City Hall - December 26, 2019
I’m writing this blog post to address the concerns of some Ashland residents regarding the decision Council made on December 3 to demolish and re-build City Hall.
This decision has been a long time in the making.
Here is the background information explaining why the project is necessary - provided by the Public Works Department to Council:
“The City has been discussing the reconstruction or relocation of City Hall for over 25 years. The building is seismically vulnerable, all of the systems (plumbing, electric, air) are old and in need of complete replacement, the layout has been reconfigured a number of times and lacks meeting space, the building is only moderately accessible, and has no room for even moderate growth. City Hall was originally built in 1891 as a fire station and expanded in 1913 to include the portion of the building that now houses Administration on the second floor and the Utility Billing lobby and City Recorder’s Office on the first floor. The current stucco veneer was added to the building at that time with the unreinforced brick masonry walls of the original building continue to form the skeleton of City Hall. A partial second story was added to this expansion at an unknown date. Two smaller additions were constructed out of concrete and concrete block at the south end of the building. The newer rear section of the building that now houses the Finance Department was built in two phases with the second floor completed in 1998.”
It is important to note that city administration happens downtown at two locations: City Hall and the Community Development building. If you hear people talking about the “Comm Dev” building, they are talking about this second building, which is just up Winburn Way and houses planning and public works offices. There is quite a lot of coordination that happens between those two buildings, and the large conference spaces for City administration are located in the Comm Dev building. Those spaces are frequently used by staff located in City Hall. If City Hall moves, it makes sense to move the offices that are currently in Comm Dev because of the coordination that happens on a day to day basis between the departments housed in City Hall and the Comm Dev building.
Seismic Risk
New scientific analysis of the earthquake risk from a Cascadia event has put a fine point on the responsibility the City has to ensure a safe building for our staff. Simply put, City Hall as it is currently, will not be able to withstand a significant earthquake long enough for staff to exit the building safely. The safety factor is what is driving this project forward at this time.
We have a moral obligation to ensure that all of our buildings are constructed well enough so that staff can at least get out of the building safely in the event of a large earthquake. It is an issue shared by the Ashland School District, which is investing some of the school bond passed last November in re-building/remodeling several buildings that do not meet the new seismic requirements. Ashland is in good company as many communities are assessing seismic risk in response to new scientific analysis.
In addition to our moral responsibility, we have a legal one. Because we know about the seismic risk, if we choose not to fix the problem, we will need to move staff out of the building to a new permanent home or risk significant lawsuits in the event that the building collapses in an earthquake and kills employees. We do not have appropriate office space sitting empty, so one way or the other, we need to invest in office space to address the seismic risk.
Planning for City Hall
Addressing facilities needs at City Hall has been recognized as a need for many years, including in the Facilities Master Plan in 2008. On July 15, 2015, Council requested an updated seismic analysis for City Hall, which arrived back in February of 2016 and identified serious seismic issues that needed to be addressed. In response to these seismic issues, the City Council began to work to address the safety issues with City Hall.
From the background information provided by Public Works to Council:
“In April of 2017 Council appointed an ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee to review feasible alternatives for the replacement of City Hall. On October 3, 2017, Council heard a presentation from staff and received the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee’s Final Report and Recommendations for the replacement of City Hall. The Ad Hoc Committee did not reach unanimity on a recommendation with eight of the eleven members recommending rebuilding City Hall on its current site, expanding the structure to accommodate growth and retaining the community development building. The three remaining members had differing recommendations and were explained in the report.”
In July of 2018, Council directed staff to investigate three options for City Hall:
· Keep City Hall where it is and add an additional floor (correction: 2 floors)
· Build a new City Hall at the Civic Center (where Council Chambers and Police Department are located)
· Remodel Briscoe School for a new City Hall
The City owns Briscoe School and the Civic Center property, so it made sense to do this assessment to make sure that Council made the right choice in terms of keeping costs down and creating the most efficient office space in the process of making sure City Hall was safe for staff.
On February 5 of this year, the report was brought back to Council with the following cost estimates:
· Keep City Hall at 20 E. Main Street (with additional floor), square feet: 15,500, cost: $12,317,000
· Civic Center: square feet: 32,000, cost: $18,918,000
· Briscoe School: square feet: 32,000, cost: $15,354,000
Council was not willing to move forward with any of these options given their cost and directed staff to come back to us with cost estimates for keeping City Hall the same size at its current location by demolishing the current structure and building entirely new.
On September 30 of this year, Council was presented with the three earlier options plus a fourth option to demolish and rebuild at the current city hall location. That estimate came back at $6,065,000. Council directed staff to move forward with this fourth option and to do a comparison between retrofitting the current building and demolishing it and building new in terms of pros, cons, and cost.
On December 3 of this year, Council was presented with the two options at the current site of City Hall. In the report from the consultants tasked with assessing these two options recommended demolishing City Hall and building new on that site to provide a building that is safer and more durable, has a larger floor area, and is constructed faster with less risk and less expense (added note: 3/28/20 - this refers to less risk of construction delays and cost overruns). The latest figures indicate that the project will cost a bit over $7 million.
Here are the factors I understand contributed to that recommendation:
1. To remodel this building and meet seismic needs, they would need to build a new wall inside the existing exterior walls, which means the interior space would be smaller if the building was remodeled rather than built new.
2. With the downtown location and construction impacts during OSF’s season, the amount of time construction will go on is important. When a building is remodeled, it is a slower process because the existing building has to be carefully taken apart and the materials removed. In this case, it will be an estimated 4 months additional time, but that estimate could grow based on what they find when they start taking the building apart.
3. Remodeling is a higher risk with cost as well because of the reasons above – they don’t know exactly what they will find when they start taking the building apart, so more funding needs to be available to address contingencies. It is also true that staff will need to be located at a different site during construction so a longer construction time means more cost for temporary office space as well.
Council approved moving forward with designs to demolish and rebuild City Hall based on the recommendations of our consultants.
Sustainability
In recognition of the fact that this building is expected to last for 100 years, the energy it will use and other sustainability factors are critically important. Therefore, Council also directed staff to pursue LEED certification and to come back with information regarding what it would cost to do Platinum certification. While this may cost more at the outset, investing in energy efficiency and potentially solar generation is a good investment for both our community and our climate.
Historic Value
City Hall is on the Historic Registry. While it is important to protect historic buildings, this one has been added to, re-modeled, and changed in many ways over the years. Rather than protecting the façade on the outside, it makes more sense to me to rebuild it with its historic features in mind to ensure that a new building on that corner fits with the historic feel of the plaza and the other buildings around it. Sometimes we need to make hard decisions between values. If this were a more ornate building or had other details that allowed it to add significantly to the feel of our downtown, I might have voted to take on the additional risk in terms of construction time and cost in order to protect it.
Paying for the Project
Addressing the structural issues of City Hall is included in the 20-year Capital Improvement Program approved by Council in April of this year and was in the Facilities Master Plan from 2008. Up to this point, Council has only directed staff to expend funding on the design of the building, not construction. It is expected that the people of Ashland will need to vote for a facilities bond that includes City Hall in order for the City to move forward with construction.
In Closing
This is not a surprise expense, nor is it an example of the City spending beyond its means. It is simply the City taking responsibility for ensuring staff’s safety and doing so in the way that creates the most value for our community in terms of functional office space, respect for the ad hoc committee’s recommendation, cost, and sustainability.
If you have any thoughts or additional questions regarding the City Hall project, please contact me through my Council email at: tonya@council.ashland.or.us.
March 26, 2020 Update
Since I posted this in December, a few things have changed. Ashland citizens have rallied behind preserving City Hall’s historic value by keeping the three exterior walls and rebuilding from the inside. I have listened to their arguments and become convinced that we can alleviate the risk of cost overruns and the timing issue for the downtown businesses by using specific management techniques for the project.
The Council has voted to move forward with a major structural remodel rather than the demolition and rebuild option. We have directed our consultants to bring into the process an expert at historic building remodels so that we can double check our cost estimates prior to the vote this May on the facilities bond that will pay for this project. I supported both of these decisions.
The plan is now to move forward with a major remodel that maintains the historic nature of City Hall, as well as structural repairs on the Community Center and Pioneer Hall with the facilities bond if the community chooses to support it at that ballot box in May.
Covid-19
Much in our world has changed in the last few weeks. As I write this addendum to my post, it is with a clear understanding that we have not yet seen the full extent of the public health crisis that is arriving on our doorstep in the form of Covid-19.
Several people have asked whether it is appropriate for the City Council to continue to put this question before the Ashland voters in May. Knowing the economic impact of the Covid-19 outbreak and related closures, especially as they come at the beginning of our tourist season, I recognize that this is a very good and timely question.
In thinking about the timing, I’ve come to the following:
When our community gets past this, and we will, we will still have a City Hall that is not safe for our employees, a Community Center that is boarded up, and another building (Pioneer Hall) that has limited use.All of these issues are due to structural issues that this facilities bond is being put forward to fix.
If we choose not to go forward, Council will need to address staff safety at City Hall in the near term and that likely means bearing the expense of moving and setting up an alternate (or several alternate) locations, leaving City Hall as an empty building on our plaza. Once that happens, it is a question whether City Hall will ever be restored and staff moved back in. And, the Community Center will still be boarded up.
Given the likely impact to the City’s revenue streams given the Covid-19 outbreak, the potential of finding funding for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall from within city coffers has gone from very unlikely to likely impossible.
One of the hardest things to do in a crisis is put the periscope up and look to the future, but this is exactly what Ashlanders are being asked to do with this bond question. When we come out of this immediate crisis, Ashland will either be building for its future or dealing with additional empty buildings in our community’s core tourist district.
The Council could pull this item from the ballot, and there are some saying that that’s the responsible thing to do. I don’t agree. Removing it from the ballot limits the options the Council has for addressing these three important community buildings without asking the people of Ashland what they want to invest in and how they want to emerge from this crisis.
What we know about major economic shocks and recessions, is that economies climb out by investing in their future. It is almost surely the case that we will be able to buy more with the money in this bond than we would have without a major economic shock. These projects could easily come in under budget in a situation like this while providing local construction jobs - one of the best ways to jump start an economy that’s taken a hit.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether Ashland should pass this facilities bond at this time. But given how much time and effort has been put in to this community conversation, I believe the people of Ashland should have the opportunity to decide for themselves the future of City Hall, the Community Center, and Pioneer Hall.