HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-10 City CouncilTO:
FROM:
C ty a ager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ~
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 10, 2003 CMR:111:03
RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF
OPTIONS FOR FINANCING NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE
REPAIRS AND POTENTIAL EXPANSIONS AT CHILDREN’S
LIBRARY, MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY, AND MITCHELL PARK
COMMUNITY CENTER
REPORT IN BRIEF
Staff recommends proceeding with critical infrastructure repairs at Children’s Library,
Mitchell Park Libraly and Mitchell Park Community Center to correct structural and
accessibility deficiencies to bring those buildings up to cun’ent codes. This will provide
safe and convenient use of the buildings for the staff who work in them and for the public
who visit them. Other repairs are also recommended, including renovation, repair or
replacement of electrica!, mechanical, plumbing and architectural systems. Also, air
conditioning is recommended at each facility.
Staff reconmaends worMng with the Library Advisory Conamission to develop a plan for
possible expansion of the Children’s Libral~y and for expansion or replacement of the
Mitchell Park Library and with the Parks and Recreation Convnission for possible
expansion or replacement of the Mitchell Park Community Center. Expansion of
Children’s Library would likely be consistent with the conceptual designs developed in
2002. A new conceptual design for the Mitchell Park Library would need to be
developed following the City Council’s decision in September 2002 to relocate a new
facility away from the tennis courts on the site. A recommendation on the size of an
expanded library in Mitchell Park and a decision on whether it should be combined with
expansion of the Mitchell Park Community Center would follow further analysis by the
Library Advisory and Parks and Recreation Commissions and input from the conmmnity.
Staff seeks direction from Council on how and when to proceed with the improvements,
expansion or replacement of the facilities. The majority of the funding for the critical
infrastructure repairs needed at the facilities is available in the Infrastructure Reserve.
Various options for funding the expansions or replacements of the facilities are possible.
CMR:I 11:03 Page ! of 13
The timing of the improvements, expansion, or replacement projects at each facility is
critical. Staff believes the infrastructure improvements are long overdue at each facility,
and failure to do them in~-nediately will lead to further deterioration of the facilities and
potentially create unsafe and inconvenient conditions for the facility users. However, if
improvements are done now, and then expansion or replacement projects occur in the
near furore, many of the improvements may be redone or demolished, and the cost to
desi~a and construct them would potentially be lost.
CMR: 111:03 Page 2 of 13
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecormnends that the City Council:
Direct staff to move forward expeditiously with needed infrastructure repairs to the
Children’s Library, Mitchell Park Library and Mitchell Park Conm~unity Center,
preserving, to the extent feasible, options for expansion in the long term.
2.Approve desiN~ consultant scope of selwices so staff may issue Requests for Proposals
and proceed with the infrastructure improvements now.
Direct staff to work with the Library Advisol)~ Commission (LAC) to review and
potentially revise the New Library Plan, and to deve!op a strategy for implementation
of needed library facility and staffing improvements, including the future expansion of
Children’s Library, and the furore expansion or replacement of the Mitchell Park
Library.
Direct staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission (P&RC) to develop a
strategy for implementation of the future expansion of the Mitchell Park Comanunity
Center.
o Identify and recommend potential funding options for the
implementation plans.
6. Direct staff to discontinue pursuit of State Library Bond Act funding.
aforementioned
BACKGROUND
Children’s Library was built in 1940. It is 3,400 square feet (sf) and it has never been
expanded, remodeled, or received any major up~ades during its life. Many of the
building systems are original, have outlived their useful life, and should be replaced or
renovated. A structural evaluation in 1995 determined that the building needs seismic
up~ades, and consultant evaluations done in 1992 and 1995 determined the building does
not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The roof is original and
leaks and there is evidence of termite damage and potentially dry-rot damage. The
building is not air-conditioned, but should be to provide better user comfort.
Mitchell Park Library was built in 1958 and was originally 5,000 sf. In 1975, the building
was expanded to 9,500 sf. The building still operates with many of its original systems
and suffers from inadequate ventilation and heating. Groundwater occasionally seeps into
the underfloor air ducts, causing humidity and mold problems. The building needs new
flooring and paint and ADA improvements are also needed. The building’s structural
system should be evaluated and retrofits installed, if necessary. The building is not air-
conditioned, but should be to provide better user comfort. The roof was replaced in 1999.
CMR: 111:03 Page 3 of 13
Mitchell Park Community Center was built in 1970 and is !0,000 sf. The electrical,
lighting and mechanical systems are outdated and need to be replaced and the building
needs new paint and flooring. ADA improvements are needed and the building’s
structural system should be evaluated and retrofits installed, if necessary. The building is
partially air-conditioned, but should be completely air-conditioned to provide better user
comfort. If the budget allows, the windows should be replaced and the acoustics in the
auditorium improved. The roof was recently replaced and the exterior was recently
repainted.
In 1996, the City retained a consultant, Adamson Associates, to evaluate all of the City’s
buildings. In 1997, Adamson issued its report, which listed the specific renovations
needed at each City facility, estimated their costs, and reconmaended a timetable for
implementing them. These reconmaendations were then incorporated into the City’s
Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP). Adamson recommended extensive and
immediate renovations at Children’s Library, Mitchel! Park.Library and Mitchell Park
Community Center. Accordingly, in 2000, staff added projects to the Capital
hnprovement Progam (CIP) that would complete the IMP renovations at the above
facilities by 2003.
In 2000, Council conceptually approved the New Library Plan, which called for
expansion of Children’s, Mitchell Park and Main Libraries. In 2001, Council directed
staff to prepare feasibility studies, environmental reviews, conceptual desi~s, and cost
estimates of these projects, and included the Mitchell Park Community Center and Art
Center expansion projects as well, since those facilities share sites with the libraries.
Staff postponed all of the renovation projects in the CIP for these facilities in anticipation
of these expansion projects being approved.
In early 2002, staff and consultants presented to Council the feasibility studies for the
New Library Plan projects. In June 2002, staff and consultants presented the completed
environmental review, conceptual designs and cost estimates of the projects. In July
2002, Council approved placing the Children’s Library Expansion project and the new
Mitchell Park Library/Conm-mnity Center project on a ballot for bond funding. That
ballot measure failed in November 2002.
In June 2002, the City submitted an application for a Library Bond Act ~ant application
seeking $19 million in state matching funds for the Mitchell Park Library Project. In
December 2002, the City was informed that this project was not selected to receive
funding in the first of three funding cycles of the Act. Still pending is a $100,000
~earmark" for the Children’s Library project in a U.S. House of Representatives
appropriations bill. A decision on this funding is anticipated in early 2003.
CMR:I 11:03 Page 4 of 13
DISCUSSION
Infrastructure Improvements
Staff believes it is critical to proceed immediately with the IMP renovations at Children’s
Library, Mitchell Park Library and Mitchell Park Convnunity Center. These renovations
are long overdue and failure .to do them as soon as possible will lead to further
deterioration of the buildings, increased maintenance, and continued discomfort and
inconvenience for the building’s users. Most importantly, continuing to use buildings that
do not meet current seismic and ADA codes potentially creates an unsafe condition for
the users and a liabilityfor the Cit)~.
Recommended work at each of the facilities is summarized below:
Children’s Library:
o Remove the historic roof tiles to repair the roo~ install a waterproofing membrane,
and then reinstal! the tiles.
o Provide seismic retrofits, including removing the stucco to add plywood on the
exterior walls and reinstalling new stucco to match the old, converting portions of
exterior and/or interior walls into shearwalls, and rebuilding the entt)~ porches and
fireplace chinmey.
ADA improvements, including making all of the restrooms accessible.
Renovation of the electrical system.
Renovation of the plumbing system.
Renovation of the mechanical system, including the installation of air-
conditioning.
Interior and exterior painting.
New flooring.
New window blinds.
Asbestos abatement.
Mitchell Park Library:
,Renovation of the electrical system.
~Renovation of the mechanical
conditioning.
o ADA improvements.
,New flooring.
o Interior and exterior paint.
Seismic retrofits, as needed.
Asbestos abatement.
system,including the installation of air-
CMR:tll:03 Page 5 of 13
Mitchell Park Community Center:
o Renovation of the electrical system.
o Renovation of the mechanical
conditioning.
*ADA improvements.
*New flooring.
*Interior paint.
,Seismic retrofits, if necessary.
Asbestos abatement.
system, including the installation of air-
Repair or replace the windows, if the budget allows.
hnprove the acoustics in the large multipurpose room, if the budget allows.
Staff’s strategy for each of the facilities is as follows:
Children’s Library Improvements:
Staff has proposed that a new CIP project be created in the upcoming mid-year budget
adjustment. This will allow the project to begin immediately without having to wait until
the start of the next fiscal year. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2002/03, $160,000 is proposed for
desi~. For FY 2003/04, $640,000 is proposed for construction. The proposed total
budget of $800,000 compares to $585,000 included in the original IMP. The $215,000
increase is due to inflation of construction costs (the Adamson/IMP estimates are in 1998
dollars), asbestos abatement, new window blinds, and added air-conditioning. It is staff’s
practice to consider adding air-conditioning on a case-by-case basis when substantial
other improvements are being done to a facility.
Staff considered how much of the Children’s Library improvelnents would need to be
redone if a subsequent expansion project took place at the facility. Exterior
improvements, such as roof repairs and the addition of new exterior shearwalls, would
mostly be lefl untouched if the building were expanded later. However, an expansion
project, like the one for which conceptual designs were developed in 2002, would require
remodeling of the interior spaces of the library. Accordingly, most of the interior
improvements, including the new restrooms and a portion of the electrical and mechanical
work, may need to be redone in an expansion project. Staff has estimated the costs of
redone work at $250,000.
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Improvements:
Staff proposes to combine the work at each facility into one project. This will save staff
time and costs by soliciting and contracting with one architect instead of two and by
bidding one construction contract instead of two. Furthermore, having one contractor
doing essentially the same work at adjacent facilities will create an economy of scale that
could result in lower costs. Also coordination of the work at each facility should be
easier and the work less disruptive if there is one contractor instead of two.
CMR: 111:03 Page 6 of 13
Staff proposes a $290,000 desi~a budget in FY2003/04 and a $1,160,000 construction
budget in FY2004/05 in the upcoming CIP for the Mitchell Park Library and Comlnunity
Center Improvements. This total of $1,450,000 compares to $974,000 which was
included in the original IMP. The $476,000 increase in proposed costs is due to inflation
of construction costs, adding air-conditioning and an allowance for seislnic retrofits.
Consultant Scope of Services
To expedite the desi~ of the Children’s Library hnprovements, staff has prepared and
plans to imlnediately issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for architects. This RFP would
also be used to select an architect for the Mitchell Park Librat3~ and Conmaunity Center
hnprovements project.
The scope of work for the Children’s Library hnprovements and Mitchell Park Library
and Comlnunity Center Improvements projects are discussed below. It is anticipated that
the consultant fees for each project will exceed $65,000. Accordingly, staff is providing
the detailed scopes of work in this report so that Council can review and approve them at
this time.
Children’s Library Improvelnents Scope of DesiN~ Setwices:
® The consultant shall provide complete architectural desi~on services, including
conceptual desi~on, schematic design, desi~ development, and construction
documents.
The consultant shall obtain and review all reports and plans for the facility prior to
design.
The consultant shall provide the services of a licensed civil or structural engineer
to analyze the existing structural system and desi~i the structural retrofits
necessary to meet the provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC)
and/or the 1998 California Historical Building Code. -
The consultant shall provide the services of a licensed electrica! engineer and a
licensed mechanical engineer to analyze the existing systems, to design the
renovations of those systems to meet current codes and user needs, and to add air-
conditioning.
The consultant shall analyze the building and then design accessibility
improvements necessary to bring the building into compliance with ADA.
The consultant shall desi~ the architectural modifications and improvements,
including those necessitated by the seismic, ADA, electrical and mechanical work.
~ The consultant’s design shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for
Rehabilitation of an Historic StrUcture.
The consultant shall present the completed conceptual desi~s to staff., the LAC,
the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and the Council for review before
CMR:l 11:03 Page 7 of 13
proceeding to schematic design. The consultant shall make any design revisions
necessary as a result of these reviews.
The consultant shall present the completed design deve!opment plans to staff., the
LAC, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the HRB, and the Council for
review before proceeding to the construction documents phase. The consultant
shall make any design revisions necessary as a result of these reviews.
The consultant shall provide construction cost estimates at the conclusion of the
conceptual design and construction documents phases.
The consultant shall provide construction administration services during
construction.
The consultant shall provide progress prints of the design at regular intervals and
attend regular meetings with staff to review the progress, details and cost of the
work.
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center hnprovements scope of design services:
The consultant shall provide complete architectural design services, including
conceptual design, schematic design, design development, and construction
documents.
The consultant shall obtain and review all reports and plans for the facilities prior
to desi~.
The consultant shall provide the services of a licensed civil or structural engineer
to evaluate the existing structural system of each building and then design the
structural retrofits necessary for the buildings to meet the provisions of the 1997
UBC.
The consultant shall provide the services of a licensed electrical engineer and a
licensed mechanical engineer to analyze the existing systems in each building, to
design the renovations of those systems to meet current codes and user needs, and
to add air-conditioning.
The consultant shall analyze the buildings and then design accessibility
improvements necessary to bring the building into compliance with ADA.
The consultant shall design the architectural modifications and improvements,
including those necessitated by the seismic, ADA, electrical and mechanical work.
The consultant shall present the completed conceptual designs to staff, the LAC,
the P&RC, the ARB, and the Council for review before proceeding to schematic
design. The consultant shall make any design revisions necessary as a result of
these reviews.
The consultant shall present the completed design development plans to staff., the
LAC, the P&RC, the ARB, and the Council for review before proceeding to the
construction documents phase. The consultant shall make any design revisions
necessary as a result of these reviews.
The consultant shall provide construction cost estimates at the conclusion of the
conceptual desi~ and construction documents phases.
CMR: t 11:03 Page 8 of 13
The consultant shall provide construction administration services during
construction.
The consultant shall provide progess prints of the design at regular intervals and
attend regular meetings with staff to review the progess and details of the work.
Library Bond Act
The Library Bond Act of 2000 was created by the passage of Proposition 14, a statewide
measure approved by the voters on March 7, 2000. The Bond Act authorized the sale of
$350 million of state general obligation bonds for public library construction and
renovation. Matching ~ants (65% state, 35% local), not to exceed $20 million per
application, are to be awarded in three funding cycles. The Bond Act makes provision for
application for matching funds for two categories of public library building projects: 1)
remodeling and!or expansion of existing buildings, and 2) construction of new buildings.
Furthermore, the Bond Act established first and second priorities for funding within these
two categories. For construction projects involving existing libraries, first priority status
would be N’anted only to those projects in the attendance areas of public schools with
low-speed telecommunication colmections. First priority status for new building projects
is achieved if the agency operating the library and the area school district(s) have a
cooperative a~’eement for the pro¥ision of library service.
In 2002, staff recommended (CMR 270:02) that the City apply for a matching ~’ant in the
first funding cycle for the expanded Mitchell Park Library project. Mitchell Park Library
was selected over the Children’s Library as the basis of an application because it was not
possible to obtain a first priority status for the latter project. The Children’s Library
project is for remodeling and expansion. The technology infrastructure of the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) is too advanced to fall into the definition of
;~inadequate" as stipulated in the Bond Act. However, a cooperative aN’eement between
the City and PAUSD was developed, providing first priority status for the Mitchell Park
Library as a new construction project. An application for $19 million in state matching
funds for a new and enlarged Mitchell Park Library was submitted by the June 14, 2002,
deadline.
Staff from the Office of Library Construction (OLC) rated eligible applications submitted
by this deadline on a immber of rectors and assigned an overall rating category to each of
~Outstanding", ~Very Good", or "Acceptable". Last December, following a review of the
OLC’s findings, the California Public Library Construction and Renovation Board
approved ~ant awards to 18 of 61 applicants for first cycle funding. The total amount of
N’ants awarded was $149.2 million of the $150 million available in the first funding
cycle. Of the successful projects, fifteen out the eighteen were for new library
construction; the remaining tl~’ee were for remodeling/expansion projects. Eleven of the
fifteen new construction projects received an overall application rating of ~Outstanding",
and the other four received ~Very Good" ratings.
CMR:I l 1:03 Page 9 of 13
The City’s application for the Mitchell Park Library project received an overall rating of
;;Very Good", along with thirt3;-two other applications in the first funding cycle. Based
on the staff’s analysis of the OLC’s evaluation of the City’s application, the following
major steps would need to be taken in any subsequent applications to improve the odds of
receiving an overall rating of ;;Outstanding":
Improve the building pro~am to make it more consistent with the plan of service
and make clearer the inte~’ation of electronic tectmologies.
Ensure better consistency between the building progam and the conceptual plans.
Establish a stronger cooperative ageement with PAUSD for the proposed
homework center by having the school district assume a stronger role in the
partnership.
While first cycle funding was awarded to a few projects with overall ratings of ~Very
Good", they were for relatively small amounts of state matching funds - from $2.5 to $5.4
million. It is also anticipated that, with the feedback received from the OLC, jurisdictions
resubmitting applications in the second and third funding cycles wil! increase their ability
to improve their overall ratings, thus increasing competition.
It is the staff’s reconm~endation that the City not reapply for Bond Act funding for the
Mitchell Park Library project for the following reasons:
With the defeat of Measure D, a source of funding for the local match ($10+
million) has not been identified.
Council decided in September 2002 that the placement of the new library should
be different from that which served as the basis for development of the conceptual
building desig-n. Consequently, a new conceptual plan would need to be
deve!oped, at additional cost, in order to resubmit the application. Additionally,
there does not seem to be consensus in the community as to the preferred size for a
new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center.
The state’s review panel would likely view negatively any reapplication for a
project significantly changed from the original proposal. It is clear that the OLC’s
evaluation is based heavily on a demonstration of consistency throughout the
planning process, from needs assessment to conceptual design. If the building size
is significantly changed in subsequent applications, the original needs assessment
w-ould likely be questioned.
CMR:I 11:03 Page 10 of 13
The cooperative a~eement with PAUSD would need to be significantly stronger
for the application to receive a more favorable review. It is doubtful that the
school district could commit more resources towards the operation of the proposed
homework center, especially in light of projected diminished school funding.
Although staff has not estimated them, additional funds and significant staff time would
be required to resubmit a stronger application in future funding cycles.
Staff has done a very preliminary analysis of the potential of receiving Bond Act funding
for the Children’s Library expansion project, as adopted in concept by the Counci!. While
it was widely believed by library applicants that second priority projects would have little
chance of receiving awards under the Act, the fact that there were three remodeling
projects, all second priority projects, receiving ~’ant awards in the first cycle somewhat
changed this perception. As a remodeling/expansion project, an application for the
Children’s Library would not require a cooperative aN’eement, but it would automatically
be considered a second priority project as PAUSD does not have an inadequate
techno!ogy infrastructure. With a current projected cost of $6.5 million for the desired
expansion to Children’s Library, the state ~’ant sought would be approximately $4.2
million. In staffs opinion, it would be a challenge for this potential application to receive
an overall rating of "Outstanding" due to the limitations of the site of the Children’s
Library. A review of the OLC’s findings on other applications points to these probable
limitations:
Adequacy of the site to accommodate the project called for in the building
progam.
Size and compaction of the site limit design solutions for the project.
Lack of visibility of the site from major thoroughfares.
Staff estimates the cost, not including staff time, to prepare an.application for Children’s
Library to be approximately $55,000. Funding for this is not currently available in either
the Library’s operating budget or the Capital Improvement Program. While staff does not
recommend submitting an application for the Children’s Library project, if Council
directs staff to submit an application for Bond Act funding, it would be submitted for the
third Cycle of funding, with an application deadline of January 16, 2004. An application
could ~ot be ready by March 28, 2003, the deadline for applications for second cycle
funding. Award decisions on th{rd cycle applications are anticipated in June 2004.
Expansion/Renovation Projects
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to work with the LAC to develop alternative
proposals for the expansion of Children’s Library and expansion or replacement of the
Mitchell Park Library including funding options. During the Measure D campaign, a
number of residents provided feedback that the scope of the Mitchell Park project was too
large and they remained skeptical that the cost of the projects was justified by the
CMR:ll l:03 Page ll of 13
evidenced need. Concern was also raised about the fact that Library staffing issues and
the maintenance and operations costs of the expanded facilities had not yet been
addressed. Staff reconm~ends working with the LAC to explore alternatives to the
original expansion projects that are less ambitious, and which incorporate funding for the
ongoing operations of the expanded facilities. Because the Mitchell Park Community
Center is tied to the potential solutions for the Mitchell Park Library, staff also
recommends that the P&RC be involved in the development of alternative proposals.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The estimated infrastructure improvements project costs are:
Children’s Library Improvements
Mitchell Park Library & Conmaunit3, Center hnprovements
Subtotal
IMP Desi~onated Funding
Net Increase in IMP Funding
$ 800,000
$1~450.000
$2,250,000
$1.559.000
$ 69t,000
Funding for these projects is available in the General Fund, Infrastructure Reserve.
Funding for other projects in the original IMP will need to be reduced by $691,000 to
acconm~odate the increased cost of these projects. If the $t00,000 House appropriation
funding for the Children’s Library were awarded, these funds would be directed to the
Infrastructure Reserve.
It is impossible to determine the exact amount or cost of the currently proposed
improvements that future expansion projects would impact without knowing the details of
those future projects. However, if the City were to approve an expansion project using
the recently prepared conceptual desi~s for Children’s Library, then approximately
$250,000 of the $800,000 total Children’s Library hnprovements project costs may need
to be redone. Some of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center improvements
would also need to be redone if anexpansion project were to occur later.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies regarding infrastructure
renovation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review is not typically required for renovation projects. However, because
the Children’s Library is an historic structure, any modifications to the building, which
may be required to install seismic and ADA retrofits, will be done per the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and will be reviewed by the Planning Department and the HRB. If
expansion projects are done that do not increase the environmental impacts analyzed in
the previously prepared conceptual desi~as for both the Children’s Library and the
CMR:I 11:03 Page 12 of 13
Mitchell Park sites, then the approved Mitigated Negative Declarations on file for both
sites would still be applicable.
PREPARED BY:Bob Morris, Senior Project Manager
Diane R. Jelmings, Acting Director of Libraries
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
PAUL TH1LTGEN
Director of CommuniD~ Services
CITY M_a2NAGER APPROV,&L:
Assistant CiD~ Manager
CMR:I 11:03 Page l_3 of 13