Live Oak council hears master plan recommending new city hall, community pavilion

Live Oak city officials heard a presentation March 25 on a 2024 Facilities Improvement Master Plan that recommends replacing the existing City Hall with a larger, consolidated facility and adding a multipurpose community building on the public works campus.

The plan, presented by consultants Joseph Nash and Chester Nielsen of Hewitt-Sollers, concluded the current City Hall is functionally constrained and estimated an ideal program size of about 21,000 square feet compared with roughly 10,000 square feet in the existing building. The consultants identified immediate maintenance needs, longer-term system replacements and several site options; their conceptual cost for a new City Hall was $17,300,000, with an additional $1,800,000 shown for a separate pavilion-style community building. The presentation did not include a formal council vote.

The plan matters because it frames long-term capital needs for Live Oak’s municipal campus and provides staff and the council with cost scenarios and a timeline for budgeting. Consultants framed the report as a planning tool to set priorities and to inform future budget workshops.

“We've been working for the past…about 10 months on your facility improvement master plan,” Joseph Nash said during the presentation, describing the study’s components: a condition assessment, a programmatic needs assessment, cost modeling and life-cycle analysis. Nash and Nielsen detailed a Facility Condition Index (FCI) approach used to decide whether to repair, renovate or replace existing buildings, and showed scenarios that compare continued maintenance to full replacement.

Key findings cited in the presentation: the present City Hall shows a “poor” FCI under the consultants’ metric and would require roughly $1.2 million over 10 years to remain in its current condition; spending about $1.8 million over 10 years could return it to a “good” rating. The consultants also recommended combining dispersed departments into a single administrative building, expanding secure and public parking to meet fleet and visitor needs, and creating a larger council chamber and pre-function space for public meetings.

Councilmembers commented on planning horizons and design flexibility. “I appreciate the report. I think it really captures a lot of what I've been promoting for the last…14 years that this building is maybe a little dated and may need to be looked at being replaced at some point,” Councilman Dahl said, adding the project should be discussed with residents and staff to determine an appropriate scope for future generations.

Councilman Morgan and Dr. Perez both said they supported taking a long-term, comprehensive approach; Dr. Perez noted the rough combined cost if the pavilion is included: “You said $17,300,000 but we add $1,800,000 for the extra, it's $19,100,000,” and said she expected ongoing fiscal scrutiny. City Manager Mr. Kumari told the council the document was a planning tool, not a commitment, and said staff would return to council with budget workshops and a “game plan” in the summer.

No ordinance, contract or bond was approved at the meeting. The council did not direct immediate construction; consultants and staff emphasized that routine maintenance would continue while planning proceeds.

The plan materials include site schematics showing a new City Hall on a parcel adjacent to the police station, a public plaza along Shin Oak Drive, separate secured employee parking and provisions for a larger council chamber and public pre-function space. Consultants noted opportunities to use local materials to relate the new building visually to adjacent public structures and to preserve the live oak canopy where feasible.

Council discussion also raised programmatic questions—how other departments or services might be incorporated into a future building, how to phase work so the city retains operational space during construction, and whether to design some spaces to be “unfinished” to allow future growth without full replacement.

Next steps: staff will include the master plan in upcoming budget workshops and return to the council in the summer with scheduling and financing options. No funding commitments, bond authorizations or construction contracts were presented or approved during the March 25 meeting.