Committee reviews $92M–$93M city hall estimate, asks administration for appraisal and financing scenarios

Members of the City Hall Revitalization Review Committee reviewed competing conceptual cost estimates and asked city staff for more detailed financial analysis and an appraisal before making a formal recommendation.

The committee heard a presentation from consultants who provided line-item breakdowns for three packages—tower demolition, building construction and full revitalization—and explained that the report did not present summed totals in one place. Committee members who added the line items said parts of the demolition-only package produced low‑single‑digit millions on some sublists (one package showed about $4.23 million for a demolition subset, with combined trade and construction items producing roughly $9.4 million for an option), while full renovation scenarios ranged in the low‑to‑mid‑$90 millions. One consultant summarized the high‑level figure as about $93,000,000 for a full, state‑of‑the‑art renovation of City Hall.

Councillors and staff stressed that the two contractors used different spreadsheet formats (one earlier submission was described as an “aggressive” January 2025 estimate) and that the committee needed a consolidated, auditable set of totals. "They didn't add them up, so we had to add the numbers together," the presenter said while showing the report’s cover sheet and line items. Members also noted the report lacked a clear line item for what would be required to make the remainder of the building usable if the committee pursued tower‑only demolition.

The committee discussed budget and financing implications. Using a working example of roughly $90 million of bonding over 30 years, members estimated principal alone could be about $3 million per year and stressed that interest, levy caps and other existing debt obligations (for example, school bonds) would affect any final plan. One member illustrated the concern about partial demolition: "If you take down the tower, there's so much more you'd have to do," a councilor said, arguing that tower removal without a remediation plan would leave significant costs.

The committee also raised building‑condition issues the report identified: asbestos abatement, elevator reliability and ADA accessibility work (restrooms and vertical circulation) would all increase scope and cost during design and construction. Consultants noted rooftop HVAC units had been replaced recently, which the committee said should be included in the itemized analysis.

After discussion, the committee voted to ask the administration to provide the additional information the group requested: a third‑party or staff appraisal of the current building, detailed financing scenarios (including bonding at current interest rates and multi‑year debt service impacts), grant and external funding possibilities, a breakdown of ongoing maintenance costs, and refined line‑item estimates that separate the tower, main building and public safety spaces. The motion was seconded on the record by Councilor Rubio and Mr. Barry and passed by roll call; nine members answered "Yes."

Next steps: staff will assemble the requested appraisal and financial scenarios and schedule the committee’s follow‑up meeting so members can review consolidated totals and make a recommendation to the full council. The committee did not make a final decision on demolition, sale or full renovation at this meeting.