Cupertino Council authorizes $2.5M for City Hall schematic design; full $54.4M renovation kept as staff baseline

Cupertino — The City Council voted to begin schematic design and early procurement work for a City Hall renovation project but limited the city’s immediate appropriation to $2.5 million for bridging architects and construction management services.

Susan Michael, the city’s capital improvement programs manager, told the council the staff estimate for a full renovation is $54,400,000 (2025 estimate) — broken into roughly $40,000,000 in hard construction costs and $14,400,000 in soft costs including consultants, permitting, temporary workspace and other project delivery expenses. The staff presentation emphasized the project purpose: "to address the seismic deficiencies of the building, modernize the building, and ensure the continuity of the public services," Michael said, and explained that the recommended scope would preserve the building footprint while upgrading structural, MEP, accessibility and life‑safety systems.

Staff presented three options: A) fund schematic design only ($2.5M) to refine scope and costs before committing larger sums; B) reduce discretionary interior and spatial improvements (estimated savings about $8.2M) and/or lower the seismic risk category to reduce costs; C) proceed with full renovation and authorize design‑build procurement (staff recommendation). Finance staff said the city could pay cash from the "future use" reserve but noted tradeoffs including lost interest earnings and the unresolved law‑enforcement contract that could affect the forecast.

Several residents urged caution. Public commenters asked for study sessions, a clearer breakdown of soft costs (permitting, AV, furniture), and buy‑vs‑lease analysis for interim staff space. Tracy Kasolcheron and other residents asked that the council prioritize essential seismic and MEP work and explore ways to lower consultant and permitting fees. One recurring technical issue raised was whether a seismic retrofit alone could meet safety objectives without triggering accessibility and other code upgrades; staff explained that once certain cost or scope thresholds are exceeded, building‑code triggers require accessibility and mechanical/electrical upgrades so a partial retrofit can become a larger project by code.

Councilmembers split on the near‑term commitment. Councilmember Mohan called for moving forward with the first step so the city would not indefinitely postpone a needed retrofit: "If we don't move forward at this point with a fairly reasonable cost, we won't get anywhere, and we will be just debating this forever and ever." Councilmember Wong said he supported the project goals but wanted a comparative retrofit study (for example using ASCE/ATC standards) and a public study session before committing larger funding, and ultimately voted "No" on the $2.5M appropriation motion because he wanted additional analysis and public outreach.

Vice Mayor Chao moved to proceed with staff direction while limiting the current appropriation to $2,500,000 for schematic design and bridging services; Mayor Moore seconded. Roll call: Fruin Aye; Mohan Aye; Wong No; Chao Aye; Mayor Moore Aye. The motion carried 4–1.

What happens next: staff will return with bridging‑architect contracts, refined cost estimates and updates to council at scheduled touchpoints during schematic design. The staff timeline projects a five‑year program with further council review points in late 2026 and again before design‑build award in 2027.

Clarifying details from the hearing include the staff breakdown to reach the $54.4M figure (direct construction estimate $29M, 10% contingency, escalation, and $14.4M of soft and interim costs such as temporary rental space and environmental remediation allowances). Staff also noted that certificates of participation the city holds are uncallable until 2030, limiting near‑term borrowing capacity and making pay‑as‑you‑go funding and reserves a primary option for the next several years.