Council committee hears consultant outline for City Hall campus assessment; ordinance 25-15 advanced

Jen Kalen, a project manager with RE Warner and Associates, told the Fairview Park Finance Committee on March 10 that the firm will assess the City Hall campus — excluding the senior center — to develop a programming-based concept plan and schematic drawings.

The assessment will include interviews with departments, a prioritized list of needs, schematic floor and site plans and an itemized cost spreadsheet, Kalen said. “Usually it’s about a 2 to 3 month process,” she said, adding the schedule depends on staff availability for interviews and site access.

The assessment is intended to inventory structural, mechanical and operational problems at City Hall and the adjacent service garage, and to produce a phased plan that the city can use for budgeting and seeking funding. Kalen said the firm will review prior studies, evaluate ADA and sustainability opportunities, and estimate costs at line-item level so the city can separate priority work from longer-term or aesthetic work.

Council members named multiple existing issues during the discussion, including a leaking roof, structural concerns under apparatus bays, sewer backups in the fire department basement, HVAC failures, poor layout in the police area and insufficient office and interview spaces. A committee speaker described the building as “built in the 1960s” and repeatedly patched; that speaker said repeated maintenance has left mechanical equipment in suboptimal locations and that a full program-level plan is now needed.

Kalen said the assessment would result in a concept-level program and engineered schematic drawings that could later be developed into construction documents. She described RE Warner’s full design services as including structural, mechanical and electrical engineering, bidding support, construction administration and a 10-month warranty follow-up.

On cost, Kalen said RE Warner will produce a prioritized spreadsheet with line-item estimates so the city can identify immediate safety or life-safety priorities versus lower-priority aesthetic work. She used an illustrative figure in discussion — “if this comes out and I’m just throwing out numbers here just for the conversation, that comes out to be $10,000,000” — and stressed that any total would be broken into priority phases for budgeting. She said the assessment would also provide a “build vs. replace” comparison if structural findings indicate replacement is preferable.

Committee members asked whether the firm will consider incentives and funding sources. Kalen said RE Warner routinely examines grant and incentive opportunities during design and flags applicable funding or code requirements in the interview and programming phase; specific equipment selections and incentive qualification work would come later in the design stage.

After the presentation and questions, the committee moved ordinance 25-15 to second and subsequent third readings. The recorded Finance Committee vote on the motion was: Bridal? Yes; Bill? Yes; Troy? Yes; Mike? Yes; Sarah? Yes; (final speaker) Yes. The chair announced the motion carried and adjourned the Finance Committee at 7:28 p.m.

The assessment and concept work described by RE Warner do not themselves authorize construction spending; Kalen said the deliverables are intended to make the city “shovel ready” for future funding and bidding decisions.