Beverly officials outline $25M–$27M plan to rebuild City Hall, emphasize accessibility and records protection

Beverly leaders and the city’s owner’s project manager and architects presented an update Monday on plans to demolish the former police annex and rebuild an expanded, all‑electric City Hall with improved accessibility, new meeting spaces and modernized mechanical systems.

The presentation, delivered by Mariana Hajiliadis of Colliers Project Leaders and architect David Lightman of Feingold Alexander, outlined a design that keeps the existing City Hall footprint largely intact while reconstructing the annex, adding two full floors and a third‑floor elevator/stair tower; the plan would increase city staff capacity from about 65 to 89 and house 17 departments under one roof.

The update matters to residents and councilors because it sets the project scope and budget direction for a building that officials say has not been substantially upgraded since 1939. Mayor Cahill and Finance Director Brian Ailes told the council the city has been working toward a $25 million construction placeholder and the team’s schematic design currently produces a construction estimate near $27 million.

Ailes, the city finance director, said, “At the end of the schematic design phase, we were about 27,000,000 for the construction.” He told the council the city has a $25 million placeholder in its capital plan and a $2 million stabilization fund for debt; he said the $25 million borrowing authorization remains affordable under the city’s 5% debt policy but that the design development phase will be used to refine cost estimates further and that the administration will return to the council for a full authorization after contractor input.

Design details presented included: replacing the annex with a structure that extends south toward Thorndyke Street; reconfiguring the parking lot from 33 to 30 spaces; adding 14 restrooms (seven fully accessible and all gender neutral) where now only one is fully accessible; providing a mother’s room, seven small private meeting rooms and “phone‑booth”‑style focus rooms; creating a new ramp and a second elevator for accessibility; and converting file storage to a smaller, climate‑controlled records vault supported by digitization.

Councilors pressed staff on several operational and cost questions. Councilor Sweeney led the line of inquiry on budget and timing. The mayor and Ailes said they plan to bring on a construction manager at risk near the end of design development so the contractor can provide practical cost input. Ailes said the city had appropriated roughly $1.5 million to carry the project through design development so the administration can present a refined, contractor‑informed project budget for council authorization.

On records protection, architect Lightman and the design team told the council that the new basement storage would be mechanically controlled to protect long‑term public records. “We’ve been working with our mechanical engineers ... to ensure that the records are in a safe space so the humidity and temperature will be monitored there and controlled,” the architect said in response to a council question about records dating to the 1700s.

Councilors also asked about temporary space for staff during construction. Mayor Cahill said the city evaluated the former Family Dollar building as temporary offices and estimated a fit‑out approaching $2 million, so the administration instead plans to issue an RFP for temporary space after the full project budget is authorized. Cahill said the administration prefers to remain downtown but noted state procurement rules will govern any temporary lease or fit‑out.

Project team members told the council the building will be all‑electric and include modern mechanical and lighting systems, card access security and better circulation between the annex and existing hall. Exterior finish options discussed included a brick south façade and fiber‑cement siding on the rear, with the design team noting market uncertainty could change final material choices.

The council did not take formal action on the project Monday; members requested further cost refinement and said they expect the administration to return with final design development documents and a funding authorization once contractor input is available.

A next step identified by staff is completing design development, engaging a construction manager at risk for pre‑construction input, and returning to the council later this year or early next year with a recommended project budget and any required loan authorization.