Downtown City Building Facilities
Overview of Project Studies and
Actions from 2000 through present
JUNE 2023: UPDATE AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
ATTACHMENT 2
Public Safety, Department
Administrative Offices,
and City Hall
Police Department
Housing & Fire Admin
Fire Station
Human Resources
Utilities
City Hall
Community Services
Parks & Recreation
1951
1958 &
expansions
1961
1963 &
remodeled
1976
1955
Average age of the City
owned downtown
buildings, 65+ years
leased
leased
1975
July 10, 1951 City Council awarded the construction of a new City Hall for $277,448
70 employees (at City Hall, Corp Yard, Police Building, and 2 Fire Stations)
13,579 population
Previous Work to Develop a Project
to Replace Downtown City
-
Owned
Offices, City Hall & Public Safety
Buildings (2000
-
2020)
Consistent
themes for last
20+ years of
project
evaluations
Problem
: not enough space, employees
located in separate buildings, need to lease
office space, facilities in poor condition,
spaces do not meet level of professional
standards
Goal
: adequate space that supports
employees and community needs
Identified Solutions
: new buildings,
previous studies recommended rebuilding
on City property located downtown
20 years ago, need identified for new City buildings. Master plan developed in 2004. (Work began in 2000)
Goals
—
City buildings
:
•
Flexible framework to base facility
decisions
•
Cost effective means to provide needed
space
•
Consolidation of departments in City
owned facilities
•
Establish standardized, appropriately
sized workspaces
•
Co
-
locates like functions and provide
for space sharing
•
Creates a symbolic and recognizable
civic core by developing a City Hall
campus and plaza
Needs
—
City buildings
:
•
Are inadequately sized
•
Have deficient infrastructure
•
Do no fully support current
operations
•
No space for growth
In 2009, alternatives were developed for the City Hall and Community Services Building properties.
One of several alternatives
developed
Analysis proceeded but
joint project did not
move forward beyond
initial evaluation
T en years ago, restarted looking at
options.
Buildings in poor condition
Limited investments being made to repair
and maintain
Departments were (and still are)
overcrowded
Space unevenly distributed and inefficient
Leased space for offices and to provide
services
Facilities out of date regarding technology,
current building codes, and essential
services construction (for public safety)
Work from 2014
-
2018 was focused on
a concept to develop project through a
public
-
private partnership
New City Hall and Public Safety Building
(“Civic Center”) on CSB, with new Fire Station
#1 on the Housing Authority property,
expanded Clay Street Parking Garage
Private developer to acquire the City Hall
property to develop for housing, hotel, and
retail
Property value and increased tax revenue to
offset costs of the public buildings
Required temporary building space “swing
space” for police, fire, and offices
—
very
complicated
New Private Development on City Hall Property
New “Civic Center” on CSB Property
Request for
Qualifications Issued
October 2015
Top Three firms
selected to present
Project Proposals
9/5/2017: City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement for design, build, operation, maintenance and financing for new building and private development.
12/18/2018: Council directed staff to develop additional options and appointed an ad hoc advisory committee.
Steps Taken in 2019
Project Concerns 2018
•
Costs and Financial
Feasibility
•
Complexity
•
Temporary Office and
Operations Space
(“Swing Space”)
•
Expanding Scope &
Costs
•
Design Character
•
Employee Concerns
•
Community Concerns
•
Communication
•
City Council Ad Hoc Committee
•
Reevaluated Sites
•
Reevaluated Space and Building Concepts
•
Identified Alternatives to Reduce Swing
Space
•
Reevaluated Cost Estimates
•
Communicated More with Employees
and Community
•
Frequent Updates and Direction from
Council
•
Identifying Funding and Financing
Strategy As Early Stage
Geographical Boundary for
location of
City Hall
and
Public
Safety
approved on 3/5/2019
Alternative analysis for 26 sites with focus on
assembling area to support both Public Safety and
Administrative functions presented on 7/23/2019
Past Studies: Alternative site analysis from 2019 project work 15 Campus A
City Hall Superblock
CSB
Housing Building
Clay St Surface
Parking
1042 Seminary Street
B of A Parking Lot
Selected Site
Campus B
Former Safeway
CSB
Housing Building
B of A Parking Lot
Not selected due to
documented environmental
issues for Safeway property
and limited progress on
remediation
Campus C
Former Parks & Rec Office
Former
Cinedome
Site
Former
NapaSan
Pump Station
Not selected due to flooding
conditions
Campus D
County Facilities at 3
rd
Sullivan Site
Not selected due to insufficient
area on Sullivan block and
County not planning to move
City Hall Superblock Area
Selected on 9/17/2019
(analyzed flood risk,
acquisition cost, parking,
access, etc.)
City Hall,
PD, FS #1
CSB
Former
Safeway
County:
Admin &
Other
Parking
Area
NSD
Station
Alternative Analysis: Renovate Existing Buildings or Build New Council directed staff to
focus analysis and
outreach on Build New
Alternatives D & E
(11/19/19)
Concept Layout from March 2020
City Hall Superblock
17 City Council directed staff to pursue Option 1
(previously presented as Alternative E) and
return with financial plan and continue with
design. (1/21/20)
Progress made
in early 2020;
then COVID
-
19 impacts lead to
terminating
project
By early 2020, new project elements
identified (location, eliminating private
development plan, parking location,
building layouts)
March 2020, the City experienced an
immediate and severe economic shock
from COVID impacts
Project not financially feasible with COVID
impacts, the project was terminated
2023 Re
-
start
Considerations:
Acute Need to
Address
Buildings
Focus on developing a funding/financing plan to
deliver City Hall and Public Safety Buildings (project
will likely need to be phased); currently evaluating
revenue options related to public safety needs
Communicate with employees on the need, history,
and goals
Communicate, collect input, and engage with
community and employees throughout process
Focus on design elements to enhance the character
of downtown with employee and community input
Leverage work completed to date but must
reconfirm elements remain valid (i.e. post COVID
work changes)
Explore potential partnership with County
Recommended Action
Appoint two members of the City Council to serve as an advisory committee to evaluate the feasibility of developing a joint project with Napa County for new public building facilities.
•
The advisory committee will work with City staff and meet with two members of the County Board of Supervisors.
•
The advisory committee will return to a future City Council Meeting with a recommendation on whether to pursue additional steps for a joint project with the County.
Council Direction to Advisory Committee
for Feasibility Discussions
Scope of City Project
•
similar to 1/21/2020: City Offices and Public Safety Facilities
Project Location
Scale/size of Building(s)
Ownership Structure
Funding/Financing Plan and Timing
Project Schedule