MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: David J. Deutsch, City Manager
Subject: Use of Existing City Hall
Date: February 13, 2008
One of the objectives in the current City Budget is for City staff to, “Initiate
the process for exploring options for the future of the existing City Hall
facility once the new City Hall is constructed at Town Center.”
As staff has moved into the design development stage for the new City Hall with the architects from Grimm and Parker, several issues have crystallized from staff’s perspective regarding the use of the existing City Hall.
Advantages to Maintaining a Municipal Presence at the Current City Hall
As Council is aware, the deed to the current City Hall property has a reverter clause that the property will revert to Prince George’s County should the property not be used for municipal offices. A municipal presence in the existing City Hall addresses the issue of the reverter clause and ensures that the City would retain ownership and control over the current City Hall site.
The building where the existing City Hall is currently located represents an asset to the City. To duplicate a 39,000 square foot facility, using a conservative estimate of $300 per square foot for new construction cost, would represent an $11,700,000 asset that the City currently has at our disposal.
The provision of municipal service at the existing City Hall is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is a use that the surrounding neighbors have come to accept on this site.
Retaining ownership and control of the current City Hall creates opportunities to have the capacity to provide additional City services in the future as the need arises.
Keeping some municipal services at the existing City Hall preserves design options for the new City Hall.
Keeping the existing City Hall in continuous operation will help to reduce the inevitable vandalism that occurs at unoccupied facilities.
Given the above facts, staff feels that there are compelling reasons for retaining some segment of municipal operations at the current City Hall site.
Proposed Municipal Usages at the Existing City Hall Site
As staff has begun working with the architect on the new City Hall design, it has become apparent that it may be in the City’s interest to keep some functions at the existing City Hall. Below are services that staff proposes to stay at the existing City Hall.
At present the existing City Hall serves as one of five major “hub sites” for the countywide Institutional Network (I-Net). This network was built by Comcast, as part of the franchise agreement, and connects 171 sites around the County (including all municipal and county buildings, firehouses, police departments, schools and libraries). This fiber optic network serves as the backbone for the City’s voice and data communication system to 17 City sites. It also connects us to the County’s internal network and that of the other participating communities as well as Network Maryland. The City’s main Internet service comes from Network Maryland via the I-Net.
In addition to the I-Net, Comcast has one of the major head ends for their cable system located here in City Hall (for which they pay the City rent). Prince George’s County Government and Prince George’s County schools also have equipment located in this building. To relocate all of this equipment would involve a great deal of coordination and money from agencies other than the City. On the other hand, leaving the network and the equipment centered here would provide redundancy for our system at the new City Hall and could serve as an IT “hot site” for voice and data, should the City ever experience problems at the new site.
If the above items are retained at the existing City Hall, it also makes sense to retain the studio as well at the existing City Hall. The studio was renovated in 2001 and is still a functional operation. These functions are all located in the same corridor and this hallway could easily be segregated from the rest of the building.
There is also merit in retaining the use of the multipurpose room, Room 204 (located diagonally across from the Council Chambers) and the room where City Council meets at the existing City Hall. This would allow for retaining existing meeting space at the current City Hall and free up some space at the new City Hall. Meeting space is in great demand by the community and staff feels it would be useful to retain this asset for the community.
It may also be more prudent to keep the Youth Service Bureau located at the existing City Hall rather than move this operation to the new City Hall. The Youth Services Bureau staff have discussed their preference to see their activities detached from the other activities located in the new City Hall because of the confidential nature of their work. While they would appreciate more space for their operations, this could be accommodated by expansion into areas that would move to the new City Hall.
The existing City Hall could continue to function as an emergency shelter for the City since we already have a generator located at this site.
Storage could also be expanded at the current City Hall site if the City retains this building. This will relieve some pressure on the new building. It makes sense from staff’s perspective that because of the value of space at the new City Hall, that less valuable spaces, like storage, should be located in other areas if possible.
We would also suggest keeping the print shop at the existing City Hall rather than transferring this function to the new building if we keep this portion of our operation. The print shop allows the City to produce some documents in house without having to contract out for this service.
Keeping the use of the existing site as a municipal operation would allow retention of the fields behind City Hall for continued community use.
The remainder of the existing City Hall not used by the above items would continue to be an asset of the City and provide flexibility pertaining to addressing future community needs.
In summary, the above proposal allows the existing City Hall to retain a core of municipal services at this site, but also provides the flexibility to add future City and community functions at this site as the need arises. The City is not faced with an all or nothing decision at this point as to the future of the existing building.
Impact of Keeping Some Functions at Existing City Hall on Design of New City Hall
If the above decisions were made, it would help in the design of the new City Hall as follows:
Cost Impact on City From Continued Use of Existing City Hall
The downside to this proposal is that the City would incur increased building operating costs by continuing to operate a portion of this building. While unused areas could be closed off, utility costs reduced and personnel cost downsized, the City would still incur increased annual costs. Comcast currently pays a rent to the City of $26,552 per year that would stay in effect and help to offset some of these costs. This lease went into effect in 2000 and is for 15 years.
Staff would estimate that annual operating costs for the City to continue to operate the existing City Hall would be in the following range:
Building Maintenance Personnel $30,000 to $60,000
Receptionist Personnel $30,000 to $60,000
Utility Costs $70,000 to $100,000
Repair and Maintenance Building $20,000 to $40,000
Repair and Maintenance Supplies $10,000 to $20,000
Total Annual Operating Costs $160,000 to $280,000
These are rough numbers at this point and they reflect a range of costs based on limited operations of the building under the first column, to more complete building operations under the second. Hopefully, however, this provides some perspective as to what the City operational costs would be on an annual basis.
Another aspect to consider is that future capital costs for the existing City Hall would be necessary. In the Facility Preventive Maintenance section of the CIP portion of the budget, we have begun setting aside moneys for future capital expenditures for the existing City Hall. We anticipate $70,000 in costs for HVAC replacement of roof top units from FY 2010 to FY 2016 and we anticipate $156,000 in costs for roof replacement between FY 2012 to FY 2017.
These capital items for repairs, time frames and costs were determined by
an engineering firm hired by the City to evaluate municipal facilities to determine
future large infrastructure items that the City should begin setting aside
moneys for future repairs.
Advantages of Using Existing City Hall versus Increasing the Size of the
New City Hall
The cost to add square footage at the new City Hall at approximately $312 per square foot of additional space is expensive. Each 1,000 square foot increase would add approximately $312,000 in costs. However, a uniform cost per square foot does not take into account that certain portions of the building, like police, the Council Chamber and Information Technology areas, to name a few, will be more costly than the above square foot numbers.
Even though the City would have to absorb increased operating costs if we kept the existing City Hall, keeping some operations at the existing City Hall could be a more economical solution than adding space at the new building. We need to keep the new City Hall within the design and cost parameters outlined in the Fentress study. The approach that using the existing City Hall offers, as described above, allows us to free up some additional space at the new City Hall without adding to the approximate 80,000 square foot building size. This approach creates significant design flexibility for the new City Hall.
Current Proposal Compared with the Fentress “Split Scheme” Option
One of the keys to making this work is to keep items in the existing City Hall that work under the current configuration of the building. This is a key distinction between the “split scheme” option in the Fentress study and what is proposed here. Under the “split scheme” option, the existing City Hall would have required significant renovation at a considerable expense, estimated at approximately $4,250,000. Under the above proposal, this would not be the case. As future uses are identified for the existing City Hall, there may be some renovation costs associated with these uses.
Need for Making Decision Rapidly
The architect is currently involved in design development for the new City Hall. In order to proceed with this design within the adopted schedule, it is important to have Council direction on the issues raised in this memorandum. Staff feels a strong case has been made to keep certain municipal functions at the existing City Hall. Melanie Hennigan, the lead architect from Grimm and Parker, will be present to further elaborate on the above issues and to address the importance of receiving direction from City Council at this point.
Staff Recommendation
Staff feels that there are significant arguments to support the continued use of some municipal operations at the existing City Hall. To recap, keeping a municipal presence at the existing City Hall would:
It is important for the design of the new City Hall to determine whether it is feasible from Council’s perspective to retain certain functions, as described in this memorandum, at the existing City Hall. Staff supports retaining these municipal functions at the existing City Hall, and urges Council to support the concepts outlined above as well.
DJD/JLF/adf