Engineers: McCall public‑works building can be retrofitted; cost estimates remain rough

Jacobs engineers presented a tier‑1 seismic evaluation of the City of McCall’s public‑works facility, outlining structural deficiencies, retrofit approaches and a rough order‑of‑magnitude cost estimate. The screening was funded by a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant administered through the Idaho Office of Emergency Management.

The evaluation found that the building’s roof diaphragm and vertical concrete‑masonry‑unit (CMU) walls “are there, as a diaphragm to spread that load,” but several crucial connections are missing, Jeremy (Jacobs) said: “the roof and the walls aren't properly connected, and the mezzanine and the walls are not properly connected.” The engineers flagged unreinforced, ungrouted CMU walls and the building’s reuse of railroad‑car frame members as important issues to resolve before design‑level seismic events.

Why it matters: councilors said the study gives the city a ballpark for planning, and staff noted the grant money covers planning work while larger federal construction grants could help pay for retrofits. Michelle Grunewelt, community and economic development director, reminded the council that the FEMA program typically requires a planning step before construction funding and that the initial grant covered the study work.

Key findings and next steps - Tier‑1 scope: Jacobs performed a screening visit (site visit Feb. 10) and a checklist‑style review to identify “red flags” that would require deeper study. The firm said it had no original structural drawings other than light floor plans and relied on visible as‑built conditions. - Load‑path concerns: Engineers said the primary lateral load path — roof diaphragm to CMU shear walls to foundation — is incomplete in places because rafters or mezzanine framing do not have mechanical connections into the CMU or ledger; some rafters simply sit on ledgers without connectors. - Unreinforced CMU: Walls are largely ungrouted and unreinforced, a condition that current seismic design practice would treat as inadequate; Jacobs proposed external “strongback” steel channels or intrusive grouting as retrofit strategies. - Unconventional framing: The building uses reused railroad‑car frame girders as primary roof supports. Jacobs said conservative analysis indicates the beams can carry gravity and snow loads but recommended destructive steel sampling (coupons) to verify material grade and rivet condition. - Retrofit options: Jacobs presented two conceptual retrofit approaches: (1) external steel channels/strongbacks and mechanical connectors at the roof line and mezzanine line (more visible but lower labor cost); (2) intrusive grouting/bond beams that are more labor‑intensive and costlier but less visible on the exterior. - Cost estimate: Jacobs supplied a Level‑5, very‑rough order‑of‑magnitude cost estimate with a stated contingency of approximately ±100% typical of a tier‑1 study. The firm stressed the numbers are conceptual and a tier‑2/3 design would be required to produce construction documents and refined pricing.

Funding and planning context Nathan (city staff) said the study was funded by a FEMA hazard mitigation planning grant of roughly $67,000, paid at 90% for the planning portion. Michelle Grunewelt and city staff said hazard‑mitigation grant programs generally require the planning phase before construction funding is sought and that some FEMA programs have provided up to 80% construction funding in past cycles. The council also reviewed the city’s existing capital allocation: staff reported about $350,000 in the current budget dedicated to the facility project as a placeholder for future work.

Longer‑range options discussed Councilors and staff discussed three broad paths: (1) retrofit the existing building and add bays; (2) expand with a seismically independent addition that does not rely on the existing structure; or (3) replace the facility on this or another site. Nathan and staff referenced the 2020–21 facility master plan cost estimates (the master plan projected $10–15 million at that time) and later cost updates: a 2023 concept cost estimate for an expanded facility was cited at about $16 million (2023 dollars) and staff noted inflation could push similar projects above $20 million in later years. Council members asked the city to evaluate alternative sites and financing options, including partnership or urban‑renewal approaches, if they choose to replace rather than retrofit.

What was not decided The council did not take formal action to authorize retrofit design or construction funding at the meeting. Staff said the next technical steps would be a tier‑2/3 evaluation for detailed retrofit design, destructive testing for steel sample verification, and production of construction documents for competitive bidding if the council directs that work.

Selected direct quotes “A tier‑1 evaluation is a screening phase,” Amanda Thompson, Jacobs project manager, said, describing the scope. Jeremy (Jacobs) said of the structural condition: “there is a lot of locations for load to transfer without having every single piece of the load path… but the problem with this building is it’s missing a link in there.” Nathan said the study gives the council a ballpark figure to compare the value of retrofit versus replacement.

Ending Councilors said the presentation helped them picture the issues and framed follow‑up work: staff will use the study in the capital‑improvement plan discussion, consider whether to pursue additional grant funding, and can return with a proposal for next design or site‑analysis steps if the council wants to pursue retrofit or replacement.