CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Meeting Date: January 27, 2004
Subject/Title: Approve a Resolution authorizing staff to move forward with
the New City Hall Project, CIP Project No. 337-3139 and begin the design
effort for the Community Center Replacement project located at the Aquatic
Submitted by: Engineering: B. Grewal/M. Huber
Economic Development: H. Sword
Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager
Approve a Resolution authorizing staff to move forward with the New City
Hall Project, by approving the Site Analysis and Selection and Programming
Verification, and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with
Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (KMD) for design services in an amount not to exceed
$2,610,000, and authorize a 5% contingency, for a total design amount of
$2,740,500, for the New City Hall Project, CIP Project No. 337-3139.
Additionally, authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with an
architectural firm to begin the design effort for the Community Center
Replacement Project, located at the Aquatic Center, not to exceed $50,000
and authorize a 10% contingency for a total not to exceed amount of $55,000.
On May 27, 2003, the City Council approved the 2003/2008 CIP Program and
appointed Mayor Brian Swisher and Council Member Bill Hill to the New City
Hall Ad Hoc Committee.
On July 22, 2003, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate an
Architectural Services Contract with Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (KMD) to begin
the site selection and programming process.
On August 26, 2003, the City Council approved the negotiated contract with
KMD to begin the site selection and programming process for the New City
On October 14, 2003, the City Council approved and authorized the use of the
New City Hall Project Goals and Objectives.
As part of the site selection process six site locations were analyzed to
determine the best accessibility and location to serve the citizens of
Brentwood. The following sites were identified as potential areas to
construct a New City Hall.
Site One – The northeast corner of the Brentwood Community Center
encompassing the current Liberty Union High School pool area and portions of
the Community Center.
Site Two – The property directly west of the City Park from Oak Street to
Site Three – The property known as 104 Oak Street, 118 Oak Street and 120
Oak Street or the corner of Third and Oak Streets.
Site Four – The existing Police Station from Chestnut Street to Birch
Site Five – The 1000 Central Boulevard Property.
Site Six – The existing City Hall Property including the Council Chambers
and the Community Center.
Of the six sites, it became apparent that site six will be the best location
for a New City Hall. As stated in the analysis, this site is already owned
by the City and there will be no land acquisition costs associated with this
project. By owning the site, this provides the City an opportunity to build
on-site parking. The site is large enough to build a two level parking
structure that will accommodate approximately 120 cars, thereby assisting
with staff parking in the downtown area. This site will provide a “campus”
atmosphere that will connect City Hall with the City Park, and by staying in
“downtown” creating a more distinct urban area.
Upon City Council approval to construct at this location (Site 6), Parks and
Recreation, Administration, Finance and the Council Chambers will need to be
temporarily relocated. The activities occurring in the Community Center will
be coordinated off-site. Two departments will remain downtown until City
Hall is complete, Community Development and Engineering with Police
remaining downtown until their facility is relocated. There are multiple
solutions to relocating Administration, Finance/IS and the Parks &
Recreation departments. The solutions will be identified during the in-depth
planning of the project and brought before the City Council for
consideration through the Ad Hoc Committee.
A Program Verification and Cost Analysis to construct a New City Hall were
submitted by KMD Architecture in September of 2003 for review by staff and
the Ad Hoc Committee. The programming portion of the initial preliminary
design indicates that a 65,000 square foot facility is needed, which will
include a two or three story building bringing the City departments downtown
to a centralized area (excluding Public Works and Police). The building
would also include a state of the art 6,700 square foot Council Chambers
that includes offices, conference rooms and a closed session room.
The intended 65,000 square foot building cannot be compared to other city
halls as each City has different departments housed on-site and each
facility has different elements included within each project. For example,
when we toured the City Hall in the City of Livermore, the lobby and
exterior art as well as furniture, fixtures and equipment were the main
focus and substantial cost to the project. A 65,000 square foot building for
approximately 204 employees including mayor/council offices and a state of
the art Council Chambers is an appropriate size for the City of Brentwood.
The attached CIP Budget Sheet includes within the construction budget a
building cost of $251 per square foot. This cost is approximately $3,250,000
above a standard basic office building cost. The additional costs are due to
enhanced sustainable building systems which will pay for themselves in as
little as seven to ten years from energy, operation & maintenance savings
through this investment, staff has included some of the enhanced systems as
Annual Energy Use and Cost – a 30% to 40% (goal) more efficient than Title
24 (heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting components). Estimate
of $75,000 made for annual energy cost savings.
Life Cycle Savings – Life cycle costs overall will be lower; the intent is
to maximize initial first cost investments and provide payback in less than
10 years for enhancements.
Maintenance Impacts – Equipment may have a longer lifetime.
Economic Incentives (utility, depreciation) – The energy savings will
qualify the project for significant utility company incentives. Other rebate
opportunities such as state program for renewable energy use will be
Flexibility – Systems are more flexible to responsive to and for user
changes. Some users have seen that flexibility savings can be a major
advantage and source of economic savings. The City should anticipate for
future reorganizations of the 75 year life of the building.
Floor Plate Size - Rectangular, open interior atrium, reduce 'bay' depths,
tailored to result in more effective day lighting and operable window
(natural ventilation) performance. See "Massing/Orientation" comments below.
Glazing Type / Sizing - High visibility (light and 'view' transmission), low
e glazing systems (along with the potential to reduce glazing area because
of this), and increased day lighting would bring improved life cycle costs,
annual energy savings (less lighting and electricity costs), increased
worker comfort, health and retention (less absenteeism) with minor first
cost differentials set off by life cycle payback.
HVAC - Packaged evaporative cooled equipment (evaporative pre-cooling of
outside air). Increased energy efficiency will result in exceeding Title 24
and lower operating energy costs. Lower life cycle cost and reasonable
payback (estimate of 7 years overall). Raised floor air delivery for greater
energy efficiency, improved indoor air quality, and individual occupant
control; enhancing worker comfort, productivity, health. System provides
much more flexibility for future redesign and/or reconfiguration of the
interiors to suit department needs, changes and expansion (i.e.; "churn
rate"). Increased energy efficiency will result in exceeding Title 24 (30%
to 40% would be goal) and lower overall operating energy costs. Lower life
cycle cost and reasonable payback (estimate of 7 years overall). Full DDC
BMS to control and optimize HVAC equipment/systems, zone control, and
Lighting - Maximum day lighting opportunities to be developed; smaller 'bay'
sizes, larger window openings, improved high performance glazing systems.
"Ceiling" hung (exposed painted concrete deck above) pendant mounted
indirect lighting fixtures with efficient task lights at all workstations
(task/ambient approach - further enhanced by maximum day lighting
opportunities). Installed artificial lighting power density of 0.8 – 0.9
watts/sf. Increased energy efficiency will result in exceeding Title 24 and
lower operating energy costs (+/-30% to 40% goal). Lower overall life cycle
cost and reasonable payback (estimate of 7 years overall). Occupancy sensors
for both lighting and HVAC controls. Photocell dimming control of majority
of lighting. Additional life cycle cost payback opportunities.
Electrical - More conservative sizing (6.0 w/sf). Significant electrical
submetering. REVIEW/CONSIDER ability to incorporate photovoltaics into
architectural design; potential to increase first costs and balance against
partial capacity to meet electrical loads and ease overall life cycle energy
The parking garage is necessary if City Hall remains downtown. Land is
scarce with parking downtown strained, and it would be beneficial to contain
city business on site as much as possible. Other cities often move the city
hall out of downtown where surface parking is possible.
The 5% contingency requested for the project construction is within the
architect’s experience for similar projects. However, this does not allow
for owner initiated changes after the construction contract is awarded.
Typically, “soft” costs for projects of this scope typically cost 30% of the
estimated “hard” construction costs. Our budgeting holds true to this model.
Some of the soft costs included within the project are City administration
(plan check, inspection, management), professional design fees, legal fees,
environmental fees and studies, furniture fixtures and equipment (FF&E) and
telecommunications to name a few. The following is a breakdown of how the
costs are distributed for this project.
Hard Construction Costs $ 20,727,000
Soft Construction Costs $ 6,559,714
Interim Staff Relocation $ 1,500,000
Staff relocation is a unique cost associated with this project due to reuse
of the existing site. We expect to relocate Administration,
Finance/Information Systems and the Parks and Recreation Department. Staff
has included an allowance of $1.5 million dollars to cover these types of
Staff recommends moving forward with the project to begin the planning and
design phase of the project, thereby developing a schematic design, design
development, construction documents, construction contract administration
phase and relocation/move-in. The development of a New City Hall facility
will greatly improve service provided to the citizens of Brentwood.
As directed by the Ad Hoc Committee for the New City Hall Project, upon City
Council approval of the site selection, and design of the New City Hall, the
design process to relocate the Community Center must begin to replace the
current Community Center. The Community Center will need to be relocated as
part of the New City Hall construction. The planning and design process will
begin as it is staffs desire/intent to replace the Community Center prior to
starting the City Hall Project’s construction demolition of the existing
The City has anticipated the need for a New City Hall facility and funding
for this project has been saved over the last 10 years. Funds will derive
from the General Fund ($12 million) and from Community Facility Fees ($18
million). Funding for the start of design for the Community Center
Replacement Project will derive from Quimby (Park) Fees.
CIP Budget Sheet (New City Hall)
Site Analysis and Selection
Agreement – KMD
CIP Budget Sheet (Community Center Replacement)
Site Map (Community Center Replacement)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AUTHORIZING STAFF
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEW CITY HALL PROJECT, BY APPROVING THE SITE
ANALYSIS AND SELECTION AND PROGRAMMING VERIFICATION, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH KAPLAN MCLAUGHLIN DIAZ (KMD) FOR DESIGN
SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,610,000, AND AUTHORIZE A 5%
CONTINGENCY, FOR A TOTAL DESIGN AMOUNT OF $2,740,500, FOR THE NEW CITY HALL
PROJECT, CIP PROJECT NO. 337-3139. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO BEGIN THE DESIGN EFFORT FOR THE
COMMUNITY CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT THE AQUATIC COMPLEX NOT TO
EXCEED $50,000 AND AUTHORIZE A 10% DESIGN CONTINGENCY.
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the City Council approved the 2003/2008 CIP
Program and appointed Mayor Brian Swisher and Council Member Bill Hill to
the New City Hall Ad Hoc Committee; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2003, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate an
Architectural Services contract with Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (KMD) to begin
the site selection and programming process; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2003, the City Council approved the negotiated
contract with KMD to begin the site selection and programming process for
the New City Hall Project; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2003, the City Council approved and authorized the
use of the New City Hall Project Goals and Objectives; and
WHEREAS, as part of the site selection process six site locations were
analyzed to determine the best accessibility and location to serve the
citizens of Brentwood; and
WHEREAS, of the six sites, it became apparent that site six will be the best
location for a New City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the development of a New City Hall facility will greatly improve
service provided to the citizens of Brentwood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood,
that staff be authorized to move forward with the New City Hall Project, by
approving the Site Analysis and Selection and Programming Verification, and
authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz
(KMD) for design services in an amount not to exceed $2,610,000, and
authorize a 5% contingency, for a total design amount of $2,740,500 for the
New City Hall Project, CIP Project No. 337-3139.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood, that
the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract with an architectural
firm to begin the design effort for the Community Center Replacement Project
located at the Aquatic Complex not to exceed $50,000 and authorize a 10%
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting on the 27th day of January 2004 by the following vote: