Loading...
05/03/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING May 3, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Monday, May 3, 1993 at 9:21 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Fred Thomas Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The purpose of this meeting is to receive a report from Rowe, Rados, Hammer, Russell, Architects, Inc. (RRHR) regarding the feasibility of renovating the City Hall Annex as a consolidated City Hall. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, indicated the report regarding the study and a letter were received Friday, April 30th. Dean Rowe of RRHR stated the report is detailed and that the letter contains their recommendations. He stated the space needed had been lowered to 62,263 square feet of usable space. That number needs to be multiplied by a factor of 1.25 to arrive at a building gross square footage. He stated their next task was to examine the feasibility of reusing the Annex as a consolidated City Hall. He stated it is their opinion that it is not in the City of Clearwater's best interest to further consider the reuse and renovation of the Annex as a possible City Hall complex. He stated the building only has a residual value of $800,000 to $900,000. The biggest problem with the structure is that it is 32 years old and at the time it was built, wind loading and lift were not considered in building codes. He stated the present building code requires a building to withstand winds of up to 103 miles per hour which is a category one hurricane. In order to do this, sections of the concrete slab would have to be removed in order for excavation to the bottom of the footing to be accomplished and then concrete would have to be poured, in order to withstand the uplift of hurricanes. The cost would be $137,000 which does not include the cost of demolition of all interior construction which is estimated to be $160,000. The $137,000 does include reattaching the deck, reinforcing and bridging all joists. In reporting regarding the exterior walls, Mr. Rowe indicated they can not determine how the walls are attached to the structure and a greater investigation would be needed. An additional concern is that the building is 170 feet deep and could end up with "buried space" within the building. He reported the recommended distance for an office building is 45 feet from the corridor to the outer wall. He also reported the chiller and cooling tower are beyond their useful life and uses the old type of refrigerate which will be outlawed after 1995. He stated only the fixtures could be used for the plumbing throughout the building. He felt the City would be better served by a single story campus style facility within the annex site. Commissioner Thomas raised a question regarding the existing wind load capacity of the building. William Rast of Rast Chang, Inc., Consulting Structural Engineers, indicated this was questionable as attachments to the structure could not be found. Mr. Rowe indicated if the walls are tied to the structure, you could say that the building had a 95 mile per hour wind load, however, connections could not be found. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not other individuals buying existing buildings would be required to bring the building up to modern hurricane codes. Mr. Rowe indicated that if more than 50% of the value of the building is spent to renovate it, it must then be brought up to code. If less than 50% is spent, bringing it up to code is not required. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not repairs to the Sun Bank Building were made to bring the building up to the 103 mile per hour wind load. It was indicated probably not as less than 50% of the value of the building was spent. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that it was determined that the Sun Bank Building met code. Mr. Rowe indicated that the Building Department can require anything to be done if needed for safety. He indicated the Fire Marshal has this authority as well. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, indicated if a building is existing, it does not have to meet code. If a new building is built or if renovation is done and structural work is required, then code has to be met. She offered the Coachman Building as an example stating that the addition to it had to meet code. She indicated that reattaching the roof and walls may be considered a structural application. Commissioner Thomas asked if meeting code would be required if all that it is done is to replace the water proofing of the roof structure. The City Manager indicated probably not. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not this would be required if only the interior were redone. Mr. Rowe indicated that glass inside to allow light in from the outside was being proposed in an atrium. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the atrium would be a structural change and Mr. Rowe indicated it would be. Commissioner Thomas emphasized he still believes if there are no structural changes, there can be a total renovation of the building for $2 to $2.5 million. He stated he is striving to do a City Hall for the least amount of money. He believed this is still capable of being done. He requested an opinion from Mr. Mudano who had given him an estimate, be done and to see if there can be some agreement. He stated if there is a conflict, a third opinion would be needed. The City Manager indicated a more thorough examination of the walls is needed. Commissioner Thomas stated that adding a skin would not be a structural change. Commissioner Berfield asked Vic Chodora, the Building Official, whether or not this would be structural and he indicated it would be. Commissioner Deegan questioned what sort of changes would require the building to be brought up to the 103 mile per hour wind load. Mr. Chodora indicated only if a second story is added. The City Manager indicated that 5 years ago, a decision was made not to use the Annex as a hurricane shelter. He stated that what must be remembered is this is going to be used for 30 years and the Commission must consider what it wants for that purpose. He also expressed concerns regarding renovating the structure while day to day activity continues and what impact this would have. Mr. Rowe indicated it would increase the construction cost. He stated two studies were done and it was found that renovating while occupying the building prolongs the time by 50% and increases costs by 25% Commissioner Thomas expressed his opinion that this would be different as one end of the building is already empty. He also referenced the recent rehabilitation of the two malls where they remained open. Mr. Rowe indicated that it can be done but that disruption would have to be dealt with. The City Manager suggested the Commission review a newly constructed DOT building over in Hillsborough County, stating it had been done for $47 a square foot. He suggested they consider constructing that sort of structure on the Annex site, moving into it, and freeing up the Cleveland Street frontage. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not an atrium would be cost effective. Mr. Rowe indicated it would depend on how the atrium is done. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not they had inspected the building and Mr. Rowe indicated they had. It was reported that if everything was as it should be, it would have a 95 mile per hour wind load. Commissioner Thomas stated his position was still that a second opinion should be asked from the architect who built the building. The Commission then needs to decide what they want and then the whole issue can become open again. The Mayor indicated another element is to consider the cost of renovation of the current City Hall as it needs to meet American with Disabilities Act and fire code requirements. Commissioner Deegan questioned what Commissioner Thomas was wanting Mr. Mudano, the architect, to answer. Commissioner Thomas indicated he wanted him to confirm or deny the RRHR report. Mr. Rowe indicated that the drawings provided did not show the detail of the attachment of the structure to the walls. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether or not Mr. Rowe had spoken to Mr. Mudano. Mr. Rowe indicated he had not. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding this as the Commission had asked Mr. Rowe to contact Mr. Mudano. Mr. Rowe indicated it was professional disagreement between the two. The City Manager indicated the direction had been that Mr. Rowe was to contact Mr. Mudano if he felt he needed him. The City Manager indicated the way to answer the question regarding whether or not the walls are attached is to open a wall. Commissioner Deegan questioned what the Commission was trying to find out. He stated he felt they needed to find out if there was a way to rehabilitate the building without the additional cost of bringing it up to the 103 mile per hour wind load. Mr. Rowe indicated that one thing that needed to be done was to get opinions from general contractors regarding the cost of renovation. He felt that the $2 million figure which had been offered was optimistic. Commissioner Thomas indicated he did not feel that the City had to meet the 103 mile per hour wind load. Mr. Rowe indicated that all institutional buildings being designed today are to meet 110 mile per hour wind loads. The Mayor said that what should be considered is what is best for the citizens of Clearwater. Commissioner Berfield suggested that first the Commission should find out about the walls and then go from there. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not the Building Official was capable of determining if the walls are attached and to what they were attached. Mr. Chodora indicated they are usually attached to the foundation and column. Commissioner Thomas questioned if they were not attached, would they be able to be attached. Mr. Rast indicated there should be some method to do so. Mr. Chodora stated he could determine whether or not the walls are attached but could not determine the wind load. Commissioner Berfield suggested that one or two general contractors be engaged to find out whether the walls are attached. She emphasized they still must find out what they are dealing with regarding the Annex building. She stated at that point the Commission would have the information they needed and they could proceed with the costs from that point. Commissioner Thomas again indicated he did not feel that the City was required to meet the code. The Mayor felt the code should be met. Commissioner Thomas indicated this would be asking the City to do things they do not ask of other contractors. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not it would be required to find out regarding the connections of the building before proceeding. The City Manager indicated that while we may not absolutely be required to do this, we should know whether or not the walls are attached. Commissioner Berfield stated she felt it was logical to find out the answer to this question. The Mayor agreed. The City Manager stated he assumes the Commission's desire is to have a building for the most reasonable cost. He suggested getting general contractors to take the plans for the new building and also see what they can tell about the existing Annex Building. Commissioner Thomas again emphasized he felt the original architect should be contacted. Commissioner Berfield moved that the City Commission select a general contractor to look at the information provided and to give estimates on renovating the present annex site. The motion was duly seconded. A question was raised regarding the contractors to be contacted. It was stated that 19 firms had submitted bids for the design/build concept. It was suggested these contractors be considered. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he had a problem with the whole process. He stated renovating the annex was not meeting the goal originally set by the Commission to consolidate City Hall. He stated they went through an exhaustive process to choose the consultants and then do not agree with them. He objected to achieving something less than the code requirements. He stated if the building is to last 30 years, they must do the best job possible. He again reiterated he did not feel this was meeting the original goal and that not all costs are being considered. He also stated the goal of putting property back on the tax rolls is not being met. Commissioner Berfield stated she assumed that her motion included determining whether or not the walls are connected. Commissioner Deegan indicated staff had said they would do that portion of it. The City Manager pointed out that the contractor needs to know what the Commissioners want the building to be. Commissioner Thomas stated his point is that if they went out and bought a building, the current law would not require bringing the entire structure up to code and he felt the City should not do anything differently. He used the Sun Bank Building as an example. The City Manager indicated the Sun Bank Building did meet code. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The City Manger asked Ms. Rice to clarify regarding Sun Bank Building. Ms. Rice indicated the reports provided say it does meet code. There was a lawsuit filed with an allegation regarding the windows. It was requested that a list of contractors be provided to the Commission for action on Thursday night. A concern was raised that the contractor would not be able to do what is being asked and that a structural testing firm is needed. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not a contractor could get such an individual and it was indicated they could. Mr. Rowe recommended this be done independently. The Mayor questioned whether or not they wanted to hire an independent firm to do the testing. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not City employees could do this. Mr. Chodora indicated they can look to see what is there but that's all. They would not be able to provide a report regarding the structural integrity. Mr. Rast indicated that what is wanted is to determine what exists and to evaluate its adequacy. He stated there may be areas where connections do not exist and there is a need to open up representative areas of wall. It was stated that a testing laboratory was needed. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Chodora understood what the Commission is trying to find out. Mr. Chodora indicated he did. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether or not Mr. Chodora could work with the company to determine this. Mr. Chodora indicated city staff does not do destructive testing. Commissioner Berfield stated she would like to know a ball park figure of the testing lab and contractor. She expressed concerns regarding spending more money than on a new building. Commissioner Deegan stated he felt that first it needed to be found out whether there were connections or not. If there are no connections, it would then be determined whether or not a testing firm is needed. Commissioner Thomas stated he thought Mr. Chodora had indicated he could tell if the walls were connected. The City Manager indicated once the wall is opened and the area exposed, the Building Official can look to see if connections exist. Mr. Rast indicated they had looked at the second floor and no connections had been found. The City Manager indicated the Building Official can look to see if connections are there but the big issue is to find the spots in the wall to open up and city staff could then open the wall. Commissioner Berfield felt we should get to that point and then decide whether or not to proceed. Commissioner Deegan moved to direct staff to open the walls to find out whether or not the walls are connected and this information be provided to the Commission for them to decide whether we are going forward or not and that there is no need for a general contractor until this information is determined. The motion was duly seconded. The Mayor questioned whether or not this meant that the structural integrity of the building is to be determined before a contractor provides possible renovation costs. The Mayor restated the motion as to investigate the structural integrity of the annex building. Mr. Rowe clarified that the motion should be to investigate the structural integrity of the in-fill wall tie-in to the structure. It was agreed that this would be the motion. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. It was the consensus to have a special meeting on May 17, 1993 in order to receive the report. The City Manager indicated he would provide the 19 firms that had submitted for the design/build team and that the Building Official would provide a list of 5 contractors to provide estimates of the renovation costs. The meeting adjourned at 11:01 a.m.