone: 682-5547 Staff E-Mail: michael.i.penwell@ci.eugene.or.us LICMOl200S Council AgendaslMOSl123lS0S1123B.doc .~ , I \.r,;,~w_,~ft'l!'[~~"\"4 ~<,,;/ THO MAS HAC K E R .--... ARC HIT E C T SIN C. ,."._. THO MAS HAC K E R ...... . ARC HIT E C T SIN C. .. .'" THO MAS HAC K E R .-... , ARC HIT E C T SIN C. ..._,_ '. 1M ~ .-: = raw C I ~y C,O UN <;l.~ '.~ . _:- .:'- .~~ 1" :I .. a - u :; TECHNICAL WORK GROUP '.,,':' . I '~'''~'.......... I = .. .. .'... ,.. . ........ .. - ~. .<~ 'V ull.# *.I.~ .> C'llY'S'T'AFF' . i' I'''' __ r ~ .... ~: . ~s .' Jl ~.~ JIr _i~ .. .... ~ ._ _ l _ PUBltC - -- . " , , :,,- - .. I ~'----, '... ,....,..;...."..1.. .._........, - - .. ...... ~ -- . ....... .. - . I. THO MAS HAC K E R .--O" ARC HIT E C T SIN C. __''__' THOMAS HAcKER.--"', ARC HIT E C T SIN C. ..___ THO MAS HAC K E R .--' ARC HIT E C T SIN C. ..,,__, THO MAS HAC K E R .--O" ARC HIT E C T SIN C. __''..' THOMAS HAcKER.--"', ARC HIT E C T SIN C. ..___ THO MAS HAC K E R .--' ARC HIT E C T SIN C. ..".., THOMAS HAcKER.--'" , ARC HIT E C T SIN c. ,'".., THO MAS HAC K E R .--..' ARC HIT E C T SIN c. __''..' THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, __..__ THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, __..__ THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, __..__ THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, ....__ THOMAS HACKER.'" ARC HIT E C T SIN C, "..., THO MAS HAC K E R .--.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, ....__ THO MAS HAC K E R .'.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, ..___ ~~.;al...~ ~ - .... ~ ~:I~, ~ ~ ~~ 31' ~ I., ':i"lo -;'.- - ~2: - - -j ~ ~.~- ..,.. r=-::' ..-' ---- ...---.' - .... 'f- .- ~ --= ~ ~ .Ii II .. .... ~ ...~ ,..!!III ~ -,- III t: ~ ,~ ~liI=! . ~ l=ri!~ ~ ..~ ~ ill ..~ ~ ~~ ~ .. ~~ ,. ~ ~. ~ <" ~= ~ ~ I 11II Ii '* ~ : ~ ~ :~ ~ liIil ... ;"i ~~ , -~ I , ...-, I I_~ ......... _ I I !l!I!I ~ II ~ ~,~ ~ ! ..~ ~~ lia E .... ~ ..., -- -- -.. - --- - -,..-,- - - - ,- -- ..". - '. "" """ - I . ~'ilI ~ .... * : II - I' ... ~ \... - .~ -, - II II I Ii ~ " ,- ... ~ . 1-- I! II I au ., I -.Ba I -. ...- . ....- "" .. -. 4 ........ , .-1 __ ~, ~~ ~_.~. ~ l . -.;.;..;;." .;.. ...;.. ... ...;1;1. -~~- .-.- ~-- -~' :~ .......... - ~ -~-'" - i:iil -rr-r <II I I : --. ... - ... . ~ .r... -- .liLiIl- _ - - - -.. -v . ... - =- THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, ",co. THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, ,,'." THOMAS HACKER...... , ARC HIT E C T SIN C, ......, THO MAS HAC K E R .--..' ARC HIT E C T SIN c. .'".., THO MAS HAC K E R .--..' ARC HIT E C T SIN c. __''..' THO MAS HAC K E R .--..' ARC HIT E C T SIN c. __''..' THO MAS HAC K E R .--,.. ARC HIT E C T SIN C, __'." THOMAS HACKER.--'" ARC HIT E C T SIN C. .'.... 1/6 October 18, 2005 CONSTRUCTION F OCUS.J INc~ Cost Estimating and Consulting Services Jonah Cohen Thomas Hacker Architects, Inc. 733 SW Oak Street Suite 100 Portland, OR 97205 RE: Eugene City Hall Complex Cost Estimate Mr. Cohen: For certain construction projects a cost estimate may be developed by carefully identifying and analyzing all of the construction work items, defining and quantifying the work scope and assigning costs to each work item. For the current assessment phase of the Eugene City Hall project this type of cost model is not appropriate. Not enough information is known about the scope of the work to adequately itemize, much less assign cost information to each item. For this reason the design team determined that the most appropriate method for developing a cost analysis for the project would be to investigate work that has been done on other city hall projects in other cities and try to learn about the major factors that guided the decision making processes for these other communities. If the community decided to save and renovate their city hall, what were the underlying reasons? If not, what were the factors that led to a decision to vacate or to demolish existing structures? Were these decisions based on cost savings, historical status, or other reasons? An internet search provided names of cities which led to phone call interviews of a person who was knowledgeable about the project and a follow up email message that asked for a review of the summary of the conversation. It is important to note that this report strives to be entirely impartial. All the individuals who were contacted, interviewed, and responded to the request for clarifications are listed here in this report. No editing was done by the authors of this report. Each of the following paragraphs were reviewed, edited, and approved by the interviewee. V:541-686-2031 P.O. Box 24705 Eugene, OR 97402 Fax: 541-686-3392 2/6 The City of Sacramento, California, is currently in the process of moving into their renovated City Hall Complex. There was never much doubt that the original 1912 City Hall Building would remain and be renovated. The annex to this building was of a later vintage and was slated for demolition, but the 1912 building was an ornate structure with many historical features. Major improvements were undertaken to make the building much safer to occupy but some of the more rigorous seismic requirements could not be achieved. The city staff was relocated to temporary facilities for a period of 2 years while the 34,000 square foot building was renovated at a cost of 11 million dollars. Across the plaza from the renovated City Hall sits the newly finished 267,000 sf, 5-story city administration building. This structure has underground parking and was built for approximately 50 million dollars. Robert Williamson Supervising Architect City of Sacramento, California The City of Bellevue, Washington developed a feasibility study to determine their course of action to provide a new city hall complex. The options were: 1) Build a new building on a vacant parcel of land 2) Renovate or build new on an existing city owned site. 3) Purchase an existing building and renovate it. The city decided that option 3 was the best choice because of a unique set of circumstances. The city was able to purchase an existing building that was an excellent fit for their needs. The location was suitable, the building's price was less than market value, and the building's infrastructure was robust. The building's previous owner and occupant was a telecommunications company, so the building's wiring system was transferable and superb. A backup generator and related systems were already installed. The HV AC system, including a hot and cold water supply infrastructure met the City needs with only boiler and chiller upgrades. Some seismic improvements were needed, but other factors such as the building's age and purchase price mitigated the impact of this work. Since the building was not occupied, costs to relocate city staff during the renovation were not a factor. As is typical with building renovation work there were surprises along the way, and added costs for unforeseen upgrades to the infrastructure did occur. Frank Pinney Facilities Planning Manager City of Bellevue, W A V:541-686-2031 P.O. Box 24705 Eugene, OR 97402 Fax: 541-686-3392 3/6 The existing Newport Beach, California, City Hall encompasses approximately 38,000 gsf of office space, exclusive of the council chambers. The present need is for 72,000 gsf. For the past 4 years a task force has been working to determine how best to provide for the needs of an expanding city work force, what to do with several buildings that comprise the city hall "campus" and that were constructed in stages between 1945 and 1980, and are in need of major repairs. The task force looked at multiple options, including: 1) Renovation of the existing buildings (retaining all existing structures and adding new construction) 2) Demolition and rebuild at the same location 3) Build at a new site. Option 1: This was not selected because only the shell of the existing building could be saved. Structural changes, ADA compliance, Title 24 compliance, seismic improvements, and complete replacement of of mechanical and electrical systems made this option too expensive. In addition, adding new space to reach the requirement of 72,000 gsf proved not only very costly, but somewhat impractical due to the existing configurations and locations of the existing buildings. Option 3: There were no sites within the city boundaries that provided comparable location at a price deemed affordable by the city. Option 2: The task force has demonstrated the feasibility (both relative to cost and productivity of staff standpoints) , and has recommended to the City Council that the existing buildings be demolished to make room for a new expanded City Hall Complex that also includes a parking structure and a fire station. Roger Torriero CEO Griffin Holdings Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651 The City of Port Townsend is nearing the end of its 6.7 million dollar project to renovate City Hall and to construct an annex building. Demolition of the existing City Hall was never an option since the building is on the list of National Historic Landmarks and because there was strong backing in the community to save the structure that was built in 1891. The annex building was designed to be compatible to the restored City Hall but not to match it. The annex portion of the project is under budget whereas the City Hall renovations are significantly over budget due to unforeseen problems and difficulties with providing accurate cost estimates for work that is not always visible. Kathy Howard Public Works Engineering Assistant Port Townsend, W A V:541-686-2031 P.O. Box 24705 Eugene, OR 97402 Fax: 541-686-3392 4/6 The City of Pasadena is in the beginning stages of a 117 million dollar renovation to its City Hall building and all city employees have been relocated. Before embarking on this process the city explored many options for a new city hall building, including demolishing the existing building. The city council decided that refurbishing the existing building was the best course to take. The city has a strong identity with historical structures and the existing City Hall building, constructed in 1927 with a domed roof has a special significance to its citizens. Maintenance of this historical structure was a major factor in the city council's decision to renovate rather than to demolish. This was not the least expensive option. Two main options were explored for the necessary seismic upgrades to the building. The least costly in the short term was to use a standard shear wall approach that also included reinforcing structural elements. The shear wall strengthening approach tended to be more invasive to the historic elements of the building. The alternative approach that was ultimately chosen was to use a base isolator system to cushion the building in event of a major earthquake. This system, though more costly initially, would result in less damage to the historic elements of the building during a seismic event, thereby safeguarding historic features and reducing long-term repair costs. J. Foster Hildreth City Hall Project Manager City of Pasadena, CA Generally speaking a major building renovation that includes significant seismic upgrades, complete revamping of the mechanical and electrical systems, wall changes, and upgrades to thermal and moisture systems, is likely to be more expensive than simply demolishing the existing and building a new structure. Walter Daffe Chambers Construction Eugene, OR 97401 The City of Portland, Oregon, completed the remodeling of their City Hall building in 1998. Before beginning this work a task force was established to develop a financial and cost analysis to determine if the structure should be renovated or demolished. The 4- story building, originally built in 1895, with a stone exterior was in need of major repairs. In fact the City Building Bureau determined that unless a major rehabilitation was done, they would classify it as un-inhabitable. A consultant team was hired in 1994 to study various options including: 1. Relocating staff to leased space, demolishing the building and building new, 2. Finding a new site, building a new building and disposing of the current building, 3. Relocating staff to leased space, renovating the building and moving staff back in, and 4. Moving staff permanently to leased space and disposing of the building. A task force determined that V:541-686-2031 P.O. Box 24705 Eugene, OR 97402 Fax: 541-686-3392 5/6 it would be less expensive to renovate the building plus many people supported the idea of preserving a 100-year-old historic structure. Renovation work included removing perimeter floor and roof structures, while preserving the historic lobby, stair, elevator and light court 'core'. The perimeter interior space was gutted. Concrete shear walls were built on the inside face of the original exterior stone veneer and tied structurally to new concrete floor diaphragms. Other structural elements, including columns, beams, floor, and roof systems were rebuilt entirely. New mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems were also added. At completion of the renovation the building won an energy award from our electrical utility, PGE. Finally, a new state of the art A V system was installed in Council Chambers to allow for sophisticated A V presentations, control of microphones, lighting, and recording by our cable TV provider. All sessions are available to view on PortlandOnline. Dick Ragland Senior Project Architect City of Portland, OR In October, 2005, the City of San Jose, California will formally dedicate the opening of their new 220 million dollar City Hall Complex. (Actual construction value adjusted to include GC DB &P). In the late 1990's the City of San Jose California organized a task team to determine what could be done to meet the city's needs for a City Hall building. The decision to vacate rather than renovate the existing City Hall building was made relatively easily, given the age and condition of the existing City Hall. The existing structure, built in stages between 1950 and 1960, had significant deficiencies that made the renovation costs very high. Seismic upgrades were needed, mechanical and electrical systems were well beyond their useful life, elevators needed repairs, and finishes were in need of replacement. In addition, the structure was determined to be too small to meet the staffing needs of a growing city staff that was spread among many buildings. A third factor was the idea that building a new City Hall in an area of downtown that needed an economic boost would be a catalyst for economic and cultural development in an otherwise stagnant area. The city has determined that it is best to close the old City Hall building. Current market conditions have indicated that this is not a good time to sell the old building and the cost to renovate is too high. Paul Marino Senior Architect Public Works Dept San Jose, CA V:541-686-2031 P.O. Box 24705 Eugene, OR 97402 Fax: 541-686-3392 6/6 The responses from the seven projects listed in this report indicate a range of project types and solutions found for city hall projects. Some, as in the case of the City of Bellevue, decide to purchase and remodel an existing building. This appears to be economically feasible if the building is structurally sound, and if the mechanical and electrical systems are modern. In several of the seven examples the existing city hall building was determined to be of an historical nature and preservation of that design was highly valued by the community. In these cases the value to preserve outweighed the higher costs of new construction. Buildings that do not offer a compelling reason for remodeling: if they do not have an historical significance, if their age suggests the costs of remodeling would be too high, if their location is undesirable or if the programming needs of the city staff do not meet the physical size or configuration of the building, the data suggests that the most prudent course is to begin with a new building. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. p(~~ By Steve Gunn, President V:541-686-2031 P.O. Box 24705 Eugene, OR 97402 Fax: 541-686-3392 ATTACHMENT C City HalllPolice Building Action Plan At the February 2005 retreat of the Eugene City Council, concluding the discussion related to City Hall and a new Police Building was identified as a council priority issue, This discussion has centered on the questions of whether to renovate or replace the existing City Hall including when, where, and how a new Police Building should be constructed, A 3-5 year horizon is used to identify what the action plan will accomplish with particular focus on the first 18 months, A. Planning Horizon and Focus Concluding the City Hall/Police Building discussion will require a four-phased approach: 1, Policy Advisement Phase, This will be a relatively brief phase in which the City Council pro- vides direction on a number of policy level issues related to this priority item with resolution of as many issues as possible at the front end of the process, The Policy Advisement phase should be complete within approximately 6 months including the consultant selection proc- ess, 2, Development Plan Phase, This phase will include the technical work and public input re- quired to generate an overall Development Plan, This is also the phase in which the remain- ing policy issues from phase one will be resolved, The Development Plan phase should focus on decision making and be complete within about 18 months to coincide with the current council biennium, 3, Implementation Plan Phase, This phase will identify the specific steps required to implement the Development Plan, The Implementation Plan phase should focus on priority action items such as timing, financing, property acquisition, and procurement methods, This phase should be complete within 212-3 years in order to allow the option of a bond measure on the ballot during the November 2008 general election, 4, Design and Construction Phase, The ultimate goal of the action plan is to provide sustainable facilities downtown that meet the City's environmental, economic, and social needs both now and well into the future, The City Hall/Police Building Action plan will be considered a suc- cess if the City has begun the design and construction of a new and/or renovated City Hall Complex-including the Police component-within 5 years, B, Priority Issue Outcomes The proposed outcomes for the City Hall/Police Building issue fall into four timeframes coinciding with the four phases identified above, Phase 1 The Policy Advisement Phase would provide direction on the following questions: 1, Should City Hall be renovated and enlarged or replaced? 2, Where should City Hall and the Police Building be located? 3, How will the development of City Hall and the Police Building reinforce the goals in the Downtown Plan? a, Follow the adopted Downtown Plan? b, Amend the Downtown Plan? 4, What level of City service consolidation should be planned for? a, One building or several proximate buildings? b, Include the City functions located in the Public Works Building, Eugene Hotel, Atrium Building, etc,? 5, What planning horizon should be used for determining the space needs for the new facilities? a, Ten years? b, Twenty years? c, More? 6, What co-location opportunities should be considered or pursued? a, Victims service agencies and/or other non-profits? b, EWEB, LCOG, 4J, and/or other governmental agencies? c, Tenant space for food and beverage provider(s)? d, Housing? 7, What is the general financing plan? a, What financing options should be considered? b, What is the target date for putting a bond measure on the ballot? c, What is the back-up plan if a bond measure fails? 8, What level of environmental sustainability is appropriate? a, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design™ (LEED) Silver or higher? b, How much of a first-cost premium is acceptable? 9, How should parking be addressed? a, Should there be dedicated public parking (visitors and/or staff)? b, Should more secure parking be provided for City vehicles? c, How should Police vehicle parking be addressed? Structured parking on a smaller site? Surface parking on a larger site? 10, What will be the impact on adjacent properties? a, Public? b, Private? Some of these policy issues may need to be carried over to the Development Plan phase so the techni- cal work and/or public input generated during the second phase of the action plan can be factored in to the policy discussions, Phase 2 The proposed outcome for the second phase of the action is council adoption of a Development Plan that resolves all the policy level issues and includes a conceptual design scheme that indicates the general massing of the building(s), orientation and access, parking, open space, etc, It is important that the Development Plan phase of the action plan be completed by December 2006 while all current council members are still in office, Because of the magnitude and complexity of the City Hall/Police Building issue, carrying over the policy level discussion to a council with even one or two new mem- bers could result in repeated discussions of the relevant policy issues and decision points, Phase 3 The third phase of the action plan will result in council adoption of an Implementation Plan that establishes when and how the Development Plan will be carried out. As stated above, the Imple- mentation Plan will include specific information about timing, phasing, financing, and project delivery methods, Additional design development will need to be completed during this phase in order to provide the detailed information required to finalize the Implementation Plan, This phase should be complete by December 2007 in order to allow the option of a bond measure on the ballot during the November 2008 general election, The Implementation Plan should also include an option that does not require passage of a bond measure in 2008, Phase 4 The proposed outcome for the fourth and final phase of the action plan will be to complete the design and construction of the City Hall Complex, including the Police component. The action plan will be a ringing success if construction has begun within five years, Completion of the City Hall Complex will take some number of years depending on phasing, timing, and the success of financing efforts, C. Progress to Date The expansion or replacement of City Hall has been a major project for the council since 1999, when council was presented with the possibility of selling City Hall to the Federal government as a site for the new Federal Courthouse, In 2001, council adopted a policy statement that called for the replace- ment of City Hall with one or more new buildings by 2010, At that same time, council also adopted a policy to reduce the level of reinvestment in City Hall and the Public Works Building to provide for an expected 8 to 10 years of remaining use, On September 19,2001, council addressed near-term and long-term projects that were required to achieve the goal of replacing City Hall, Council directed that relocation of EPD personnel from the basement of City Hall and relocation of Fire Station #1 should be the first priority projects in the Downtown Space Plan, (The 9-1-1 Center had previously been relocated from City Hall to a new building at the 2nd and Chambers Emergency Services Complex,) The construction of a new Police Building and City Hall were the next project priorities, with design for the Police Building originally projected to begin in FY05, and a replacement of City Hall was targeted to begin design in FY08, Over the past several years, council has been setting aside funds to pay for this project. As of the FY06 budget, it is anticipated that there will be over $25 million in the Facility Reserve for this pur- pose, On July 26,2004, council placed a $6,79 million bond measure to fund civic center elements related to a Community Safety Building on the November 2004 ballot. The measure was to fund social service agency space, police headquarters expansion space, improvements to the parks blocks, and improvements to make 8th Avenue a "Great Civic Street." On November 2,2004, voters rejected ballot measure 20-88 by a margin of 60% to 40%, Since November, 2004, council has been considering initiation of a City Hall Master Plan process to develop a strategy for addressing both the Police and City Hall projects in a single vision, D, Action Plan The action plan will have three phases that will lead to adoption by council of a City Hall Complex Implementation Plan by the end of calendar year 2007, The successful adoption of the Implementa- tion Plan will be followed by a fourth phase, the design and construction of the City Hall Complex, Phase One - Policy Advisement Phase one of the action plan will begin with the selection of a consultant team through an open Re- quest for Proposals (RFQ) process, The consultant team will likely have an architectural firm in the lead role, but will need to include mechanical and electrical engineers, a landscape architect, a cost estimator, and an expert in strategic planning facilitation, The first task for the consultant team will be to review relevant background information including adopted plans, policies, committee reports and recommendations, and council action history related to City office space, Police facilities, and downtown, The consultant team will also need to meet with staff to form as complete a picture as possible of the current status of the City Hall/Police Building issue prior to meeting with council. The main task in phase one is for council to participate in a facilitated session to identify and provide direction on policy issues relevant to the City Hall/Police Building question, Council can group these policy issues according to the following three categories: 1) those issues for which council has clear agreement and is ready to provide explicit direction; 2) those issues for which council wants public input prior to making a decision; and 3) those issues for which more hard data is required before making a decision, Phase one will be complete by mid-November, if council authorizes funding for consultant services by the end of May, Phase Two - Adopt a Development Plan The second phase of the action plan will begin with a master planning process that includes a signifi- cant public participation component. Starting with the results of the council strategic planning ses- sion, the consultant team will work with selected staff from across the organization to establish pro- ject requirements such as space needs, adjacency requirements, service delivery goals, sustainability goals, and urban design standards, The input from council on policy issues can then be combined with the input from staff on technical and operating issues to develop conceptual design options, The conceptual design options will then go through a round of review and comment by council, the com- munity, and City staff with the intent of generating a healthy dialogue around the issues that are im- portant to Eugene, This phase will culminate with council adoption of a Development Plan that resolves all the policy level issues and includes the preferred conceptual design scheme indicating major aspects of the City Hall Complex such as building location(s), general massing of the building(s), orientation and access, parking, open space, etc, Adoption of the Development Plan should occur prior to the council break in December 2006, The detailed work program for the first two phases will be developed in conjunction with the selected consultant team, However, a draft scope of work and proposed schedule is included as Attachment D based on reasonable assumptions for the steps required to select a consultant team, schedule a strate- gic planning session with council, develop a master plan, check in periodically with council, and build consensus in the community, The tight schedule underscores the importance of moving ahead in a timely manner in order to complete the Development Plan by December 2006, Phase Three - Adopt an Implementation Plan The third phase will be to develop and adopt the City Hall Complex Implementation Plan, This will entail refinement of the conceptual design produced during the Development Plan phase into sche- matic design options with enough detail for the consultant team to generate accurate project cost estimates, The conceptual design options can then go through another round of review and comment by council, the community, and City staff. This phase will conclude with council adoption of an Implementation Plan that includes specific information about timing, phasing, financing, and project delivery methods, The Implementation Plan should be adopted by the December 2007 in order to leave plenty of time for consensus building around the issue of a possible bond measure during the November 2008 gen- eral election, Development options that do not include passage of a general obligation bond in 2008 should also be considered, Adoption of a development plan should lead to an appropriation of fund- ing for the first phase of construction for the City Hall Complex as well as direction on next steps for any future phase(s), Phase Four - Design and Construction of the City Hall Complex After the development plan is approved by council and funding is appropriated for the first phase of construction, the City would initiate a selection process for the design team that would complete the design of the City Hall Complex, prepare construction documents, and track the construction process, Ideally, the project will be under construction by the middle of calendar year 2010, The staff team for the first three phases of the action plan consists of Jim Carlson as the lead Execu- tive Manager, Mike Penwell as the project lead, and a committee consisting of members from Facility Management, Finance, Planning and Development, Public Works, Municipal Court, and Police as well as the City's Public Information Officer. Many other staff members from across the City organi- zation will be tapped for their expertise in specific areas and to provide input to the consultant team during programming and design review, The appropriate staff team for design and construction will be assembled at the beginning of phase four and would presumably include some of the same com- mittee members that participated in the first three phases, E, Resource Needs The total cost of fully resolving the City Hall/Police Building issue will likely exceed $100 million including design and construction costs for almost any of the possible scenarios for the City Hall Complex, However, the funds will be allocated and spent incrementally with multiple opportunities for monitoring and evaluation by City staff, the council, and the public, A rough estimate of costs by component is as follows: 1, Phase One - Policy Advisement a, Select consultant team b, Conduct a facilitated session with council to identify and provide direction on policy issues: $30,000 c, Adopt initial policy direction 2, Phase Two - Adopt the City Hall Complex Development Plan a, Complete the master planning and public participation process: $300,000 - $400,000 b, Adopt the Development Plan 3, Phase Three - Adopt the City Hall Complex Implementation Plan a, Complete schematic design and implementation options: $250,000 - $350,000 b, Adopt the Implementation Plan 4, Phase Four - Design and Construction of the City Hall Complex: $100,000,000+ The majority of the costs related to completion of both the Implementation Plan and the Development Plan are consultant fees, A portion of project staff time will be charged to the project as Professional Service Fees (PSF), reflecting the City's policy of recovering capital project-related staff costs through charges to projects, Other staff time is already included in departmental budgets, but allo- cating resources to this action plan may reduce time available for other ongoing departmental work programs, The costs for materials, supplies, and consultant reimbursable expenses should be a rela- tively small percentage of total project costs, As a point of comparison, the consultant contract for EWEB' s current planning process is just under $800,000 for a scope of work roughly equivalent to phases one through three described above, F, Monitoring and Evaluation This action plan is focused on specific outcomes in the form of initial policy advisement, a completed City Hall Complex Development Plan, a completed City Hall Complex Implementation Plan, and design and construction of facilities to carry out the Implementation Plan, A detailed work program and time line for Phase One and Two of the action plan has been developed, and will be updated during execution of Phase One, Progress on Phase One and Two will be monitored through the detailed work program and time lines , Council approval of each project phase will be the primary measure of success in meeting proposed outcomes for the first three phases, with authorization to ini- tiate construction projects indicating the measure of success for Phase Four. Ultimately, the action plan will be considered a resounding success if construction has begun within five years on at least the initial phase of the City Hall/Police Building, ATTACHMENT D CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING COUNCIL ACTION ITEM Preliminary Task List and Schedule Phases One and Two May 25,2005 . Council approval of the City HalllPolice Building Action Plan * . Council authorization to fund $30,000 for consultant services to prepare for, conduct, and sum- marize a facilitated work session with council for the purpose of identifying and providing direc- tion on policy issues relevant to the City HalllPolice Building question May 25 - end of June 2005 . Prepare a Request for Proposals for City Hall/Police Building strategic planning with an option to proceed with the City Hall Complex master planning and public participation process dependent on council approval of continued funding, July 2005 . RFP period for consultants to submit proposals for the master planning and public participation process August 2005 . Evaluate proposals, interview short list, and select consultant . Negotiate fee and prepare initial contract with consultant October - Mid-November 2005 . Consultant team to review background material and meet with staff to get an overview of pertinent Issues . Council strategic issues work session, facilitated by consultant team, to identify and prioritize policy and/or strategic issues . Council receives a summary documenting strategic issues work session and resulting policy direction . End of Phase One Mid-November 2005 - Mid-March 2006 . Council to authorize funding for consultant services and expenses to complete the master plan- ning and public participation process . Consultant team to develop program document including space needs assessments and overall pro- j ect goals . Consultant team to develop several basic conceptual design options for review by staff, council, and the public . Consultant team and staff team to finalize details for the public participation process . Council work session to review conceptual design options, cost estimates, and range of financing options prior to public participation process Mid-March - May 2006 . Consultant team to facilitate a public participation process for review and comment on conceptual design options and project goals . Public participation to include at a minimum: open houses and/or workshops with Neighborhood Associations; at least one workshop open to the general public; briefings/workshops with identified stakeholder groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Eugene, Downtown Eugene, Inc" and the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects; possible use of focus group(s) to elicit input from unrepresented or under-represented individuals or groups . Consultant team and staff team to prepare a report documenting input from the public participation process . Council work session to review input from public participation process and provide direction on remaining policy issues for use in refinement of the Development Plan June - Mid-July 2006 . Consultant team and staff team to complete Development Plan option(s) . Council work session to review Development Plan options and provide direction for final refine- ment Mid-July - September 2006 . Consultant team to facilitate a limited public participation process for review and comment on Development Plan options . Public participation to include open houses with Neighborhood Associations and at least one open house for the general public . Consultant team and staff team to prepare a summary documenting input from the public participa- tion process . Council work session to review final Development Plan recommendations October - December 2006 . Additional work session(s), ifnecessary, to adopt the City Hall Complex Development Plan . End of Phase Two *Note: tasks in bold and italics are points at which council will provide input to the process