Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
IP# 926 - BIDS_SPECS
M"af'l Request for Action October 16, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Jeff Sargent, Director Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.3 Agenda Title Discuss potential site amenities for the new police department/city hall pertaining to landscaping Requested Action Staff requests to review potential site amenity designs with the City Council for the new police department/city hall building. Policy/Past Practice It is a practice of staff to discuss design elements with the City Council prior to bidding out work. Background Stantec, the City's Engineering consultant, is responsible for the site amenities around the new police department/city hall building, including all landscape elements. Stantec was also responsible for designing the Xylon Avenue streetscape improvements, and it is greatly desired to maintain that same level of quality and design work throughout the Civic Park campus. The goal is to have a seamless integration of the new landscape elements by using similar materials, colors and plantings throughout the police department/city hall design. Chris Long, City Engineer, will be present at the work session to review different options with the City Council to get a better understanding of what the Council would like to see. Two areas of focus are the front entryway and the screening of the outdoor gathering space for city staff. The outdoor gathering space would be used mostly for employee lunches and break times. Given that this area could be seen from the sidewalk along Xylon Avenue, there was some desire to screen this area from view. Stantec has three options for screening this area that they would like to review with the Council. Staff reviewed these options and preferred either the whole fence, or the half wall/half fence option. The front entryway into city hall will also utilize various landscaping and site amenity options to enhance the visual and functional appeal of the building. Stantec will present these options as well in hopes of receiving viable feedback from the Council. Funding The cost of all site improvements around the police department/city hall building have been factored in to the overall estimated cost of construction, which will be paid for through the issuance of bonds. Recommendation Staff would like to get feedback from the City Council on the landscape elements that should be incorporated into the overall design of the project. Attachment • Stantec plans I: \ RFA \ COMM DEV \ Development \ W S - City Hall Site Amenities 10-16-17.docx - 4 Pier, 9' Fence Panels Ornamental Screening Fence Option 2 - - - - 4 Pier, Solid Wall New Hope, MN - 6' ht. Ornamental Fence/Screen Options � Stantec 09.29.2017 Option I AW *I* J904 t1l 7e4 a Option 2 =17ATM m go] 0 6 - I SL -of Awl dy IL 1 M14 wk jam. �", . t r I- �,� ,� pz K7 i AJ .14 31. 1 M14 wk jam. �", . t r I- �,� ,� pz K7 i AJ Ll 104 Li - 0. Option 1 :u -'Q, 4 --- Mod ., " - , 7511111", I -1—. Option 2 Alsm Option 3 Ole 110� 1511= ML • . d& Tow I JJ h o 311 Ak, "All —47 It I UL Liu, Al rq..r• as - �. { r.. F s is i3s'r,r; •. r /? 5 ) ; -� ,. r �""� r . M , 1•I. / ' ..� �t'Y , . tcfi a S; F Bey veli!} .� S P tri i➢v , s•1 r' #Y• yi T ` rw 'y u w� J� ,�i,14x• .till i Cy '�� it •S�,'r, r f!�' '� `r ` y ! -»y, _ - ''�3"� ,.,w �tiy ar�lS,"�(•♦ y°N .� �,'i •'r �fi. � ;i1 1' wy�,L - .\���j�'�� +ys�L,�'• j ' r}r � \' r Ii.R °!: '.��T~ ' fi r: � i�'�f, • x, �. Y r +l • -*r�jl"' ^+ , , - , - i Cf . w , y,. option1 t:• -5F � :.e p�^�' �' :7. 7.. �. ,r ,' ti�y r, P�� �""`,a' '.� y � Y� � � c • � ',f - � °. ]••� �A :5��%'°.h r �[�%. IV�'�I, ifs .. VY. t \ �3�-'i .p T; - .. y. •r}�f-rA-'A �' 1 t,{•♦�cdVi�,G��,n.sJF' ��k� ':yfi `!t�,r';'.& ,, i:�,tc�..,'•i�t ,P,,r•� y,� <,1c..�i}k a"ce'+r,. ,�'r$,►�!^,U���t;1%.;r,.,i'��,i.�rm.' �,.`•'¶a �'�a-s ! V +`f0r.S�e.,.�, '•a V r �'paY-il• T,4.�aa''[,.::S;�'•,�a�.-7.�<t#'� z / r'yy.�t!V:��:�r'yri�, q�.•w'.t;'•, �.�r '*.:.r ti�,r•v�,'r.l+�,`e,s ,;;, . 5 �.`�,�1'y ��"%1t*,rul+. . `r,I,�`rrq,{'`.T �-;rr."l.iaCF4 • '1.p�r .. �.Iv,�,l.,��-f. �y���!o t�i�'1�*.'>ytr .�Ix"„tL,4"}-•9 T,�ti,;�s&.!'9 r}� `k,-�/^-C�r.�..,.�T j:!af..y•-+ 14. ,�{,r, �ii',�ey " 1,� �','•�+.,r1sa4•4AF,. i�,,.,.�ti`" .''.js. r.,:�:.h~Si�7i�." N�c ft,XtiJ\%'x,' : •:f.",+'rvpf`'�t5'•.1L�•,�,y{Z.5�`7,�i(\ir�"'j�*r\,' r� .+�: �F :. \4. hr'� t• � �.a', FRrtg1,,l`l�r.?w,.�ti,A-.`W1' _,���,4. ,i•tiIiT,�,r��a.y.�.S�F•r, x.?t�^, ,,;>!pri7a. ,,-C,#y(,� '.ii}.,,>'.�+a �r�C•�."�.Rd,z�'�r:. r}R"1rr'�7:r,�.k+•�r�,� y7�.17'.r�� rrS:,a4 Ay�►+''�-.ai,'w �� .� ,r..r j5FT`^,� i"r`°Srtr •'• r ";,� ! rl i �'tr �-'�3: ' �`1�r1µ�r-�.rM rte�1� , .it/,Snt,«I.�c•�,r' I,'''i� L'1�,yaf!S`�f! t,.�W '. .�ri i> �Lr r`e4 �yib�7 1��s F•y°,^s_� I a rp�(�, r+� �s/�- �i;'„,'�F-x.„ w ..}y,�i'r����•i�_t�m l�,:'�;;�.+arr.$,��•d. .,i� 'R .�Y��E��,�, Yi�- .. '�s.�y�'s,. ;. _.'}Yx �._Tg�,r,y,';<'.r: ,s'',�a.te-�y4•'+.� ;R•,r71�r..• �,•. r •.'' . ,� rvr,n p,�ir..`r :lr r��}.�,r i,. a -r: s',o `• u�. �- .�-�,,,*•.}."►,I k`4r, Y� rI, jr,1_1.>wp1/e � yr#y�,r. r��,r, !,:,',�.o.• }�_ �.L..fi.1,,-�` .*�, � ,-: s... ,-, r j ;? .f,.r�,. m�S•'t•s a/i.k.',4�'I-:q.-,: � h��^�.rtiI���k ,.'.�jMf, �'. r -]e }-,i�,ffr,. ���� •,, ,�b ' �r�'4S'/ � °'��4r �1\�y-�•: c ���;ti�ra "r�1', L/ +,,��i+.1��r •Y.'.�k'r�r--.msRL`,c�r �i'K;��. •:� #�_{ � 1.: . I.iif.V' •aI1l} , �, � ►i4�T�- f - �l. "_{ .,—.�� �. ,.�.��vI,�i,. ���,rylL•^ ,• � f•ra'!�j7 .�Y. r•r t,� d�:+�. 3w. ��i�S ,,Jwr' ,yf` � �`f i Ir{i .' x/ - a Tl', �` �irY +�"ryr�4,Yyrl�sr'Yky-,w Er.s�wh-.y . :h _-F.:� n4.,ri'�:s,C`jr"C._ � ��,�#fE , ,''�•.�L'�q�<:•} •r ':yarv�r��5,.5. `:r,�r{, aPq`, ^r �,�v.„_ ; ' °'�4r •� s wr,fl,'. r.��' •j�<,°d t, ,, {1�, ''_a"„�.'��� "4. .�'.�irA ',-. -� • .'91~,/, - -p'Yi.. I , �,��f fy i�r 1--f�!,r°'" t�`',��_' •1it�r� #a1.1i�y1`;yP f' r -� �'.,°•°f4yw•�'' '�I,�.vdY.r,s^ 1�ia• 1 ' .1 �. I�-< �l1.l<�,[II�,I,Il4,Sl�,���I lc1V1�,�e1111.I.�:II �,l,-`•iI,�� ��I�r41, M � S �i�!''!,"'i�tI� ''. - ��.y1.r/_��•��•"4f��I� :97`'�l�� y +.iyiaT.rrT f^�y� ,_r;��;.. tf ,. •r fre°- !I1i�,rn!1l�_• r�y1li. n.;I�I,•1I�R`;-a•I”',+ '�d�r'I�.:'�+ �f�-iti;I''•js.aii`A °,..,--• '`.�Iiiy,'rn1�,,r1�is te Yr1i�..il.�,Yj+;-V�, °.. - Y.' Y, :rr��� `•l{1r";�',ra�f'�x�"V'l';_ _r1� '���.�.e,— .��Kl_ ,Yc�,c�ciP'r+�f�� aa''.-=.r+�. -1i�r�r'rY�'� • 4-� �. .� ,�rI�1I.fi"a �.-l� .F�F,�� .,Ij1 Ir1�♦�i���S�-��e�.Y. i �.I9 Ir�y':r{.I�i1_k,_�ni��-a��a.a -_.��.A���. ,t ►rr-"-.�r_ r'�-��f'� `4 _-.. R �, ' .-•" "y Irk ',Ir r - i NN", 5'�- Y- G j f�til�.•i�'�1�iai_ rn,� Al < �;'��� 4 ,. Y —Al fit ion 3 �i�! r��Rls . , ak•s/ Ala 'Ol A , y"'AkA " I -Lid �•/,l��", `. AM ..fAr k'1C ;''. 1r..f ;� i y li r'rli r ily�n ,� .........777 v tdy�A I r� sr� - 'k. C • ,` yfp •:y.. _ '.n M:n:` 1 I, n!�' TF• .�: `MSaC r " Option72, r Ai� R I • .,..•T�./{[n.. I.f!■ -1 • I 1lI� / __ .1�1 - il.11l _ _.{ _ _� 1�.�1�0 r !. l���I Ali ... li r�r A11I "OhlM, ;C � 1 _ I ' •�'. ,� " M 10 -E Option 2 wr. r,, rr;, N f I I I a- �, •=p`'�" 1(� r' _ "- � �. � ''#,"4 _ _ - - f � " �-�`°�tiq �w� `� 1a' " f' f •� .Ma M r I# r�. jj f skij i +; �Rk lkt•.'s�� �i.r,'�, r'6�IiI�k � p 4 + + 1 111 kr_r � � I! II 11� A� All 11�A� 4 lr� .!" s__ _ J`I SII l ._ .ef Il ll�, k� ll� ��ll s ii�N �_ I c'.r...� !t-•^, .••'"�.�.. �+'"� �;1�`}y �j t�•r•�*� 'gy5��71�� ��h1��jj1{�''//4 �/y �� II, 1y��n� ` I � v.0 , yi"�".s'r �(� ��' ,}'' '+1 i4�. �•� �'�� 1 � R �rl•k* � �1r•�R:� +� e^� ^�� 'c• -q I - R f I 1 • 3 Option p I � Iyf•'�. xtorr p ). y f �k� t a • - — Y+4�4 � I I � '� �• _ :[' Jr'_ '1� +... ..��,� �M.z,�l'� 1IJ<�• �- II -'�' .�Y�YI-,• y.r:,,�� �� � . \�,.�' __ � . fir" � �,ry!"! r� � � ���y'" •M 154�.A='i Am i • - r ✓ �' �w ay .s : � r ✓ . r New Hope, MN - North Entry Birdse N p Y e Y 09.29.2017 or w. - +�+lot New Hope, MN - North Entry Birdse N p Y e Y 09.29.2017 -44 lop N.0 ;01 AP' jr -IF . JA�11 Alt AF d IX 1 7 IV. 4 44 Ail 1w. 1.1a Cm A�JLo,-� PIT, 0101= -Ar LI MAMWLIFICMP� 'ALI- -.Pft AF 7, tr IF L J 4r . it I ok 7, Al 44 IL j# *4 tw $4.7 IN ow T, 7,,f4, 'It A Ile VW 411 Az- # "WIN IL PIP - W-4 40 A A 40, %OF lIfW ios- m Am 0 155 7771TT �7 7 t�7 Iz Ir Ji 41 yam'. I AiM� 0 *4 ay r New Hope, MN - Police Entry Birdseye 09.29,201/ May 3rd, 2017 1 P.M. New Hope, JUAN -Shadow Study 4 09.29.2017 July 3rd, 2017 1:00 P.M. New Hope, MN -Shadow Study CS, Stantec 09-29.2017 0M �� ANN..� . § - E . .. � c \ �« � \ � 0M �� ANN..� . § z k January 3rd, 2018 1:00 P.M. New Hope, MN -Shadow Studys� 09.29.2017 Request for Action October 23, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Motion Approving Police Station/City Hall Construction Documents Phase Services prepared by Wold Architects and Authorization to Proceed with Bid Phase Services (Project No. 926) Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion approving the police station/city hall construction documents phase services prepared by Wold Architects and authorization to proceed with the bid phase services. At the October 16 council work session, the City Council reviewed these documents with Wold Architects and the majority of the Council supported moving forward with the next phase of the project. Representatives from Wold Architects will be in attendance. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered into contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background The city has been discussing the space needs issue since 2013 and a citizen task force was formed in 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Three public open houses have been held to gather community feedback. On January 9, 2017, Council approved a five -phase contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers. The phases are: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services It was agreed that after the completion of each phase, the documents would be presented to the Council for formal acceptance before proceeding to the next phase. The schematic design plans were shared with the space needs task force on April 20, were reviewed with the Council at the May 15 work session and the plans were approved with authorization to proceed with the design development phase at the May 22 council meeting. The design development plans were reviewed with the Council at the August 21 work session and the plans were approved with authorization to proceed with construction documents at the August 28 council meeting. Over the past two months, staff and other consultants (LOGIS, Solution Builders, CCX Media and others) have worked with Wold Architects on the construction documents and updates have been shared with the Council in the weekly update memo. Once the owner (city) and architect are satisfied with the documents produced during the design development phase, the architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once the construction I:\RFA\City Manager\ 2017\ Council Meetings\Space Needs Study 102317\Q -Space Needs Study 102317.docx Request for Action, Page 2 documents are completed and accepted by the owner, the architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The result of the construction document phase is a set of drawings and specifications that includes all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. The construction documents phase accounts for 40% of architectural services. Pending council approval of the police station/city hall construction documents and authorization to proceed with bid phase services, the architect will prepare the bid documents. This includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, etc. A pre-bid meeting may be held for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the architect answers contractors' questions. The architect would then open and evaluate the bids and review with the Council at the December 4 special work session (6:30 pm). If the bids are acceptable, the Council could award a contract at the December 11 council meeting and the bond sale would also be considered at that meeting. Attachments • Wold Architects' Construction/Contract Documents Report • Construction and Financial Schedule • Wold Architects' 1/19/17 Proposal Construction/ Contract Documents Report Wold Architects Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, MN 55101 woldae.com 1 651 227 7773 Contract Documents Submittal NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA , � rA, �I.MMMMMI Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL • r TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Guiding Principles 2 Site Plan 3 Building Program Summary 4 - 9 Floor Plan - Main Level 10 Floor Plan - Lower Level 11 Interior Views 12-18 Exterior Views 19-26 Projected Schedule 27 Projected Budget 28 dA11F9d4YSn»nH1i77pp7 Nbw PdICr Goy Hap Frcl lily f[..mntr.I�mroagvra�narcyM,vip.rar�Racv+CeYxR+eo-rr7i-rn SiWar uv-can.wpldae.eomM1&tPwM1C1•Nrx}foyrV 578907 N"PoNc.Cily Hall FacllllyW2_ARCH1RWIU72007 New Police Contents Comm No: 172007 Clay f WI F4c08y;[rata{) rA Wol INTRODUCTION CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Wold Architects and Engineers is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council the Design Development submittal for the New Police & City Hall facility. We wish thank the City Council, Core Planning Group, Citizen's Task Force and multiple sub -committees for their comprehensive efforts in providing the Design Team the information necessary to advance to this stage of development in a timely fashion. The Design Team will commence the procurment phase of this project upon approval by the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of this Design Development submittal. Joel Dunning, AIA Partner WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS dq�7 i' 9-o1b��I umm1ai172067 Now Fd.9"Hall Facility (CeMrel,�mFia®err�neHyNJinp:Col� RacovaiyJ[Reeowryl.nl Introduction {iWml•w�nrtinold�o.eaieoLStPwhGt-Nax?fnp�{lY?G07NswNlic.CilyW1F-ility\02_ARCH\ReW\172007 NewNkl Page 1 Comm No: 172007 Cqy dill Firmly (CeMnf) M n!V01 GUIDING PRINCIPLES CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL (9.) New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for COMMUNITY PRIDE. (2.) New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up-to-date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. a. Implement common sense, sustainable approaches. (3.) New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments onsite today with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. (4.) New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a SAFE & SECURE facility for the public, elected and appointed officials and staff. a. Public spaces should be designed so that they are accessible after hours. (6.) Build a Public Safety/ City Hall facility that is a functional, adaptable and great place to work. a. The facility should ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY INTERACTION & COLLABORATION among all departments. (6.) Enhance Civic Center Park and the surrounding neighborhood. a. Plan for a facility that is cohesive and complimentary to the master space planned Civic Center Park and pool complex. b. The building's design and the park should work together to create A UNIFIED SPACE. (7.) The facility should strive to have a feel that is WELCOMING & FAMILIAR, open and accessible. a. Respect recent civic center redevelopment and streetscape. b. Respect the existing fire department. c. Architecture should be TIMELESS Q i"jkilh&turoW.%172047NewPoliceCityHallFacility Guiding Principles (ConLolLModonRCho ydiving..c (Recovery)(Recovery).M %%W"-arv-mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic. City Hall Facilily\02_ARCHWevil\172007New Police Page 2 Comm No: 172007 Ci[y Hall Facility (Central).M r�o CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL X I }1 1 ��� Q f 1��r�i 916.6 I��' � I � I � � \ Q r• `—gip /'�,_—,✓ �a r � � k r/ 913.9 I I ;. v + r I d r 1--920 --I Q� REPLACEMENT PARKING LOT (17D CZ) CZ) C'_�D I I MEETING ROOMS w TENNIS COURTS rj I z r 4 / 4 T — 9zg.? Q IQ 1 *ML t q23 i �t PD a z a LI_ � a � � il♦r.1-� L ZD U w F1 cli MEETING ROOMS w TENNIS COURTS rj I z r 4 / 4 T — 9zg.? Q IQ 1 Q+ Z J rr ; rwid, Space Program Summary Departmental Summary - Police 1.100 Public Spaces Net Area Total: 1.200 Administration Net Area Total: 1.300 Patrol Net Area Total: 1.400 Investigations Net Area Total: 1.500 Holding Net Area Total: 1 600 Evidence Net Area Total: 1.700 Support Spaces Net Area Total: 1.800 Garage Support Net Area Total: 574 s.f. Total Police Office NSF Total Police Office USF Departmental Summary - City Hall 2.100 Public Space Net Area Total: 2.200 City Manager Net Area Total: 2.300 Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 2.400 Comm. Development Net Area Total: 2.500 Parks and Rec Net Area Total: 2.600 Shared Space Net Area Total: Total City Hall Office NSF Total City Hall Office USF Garage Summary 3.100 Total Police Garage 3.200 Total City Hall Garage Total Garage NSF TOTAL Total Garage USF Total Gross Square Footage - Police Total Gross Square Footage - City Hall Total Gross Square Footage - Garage Sub Total Total Building Gross Square Footage CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 560 s.f. 520 s.f. 574 s.f. 412 s.f 1,869 s.f. 1,885 s.f. 1,906 s.f. 1,849 s.f. 2,748 s.f. 2,922 s.f. 2,964 s.f. 2,725 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 904 s.f. 861 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,630 s.f. 1,751 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2,070 s.f. 2,029 s.f. 4,188 s.f. 3,948 s.f. 4,508 s.f. 4,634 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 544 s.f. 533 s.f. 14,745 s.f. 14,655 s.f. 15,100 s.f. 14,794 s.f. x 1.401x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.41 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 21,140 s.f. 20,843 s.f. 4,860 s.f. 4,460 s.f. 4,418 s.f. 4,303 s.f. 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,113 s.f- 1,076 s.f. 1,808 s.f. 1,958 s.f. 1,726 s.f. 1,688 s.f. 1,356 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,619 s.f. 1,588 s.f. 1,651 s.f. 1,801 s.f. 1,778 s.f. 1,766 s.f. 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,623 s.f. 1,576 s.f. 12,105 s.f. 12,964s , f , 2,964s.f. 12,277 s.f. 11,997 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1-40 x 1.50 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f, 17,188 s.f. 18,017 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 12,864 s.f. 12,858 s.f. 900 S.C. 1,200 s.f. 866 s.f. 861 s.f. 12,080 s.f. 12,380 s,f. 13,730 s.f. 13,719 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.26 15,704 s.f. 16,094 s.f. 17,849 s.f. 17,340 s.f. 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 21,140 s.f. 20,843 s.f. 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 17,188 s.f. 18,017 s.f. 12,080 s.f. 12,380 s.f. 17,849 s.f. 17,340 s.f. 49,670 s.f. 51,047 s.f. 66;177 s.f. 56,200 s.f. x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.16 56,889 s.f. 58,704 s.f.1 64,604 s.f. 65,409 s.f. MWi+MMOMMUMORIM172007 Now Police City Han Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Ctldrall_mrodgen(p, tmil i4ving.com(RIc ly)(Recovery).M H We N-M&mid ae.com\StPeuhCl-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police Page 4 Comm No: 172007 Coy Hall Facility (Central).M CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL s � Space Program Summary Public Waiting 400 s.f. 400 s f. Predesign Schematic DesignConstruction Lobby Interview Room Program Design Development Documentation 1.000 Police Community Room/ EOC 0 s.f. 0 s.f- .f.1.104 1.100 Public Spaces 1.101 Public Waiting 400 s.f. 400 s f. 451 s.f 300 s.f. 1.102 Lobby Interview Room 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 123 s.f. 112 s.f. 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 0 s.f. 0 s.f- .f.1.104 incl incl 1 104 Community Room Storage 40 s.f. 0 s.f. incl incl 1.305 Public Spaces Net Area Total: 560 s.f. 520 s.f. 574 s.f. 412 s.f. 1.306 Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1 42 1.307 Public Spaces Total USF 784 s.f. 728 s.f. 804 s.f 584 s.f. 1.200 Administration QTY Unit Size School Resource Officer Hotel Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. see 1.302 1 201 Chief Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 203 s.f. 189 s.f. 1.202 Captain Office 2 130 s f 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 296 s.f. 278 s.f. 1.203 Admin. Assistant Office/Crime Analyst 110 s.f. 110 s.f. 116 s.f. 109 s.f. 1.204 Office Supervisor Office 135 s.f. 135 s.f. 116 s.f. 109 s.f. 1.205 Clerical Workstation 4 64 s.f 240 s.f. 256 s.f. 270 s.f. 240 s.f. 1.206 Future IT Coordinator - Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f 60 s.f 60 s.f. 1.207 Active Records Storage 160 s.f. 160 s f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 1.208 Archive Records Room 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 157 s.f. 157 s.f. 1.209 Copy/Supply/Workroom 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 104 s.f. 147 s.f. 1.210 Conference Room 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 303 s.f. 285 s.f. 1.211 Admin Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 175 s.f. 175 s.f. 1.212 Reception 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 106 s.f. 100 SJ. Administration Net Area Total: 1,869 s.f. 1,885 s.f. 1,906 s.f. 1,849 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.60 x 1.58 Administration Bldg Total USF 2,617 s.f 2,639 s.f. 3,007 s.f. 3,007 s f. 1.300 Patrol 1.301 Sergeants Paired Offices 2 67 s.f. 480 s.f. 480 s.f. 547 s.f. 528 s.f. 1.302 Shared Patrol Workstations 640 s.f. 896 s.f. 900 s.f. 720 s.f. 1.303 Patrol File Storage incl incl incl incl 1.304 Community Service Officer Wkstn 64 s.f. 0 s.f. incl incl 1.305 Animal Control Officer Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 167 s.f. 167 s.f. 1.306 Crime Prevention Specialist Office 64 s.f. 110 s.f. 137 s.f. 137 s.f. 1.307 PTE CSO/Reserve Officer Wkstn 2 192 s.f. 128 s.f. see 1.305 see 1.305 1.308 School Resource Officer Hotel Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. see 1.302 see 1.302 1.309 Copy/Workarea See 1.209 See 1.209 50 s.f. 50 s.f. 1.310 Roll Call Area /Radio Charging 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 844 s.f. 804 s.f. 1.311 CSO/Reserve Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 115 s.f. 115 s f. 1.312 Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev.) 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 204 s.f. 204 s.f. Patrol Net Area Total: 2,748 s.f. 2,922 s.f. 2,964 s.f. 2,725 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.61 x 1.58 Patrol Total USF 3,847 s.f. 4,091 s.f. 4,692 s.f. 4,692 s.f 1.400 Investigations 1.401 Investigator's Office 2 130 s f. 450 s.f. 450 s.f. 296 s.f. 278s. 1.402 Investigator's Office - Part Time incl incl 149 s.f. 137s. 1.403 Computer Forensics / DTF Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 148 s.f. 147s. 1.404 Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 229 s.f. 226s. 1.405 Soft Interview Room 120 s.f, 120 s.f. 82 s.f. 73s. 1.406 Invest. Storage/ Elect. Equip. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. Investigations Net Area Total: 1,040 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 904 s.f. 861 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.56 x 1.80 Investigations Total USF 1,456 s.f. 1,456 s.f. 1,624 s.f. 1,624 s.f. QPi7in11tt1�mentsN72007 New Police City Hall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (4 li N%W, aQg da,.co \S1P u1\Cl- ewHop.\1720o NewP Page 5 Comm No: 172007 Cq HIM Facility (C,e.com\SIPauIICI-NewHope\172007 New Polis. City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Lily H�II Facility (Cenlral).M nwo, Space Program Summary 1.500 Holding 1.501 Holding Cell (2@67 s.f. , 1 @105 s.f 1.502 Holding Cell Juvenile 1.503 Booking/Intox. 1.504 Sallyport 1.505 Hard Interview 1.506 Release 1.707 Holding Net Area Total: 1.708 Net to Usable SF Factor 1.709 Holding Total USF CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design I Development Documentation 3 60 s.f. 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 280 s.f 900 s.f. 100 s.f. 1.600 Evidence 1.601 Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 1.602 Evidence Storage 1.603 Large Property Storage 1.604 Vault Storage/ Drugs/ Weapons/ Drying Room 1.605 Evidence Garage Evidence Net Area Tolal: Net to Usable SF Factor Evidence Total USF 1.700 Support Spaces 1.701 Armory/Weapon Cleaning/Ammo Storage 1.702 Ammunition Room 1.703 Fitness Center 1.704 City Staff Changing Room 1.705 Defensive Tactics Training Room 1.706 Defensive Tactics Training Storage 1.707 Breakroom w/ Kitchenette (6-8 people) 1.708 Quiet/Mothers Room 1.709 Beverage Station 1.710 Staff Toilet 2 25 s.f. 1.711 Men's Locker Room 30 1.712 Men's Toilet/ Shower 1.713 Men's Vestibule 1.714 Women's Locker Room 10 1.715 Women's Toilet/ Shower 1.716 Women's Vestibule 200 s.f. Support Spaces Net Area Total: 273 s f. Net to Usable SF Factor 0 s.f. Support Spaces Total USF 1.800 Police Garage Support 1.801 Swat Gear Storage / Lockers for 6 1.802 Gear bag storage 1.803 Squad Supply Storage (helmets, shields, etc) 1.804 Toilet Garage Support Net Area Total: Net to Gross Factor Garage Support Total USF 140 s.f. 132 s.f. 140 s.f. 91 s.f. 280 s.f. 279 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,038 s.f. 100 s.f. 90 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,630 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.57 2,184 s.f 2,184 s.f. 2,449 s.f. 200 s.f. 91 s.f. 237 s.f. 1,049 s.f. 90 s.f. 84 s.f. 1,751 s.f. 1.50 2,449 s.f 300 s.f. 300 s f. 329 s.f. 273 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 992 s.f. 985 s.f. incl incl 165 s.f. 319 s.f, 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 584 s.f. 452 s.f. 2,380 &f. 2,380 s.f. 2,070 s.f. 2,029 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.16 x 1.01 3,332 s.f 3,332 s.f. 2,051 s.f. 2,051 s.f. 120 s.f. 200 s.f. 112 s.f. 273 s f. 80 s.f. 0 s.f. 133 s.f. 133 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 871 s.f. 857 s.f. 160 s.f. 160 s.f. 408 s.f. 371 s.f. 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 812 s.f. 806 s.f. 40 s.f. 40 s.f. 40 s.f. 65 s.f. 640 s.f. 400 s.f. 455 s.f. 429 s.f. 80 s.f, 80 s.f. 77 s.f. 77 s.f. 72 s.f. 72 s.f. 95 s.f. 95 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 600 s.f. 360 s.f. 521 s.f. 521 s.f. 120 s.f. 360 s.f. 351 s.f. 288 s.f. 44 s.f. 44 s.f. incl 69 s.f 240 s.f 120 s.f. 265 s.f. 265 s.f 120 s.f. 240 s.f. 368 s.f. 316 s.f. 44 s.f. 44 s.f. incl 69 s.f. 4,188 s.f. 3,948 s.f. 4,508 s.f. 4,634 s.f. x 1.35 x 1.35 x 1.30 x 1.24 5,654 s.f. 5,330 s.f. 5,874 s.f. 5,732 s.f 180 s.f 180 s.f. 203 s.f. 203 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 341 s.f. 204 s.f. 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 0 s.f. 73 s.f. 53 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 544 s.f. 533 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.32 520 s.f. 520 s.f. 707 s.f. 704 s,f. L`MMR09WVdMJM1A.\l1n07 New Police City HallFacilily PROGRAM SUMMARY (Cm&m[LmroegwiCharlyNing,com ( Recovery)(Recovery).rvl hWeayry.mnwoldae.com\SlPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.Cily Hall Fecilily\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 6 Comm No: 172007 Cly HW FmciNy(Cen(ral).M rwJ0, Space Program Summary 2.000 City Hall 2.100 Public Spaces 2 101 Public Lobby 2.102 Council Chambers 2.103 Council Chambers Table Storage 2.104 TV Control Room 2.105 Council Work Session Room 2.106 Public After Hours Conference /Training 2.107 Kitchenette 2.108 Conference Room 2.109 Public Toilets 2.211 Public Space Net Area Total: 2.311 Net to Usable SF Factor 2.312 Public Space Total USF 2.200 City Manager 2.201 City Manager Office 2.202 City Clerk Office 2.203 Admin. Assistant 00 2.204 Assessor Hoteling Wkstn 0.0 2.205 Mayor/Council Workspace/Conference Room 2.206 Public Counter 2.207 Ballot Storage 2.208 Elections Storage 2.209 Public Record Viewing Kiosk 2.211 City Engineer Wkstn 0.0 2.311 City Manager Net Area Total 2.312 Net to Usable SF Factor 2.313 City Manager Total USF 2.300 Finance / IT / HR 1 Communications 2.301 HR/Admin Director Office 2.302 HR Coordinator Office 2.303 Wellness Workstation 2.304 Finance Director Office 2.305 Finance Storage 2.306 Storage 2.307 Finance Workstation (1@80 1@110) 2.308 Cash Handling/Safe Room 2.309 I.T Coordinator Office 2.310 I.T. Support Workstation 2.311 I.T. Set Up Workstation 2.312 I.T. Storage 2.313 Server Room 2.314 Communications Office 2.315 Communications Intern Work Area/Storage Wkstn 2.316 Small Conference Room FinancMT/HR Net Area Total. Net to Usable SF Factor Finance/IT/HR Total USF CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 600 s.f. 600 s.f. 800 s.f 800 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 1,252 s.f. 1,249 s f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 133 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 164 s.f 164 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 813 s f. 727 s.f. 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 773 s.f. 727 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 128 s.f 130 s.f. 400 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 300 s.f. 300 s.f 368 s.f. 373 s.f. 4,860 s.f. 4,460 s.f. 4,418 s.f. 4,303 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.39 6,804 s.f. 6,244 s.f 6,185 s.f 5,965 s.f. 200 s.f. 250 s.f. 249 s.f 229 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 123 s.f. 110 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. incl 100 s.f. 118 s f. 117 s.f. 40 s.f. 40 s.f. see 2.208 see 2.208 600 s.f 500 s.f. 427 s.f. 427 s.f. 25 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s f. 60 s.f. 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,113 s f. 1,076 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.53 1,875 s.f 1,935 s.f. 1,558 s.f. 1,645 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 195 s.f. 182 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 132 s.f. See 1.703 See 1.703 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 196 s.f, 184 s.f. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 123 s.f. 123 s.f. 28 s f 28 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 192 s.f. 192 s.f. s.t 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 146 s.f. 147 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f 60 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 107 s.f. 109 s.f. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. see 2.313 see 2.313 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 243 s.f. 243 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 134 s f. 126 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 150 s.f. 143 s.f. 142 s.f. 1,808 s.f. 1,958 s.f. 1,726 s.f. 1,688 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.45 2,531 s.f. 2,741 s.f. 2,416 s.f. 2,445 s.f. VWbhAQ*MW&—l%%172007 New Police City Hall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY {CaMiq�t,podgen�pprtYrlrlrrgsumlRawvaty�Reco+a�Yj M \\Wae-se mn.woldae.com\StPaul\GI-NmHope\772007 H®w Pok,CBy Hail M Facili(y\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 7 Comm No: 172007 City Hal P"Alty {C.nVal). R Space Program Summary 2.400 Community Development 2.401 CD Director Office 2.402 CD Specialist Office 2.403 Building Official Office 2.404 Housing Inspector Office 2.405 General Inspector Office 2.406 CD Assistant Workstation 2.407 Intern Workstation 2.408 Office Support Specialist 2.409 Work Area 2.410 Plan Storage / Layout Area 2.411 Public Counter 2.412 Small Conference Room 2.413 Address File Storage 144 s.f. Comm. Development Net Area Total; 64 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 60 s.f. Comm Development Bldg Total USF 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office 2.503 Rec. Coordinator Office 2.504 Office Support Spec. Workstation 2.505 Seasonal Supervisor 2.506 Work Area 2.507 Work Room 2.508 Supply Storage 2.509 Park and Rec Counter 2.510 Small Conference Room 150 s.f. Parks and Rec Net Area Total 139 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 150 s.f. Parks and Rec Total USF 2.600 Shared Spaces 2.601 Copy/Supplies/Work Room 2.602 Mail/Work Area 2.603 Quiet/Mother's Room 2.604 Break Room 2.605 Coats 2.606 Archive Storage 2.607 Receiving 2.608 Janitorial 2.609 Staff Toilets 132 s.f. Shared Space Net Area Total: 150 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 139 s.f. Shared Space Total USF CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 185 s.f. 174 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. s f 278 s.f. 264 s.f. 150 s.f 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 132 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 141 s.f. 139 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 144 s.f. 144 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 48 s f 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. incl incl 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 150 s.f. 200 s.f. 193 s.f. 195 s.f. 150 s f 150 s.f. 97 s f 97 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 143 s.f. 96 s.f 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 1,356 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,619 s.f. 1,588 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.60 1,898 s.f. 2,313 s.f. 2,267 s.f. 2,544 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 185 s.f. 174 s.f 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 155 s.f. 152 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 152 s.f. 154 s.f. 2 48 s f 128 s.f, 128 s.f. s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 108 s.f 108 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. incl incl 190 s.f. 190 s f. 315 s.f. 315 s.f. 505 s.f. 505 s.f. 492 s.f. 492 s.f. 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 97 s.f. 96 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 143 s.f. 1,651 s.f. 1,801 s.f. 1,778 s.f. 1,766 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.66 2,311 s.f 2,521 s.f. 2,489 s.f. 2,934 s.f 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 167 s.f. 168 s.f. incl incl 77 s.f. 77 s.f. 63 s.f. 63 s.f. 60 s.f. 64 s.f. 0 s.f. 600 s.f. 691 s.f. 663 s.f. 20 s.f. 11 s.f. 11 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 257 s.f. 260 s.f. 250 s.f. 250 s.f. 180 s.f. 174 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 50 s.f. 61 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 130 s.f. 98 s.f. 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,623 s.f. 1,576 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.58 1,527 s.f. 2,395 s.f. 2,272 s.f. 2,484 s.f. dWb4i4d11nQ*h*N5Wments\1?M7NawNlceCity Hall Facilily PROGRAM SUMMARY {Cf/11falLmloi gg r{Ctlortyelving. (Rewvary)(Recovery).M 54Wee-t-".iyeklae.com\SIPaul\CI-N-Hope\172007 New Polic.Cily Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 8 Comm No: 172007 Uy hall Frelllty (Cenlral).M rwid, Space Program Summary 3.100 Vehicle Garage 3.101 Parking Stalls 3.101A Ramp and Landing 3.102 Swat Truck Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage Total USF 3.200 Community Development Vehicle Garage 3.201 Parking Stalls - CD Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Gross Factor Vehicle Garage USF CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 8,100 s.f. B.100 s.f. bay 8,640 s.f. 8,640 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 3,696 s.f. 3,696 s.f. 500 s.f. 500 s.f. 528 s.f. 522 s.f. 8,600 s.f. 8,600 s.f. 12,864 s.f. 12,658 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.35 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 16,723 s.f. 17,340 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 866 s.f. 861 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 866 s.f. 861 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.12 1,170 s.f 1,560 s.f. 1,126 s.f. 968 s.f. CO .giiriM196�tli�dd 1.117207 New "Ice City Hell Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Cantral�mrodgars�llarlyalrIng.aamtReco y)(Recovery).M V%W-"Wn.. Wee.com\SIPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 Ne Polic.Clty Hall Facllity\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page g Comm No: 172007 Gttp ylall Fad61y iSanlrap.M nwo, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL FAIN ENTRY PD ENTRY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY/ADMIN EVIDENCE 10/6/2017 9:19:54 AM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cenlral)_mrodgers@hortyelving. cam(Recovery)(Recovery).'t Mae -s- woldae. ccm\81Paul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facilily\02_ARCH\Revk\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt �-SECURE GATE FINANCE HR CITY MGMT COMM. DEVELOP. PARKS & REC. FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL Page 10 Comm No: 172007 nwo SQUAD CAR PARKING I I I I �- UNEXGAVATED I L_ I I I I I I I I L J 10/0/2017 9:13:55 AM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hell Facility (Centrel)_mrodgers@hortyelving com(Recovery)(Recovery) t \\Wae-sry-mn woldae. com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hell Faci1ily\02_ARCHUtevil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL --------- �----- I , I I , I I I I I I I r --J I I I I I I I UNEXGAVATED I I I I I I I I I r-------------------- j I I I L I I I I I I I FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL Page 11 Comm No: 172007 n 1 CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL f94W494o%dlS;Mcuments\172007NewPolice City Hall Facility City Hall Lobby ( Central )_m rodgers@h ortyelvin g.com( Recovery)( Recovery).M \\Wae-srv-mn. woldae.cam\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 12 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).M rni CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL TtW@4ZQ99nfl-AAMcuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centrai)_mrodgers@hortyelving.c m(Recovery)(Recovery)-rvt \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae,cam\StPaul\CI-New Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility, (Central).rvt .-am City Hall Open Office Page 13 Comm No: 172007 nwo CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL t4941k Ro44@N0Acuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility Council Chamber (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com(Recovery((RecoveryhM Page 14 \\Wae-sry mn.woldae.com\SlPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic..City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 Naw Police g Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility, (Centralt.wt 4-7 5%fto8gM0&cument072007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central )_mrodgers@h ortyelving.com( Recovery)( Recovery). M \\Wae-ary mn.woldae.com\5tPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central).M O CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL City Hall Worksession Room Page 15 Comm No: 172007 A, \ 4-7 5%fto8gM0&cument072007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central )_mrodgers@h ortyelving.com( Recovery)( Recovery). M \\Wae-ary mn.woldae.com\5tPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central).M O CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL City Hall Worksession Room Page 15 Comm No: 172007 Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL &0@4431irR'dB A tldcuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility Police Lobby ( Central )_m rodgers@h o rtyelving.. com( Recovery)(Recovery),wt 1\Wae-srv-mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-N—Hope\172007 New Polic,.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Ravi(\172007 New Police Page 17 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central),wt n r sr CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 10/0/20177: 02:05 PM Police Patrol Open Office C:\Users\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility(Central)_burrk@hortyelving,com.M \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 18 Comm No.- 172007 City Hall Facility (CentraI Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 10/1112017 3.11:12 PM THE SOUTH EAST C:\Users\kbE ADocuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_burrk@hortyeMng.com.rvt \\Wae---mn woldae.corn\StPauhCl-Ne Hope\772007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revft\172007 New Police Page 19 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) wt Wol EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 10111/20173:05:12PM THE EAST WUsers\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centml)_bumk@hortyelving.com.M \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae.eom\StPauhCI-NmHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCHUtevit\172007 New Police Page 20 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).rvt nwo, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 10/11/20173: 03: 22 PM THE NORTH EAST C:Wsers* urr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility EC�meal,L6ut91�bMly^eRtilfp.tom_n.R \\Wae-srv-mn.wcld— com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 21 City Hall Facility (Central) rvt Comm No: 172007 Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 10/11/20172:55:01 PM C:W—s\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_burrk@hortyelvingcom rvt \\Wae-sn,rnn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New PolicCity Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) M EXTERIOR VIEW -CITY HALL ENTRANCE & LOBBY Page 22 Comm No: 172007 Wol 7-7 1 sem:' Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS 101112017 2:17:29 PM EYE (NE) C:\User — urt\Documen[s\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centml)_buft@hortyeMng com.rvt Page 25 Mae-srv-mn..woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police g Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central)xvt n CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW-BIRDS 10/11/20172.15:37 PM EYE (SE) C:\Users%khurr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_burrk@hortyelvingcom rvt \\Wae-srv-mn—ldae com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 26 City Hall Facility (Central) t Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEVA HOPE 10, NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 2017 2018 2019 1 F M A M J I J A S O N D J F M A M J I J A S O N D J F M A M 1 I J I A S O N D Pool Open Pool Closed Pool Closed APPROVAL TO BEGIN City Council Authorization 1/9/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 5/15/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 5/22/17 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3 mos Public Open House 6/27/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 8/10/17 City Council Work Session 8/21/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 8/28/17 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2 1/2 mos City Council Work Session 10/16/17 � City Council Meeting (Public Input) 10/23/17 - Approval of CD's Issue Construction Documents 11/1/17 BUILDING CONSTR. BID/AWARD 2 mos Advertise Bidding 11/9/17 Advertise Bidding 11/16/17 Receive and Open Bids 11/30/17 City Council Work Session 12/4/17 City Council Meeting 12/11/17 - Approval of Contracts for Construction - Sell Bonds BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 mos FURNITURE/EQUIP INSTALL 1 mos NEW POLICE/CITY HALL OCCUPANCY CITY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 6 mos Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action PROJECTED 10/812017 9.10'.11 Aral C:1UaerslnrodgeriDacuments\172007NevaPolice City Hall Facility (Central}-adgere@hartyelvingc,rn(Recovery)(Recnvery)rA SCHEDULE Comm No: 172007 XWae-sry-mn —ldaa c, \StP.ahCl-N-Hopet172007 IJew Pali, Ci(y Hall FacililyW2_ARCMRevil?172067 New Police City Hall F-ilily (Central) M COST ANALYSIS FUNDING SOURCE New Police/City Hall (net proceeds) Utility - Energy Rebates TOTAL FUNDING Bid Pack #1 Building Construction Construction Contingency Site Development Bid Pack #2 Parking Lot Contingency City of New Hope Police & City Hall 8/11/2017 Schematic Design Construction Design Development Documents 5/22/2017 8/21/2017 10/23/2017 $18,879,000 $18,879,000 $18,879,000 $0 $0 $0 $ 18,879,000 $ 18,879,000 $ 18,879,000 $ 14,870,000 $ 13,200,000 $ 13,200,000 $ 684,000 $ 684,000 $ 684,000 incl $ 875,000 $ 875,000 Subtotal $ 15,554,000 $ 14,759,000 $ 14,759,000 incl $ 900,000 $ 900,000 incl $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Subtotal $ - $ 940,000 $ 940,000 SUBTOTAL RES, TESTING Architectural Fees Engineering Fees Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriter's Discount Stantex - Geotechnical/Surveying/Wetland Deliniation Reimbursables Metropolitan Council / City SAC ([#] SAC units) Abatement Trunk Storm Drainage Fee Trunk Sanitary Fee Engineering/City Inspections (Watermain Plan Review and Inspection) Water Access Charge Fee Trunk Water Fee Engineering/City Inspections State or City Building Code Plan Review Fee State or City Review/Inspection Fee Health Dept. Plumbing Plan Review Fee Health Dept. Food Service Plan Review Fee City Roads and Services Fees Utility Transformer Fees/Inspection Bid Advertisement/Prinfing Legal Allowance Special Structural Inspections Commissioning Moving Costs Contingency SUBTOTAL FURNITURE & EOUIPMENT / TECHNOLOGY Furniture Allowance Equipment Allowance Technology Allowance Furnishing/Consultant Fees Technology Consulting Fees Contingency SUBTOTAL (FF&E) PROJECT BALANCE $ 15,554,000 $ 15,699,000 $ 15,699,000 $ 830,000 $ 830,000 $ 830,000 $ 117,370 $ 117,370 $ 117,370 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 incl incl incl incl incl incl $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ $ $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 251000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,0oo $ 1,467,370 $ 1,612,370 $ 1,612,370 $ 655,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 165,000 $ 165,000 $ 165,000 $ 165,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 39,300 $ 39,300 $ 39,300 $ 9,900 $ 9,900 $ 9,900 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 1,084,200 $ 1,199,200 $ 1,199,200 $ 773,430 $ 368,430 $ 368,430 WlDocs/projects/predesign/cost_analysis_master Commission No. [COMM #] J LU Q z O C/) W ¢J ¢= Lu X O= OJL =m C:)Q L.uw m °°m o0 LL CD _ Fr QQa ¢ LL, LlUA z �U- U p0 UUJ U a_ W �- CD pz cnJ CD Uz z ZQ U)�z IZ Lu oZ � ZD C) J LLZ p pw ZC) C --)w O(Y O w Z ALL_ p Zp 2� ZD LU cf) Z OU CDY Z ra Q V 0- CO c� UD pD —i �J W � Cca- �Lu u L.w ¢I Lu J�_ I N o � U_ J w z T G Q Z J m Q U-1 IV Fr CD C) �o oil I,- - -1 W Occ q L CL LU X LL N m - ��v 00 Q O LL V U- LUz z Q N v LU0D- OLU J Q ED A -q Ll N Lu J ono �• J W v NO v CD O 0 O Lu LU q zzQ° E LEC z � LU OL z d O p (� W li V 1 I) u�] Y O LL W N � Z Wtu~ W Z � H Z Q H z O J > � J LU m<Oq _ > OJL J W z_j q JU O Q QQa J � CQ W LlUA z �U- z p0 �zz�v m J O O z �- Z >LU q J c$ �� J oil I,- - -1 W Occ q L CL LU X LL N m - ��v 00 Q O LL V U- LUz z Q N v LU0D- OLU J Q ED A -q Ll N Lu J ono �• J W v NO v CD O 0 O Lu LU q zzQ° E LEC z � LU OL z d O p (� W li V 1 I) u�] Y O LL W N � Z Wtu~ W Z � H Z Q H Q OHO 4 J LU m<Oq w LU p q v q F- z J Q QQa OL W �i z z -� Lj) c$ �� J W ra IM Cca- Q OHO J LU m<Oq w p q v q F- z J Q QQa OL W z Ll LUz roLH O� z LU z �< -J Q O LL W v LL LL O v ti 0 0 N I` O z E O U NJ NO c rroji E�QTRIGA 5YM60� lC�Y DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (HIGH AND/OR LOW) DUPLEX RECEPTACLE DUPLEX GFCI RECEPTACLE DOUBLE DUPLEX RECEPTACLE EMERGENCY POWER RECEPTACLES 27 SURFACE MOUNT DEVICES -EF, SINGLE LIGHTSWITCH FLOOR BOX JUNCTION BOX -E]S OCCUPANCY SENSING LIGHT SWITCH SPECIAL PURPOSE OUTLET -EF, SINGLE LIGHTSWITCH DATA OUTLET CEILING & WIRELESS DATA ACCESS POINT (3) GAMERAS FOR OFF SITE GONF -PRESENTER -WIDE SHOT -TRAGKING GAMERA q0" TV/MONITOR (ADD ROUGH IN) Lu/ PONERB DATA; ABILITY FOR REMOTE GONF: AUTO TRACKING GAMERAS, WILL WANT AV REAL TIME FEED FROM CHAMBERS DISPLAY GASE NIRELESS PRESENTER PLUS (1) HARD WIRE LOGATION B HOMI —COUNCIL CHAMBERS & PD LOBBY UI Lasar DISPLAY AREA 103 I PARKS & REC DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH TRIPLE LIGHT SWITCH -E]S OCCUPANCY SENSING LIGHT SWITCH €Po If RECEPTACLE POWER SHUT OFF If LOCKDOWN PUSH BUTTON „o WALL OR CEILING PROJECTOR f WALL OR CEILING SPEAKER WALL OR CEILING LOUD SPEAKER DISPLAY (ADD VOLUME CONTROL 3 MICROPHONE & AUXILIARY CONNECTOR ] TV OUTLET (HIGH AND/OR LOW) -WVOICE WALL OUTLET i DATA OUTLET WITH DIRECT PHONE LINE OUTLET DATA OUTLET (# OF DROPS INDICATED) HAP DATA OUTLET CEILING & WIRELESS DATA ACCESS POINT (3) GAMERAS FOR OFF SITE GONF -PRESENTER -WIDE SHOT -TRAGKING GAMERA q0" TV/MONITOR (ADD ROUGH IN) Lu/ PONERB DATA; ABILITY FOR REMOTE GONF: AUTO TRACKING GAMERAS, WILL WANT AV REAL TIME FEED FROM CHAMBERS DISPLAY GASE NIRELESS PRESENTER PLUS (1) HARD WIRE LOGATION B HOMI —COUNCIL CHAMBERS & PD LOBBY UI Lasar DISPLAY AREA 103 I PARKS & REC -4 SM SM CONF y L r—) e)_�� J EN SECURITY -CAMERA CITY f"i�eLL PUBLIG LOBBY EDOOR HARDWARE ELECTRIC STRIKE COMM. DEVELOPMENT MONITOR FOR ` DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) (5) POWER, DATA FOR TRAINING MOTORIZED BLINDS VENTED AV GABINEI AFTER HOURS BILL DROP OFF (Lu/ MAIL PASS THROUGH) MONITOR FOR PHOTO DISPLAY 1) SM CONF MON ITOR - CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL VEST ROUGH IN FOR GOMPUTER KIOSK SECURITY CAMERA (TYP CITY MANAGEMENT I I A I L J MONITOR FOR DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) USER GROUP NOTES -THE PUBLIG GONFERENGE ROOM SHOULD HAVE VIDEO GONFERENGING GAPABILITIES. FLOOR BOX (TYP.) CLOCK 15 SMOKE DETECTOR MONITOR FOR m FIRE ALARM W/STROBE AND HORN I I I I DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) ] FIRE ALARM MAGNETIC DOOR HOLD OPEN i HANDICAP ACTUATOR 5 SECURITY - CARD READER -4 SM SM CONF y L r—) e)_�� J EN SECURITY -CAMERA CITY f"i�eLL PUBLIG LOBBY EDOOR HARDWARE ELECTRIC STRIKE COMM. DEVELOPMENT MONITOR FOR ` DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) (5) POWER, DATA FOR TRAINING MOTORIZED BLINDS VENTED AV GABINEI AFTER HOURS BILL DROP OFF (Lu/ MAIL PASS THROUGH) MONITOR FOR PHOTO DISPLAY 1) SM CONF MON ITOR - CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL VEST ROUGH IN FOR GOMPUTER KIOSK SECURITY CAMERA (TYP CITY MANAGEMENT I I A I L J MONITOR FOR DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) USER GROUP NOTES -THE PUBLIG GONFERENGE ROOM SHOULD HAVE VIDEO GONFERENGING GAPABILITIES. FLOOR BOX (TYP.) STAFF ENTRY EK AV SYSTEM CAMERA CH -PUBLIC LOBBY la/11/20174:42: 6PM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Pal ice C lty Hall Fac ility(CentralLrn rodgers@hortyelving.com(RecoVe ry)(Recovery). M Page 4 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-srv-mn.woldaecom\SIPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Palic Cily Hall Facilely\02_ARCH\Ravi!\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centml).M I I �PUB�.I1CaN I I I I I I TAGK BOARD I I (-I I I I r—S) I I I 1 I I I F L -0 L D I I L�L I I L_�� I I L-�L I I L_�L PHOTO DISPLAY NALL STAFF ENTRY EK AV SYSTEM CAMERA CH -PUBLIC LOBBY la/11/20174:42: 6PM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Pal ice C lty Hall Fac ility(CentralLrn rodgers@hortyelving.com(RecoVe ry)(Recovery). M Page 4 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-srv-mn.woldaecom\SIPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Palic Cily Hall Facilely\02_ARCH\Ravi!\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centml).M Ife ELFGTRIGAL 5YN1�L Kul' FLOOR BOX -O JUNCTION BOX SPECIAL PURPOSE OUTLET -613, SINGLE LIGHT SWITCH DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH TRIPLE LIGHT SWITCH EV]° OCCUPANCY SENSING LIGHT SWITCH 4 RECEPTACLE POWER SHUT OFF LPB LOCKDOWN PUSH BUTTON 4 WALL OR CEILING PROJECTOR r, WALL OR CEILING SPEAKER WALL OR CEILING LOUD SPEAKER -` VOLUME CONTROL MICROPHONE & AUXILIARY CONNECTOR TV OUTLET (HIGH AND/OR LOW) -4yJVOICE WALL OUTLET -� DATA OUTLET WITH DIRECT PHONE LINE OUTLET DATA OUTLET (# OF DROPS INDICATED) HAP DATA OUTLET CEILING &WIRELESS DATA ACCESS POINT DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (HIGH AND/OR LOW) S DUPLEX RECEPTACLE =E) DUPLEX GFCIRECEPTACLE D DOUBLE DUPLEX RECEPTACLE 4 EMERGENCY POWER RECEPTACLES 27 SURFACE MOUNT DEVICES FLOOR BOX -O JUNCTION BOX SPECIAL PURPOSE OUTLET -613, SINGLE LIGHT SWITCH DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH TRIPLE LIGHT SWITCH EV]° OCCUPANCY SENSING LIGHT SWITCH 4 RECEPTACLE POWER SHUT OFF LPB LOCKDOWN PUSH BUTTON 4 WALL OR CEILING PROJECTOR r, WALL OR CEILING SPEAKER WALL OR CEILING LOUD SPEAKER -` VOLUME CONTROL MICROPHONE & AUXILIARY CONNECTOR TV OUTLET (HIGH AND/OR LOW) -4yJVOICE WALL OUTLET -� DATA OUTLET WITH DIRECT PHONE LINE OUTLET DATA OUTLET (# OF DROPS INDICATED) HAP DATA OUTLET CEILING &WIRELESS DATA ACCESS POINT FLOOR BOX WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR w/ POWER, DATA (WIRELESS PRESENTATION w/ HDMI GONNEGTION (1) HARDWIRE GONNEGTION) PIS CLOCK S SMOKE DETECTOR F' FIRE ALARM W/STROBE AND HORN D I \j-gz 4 FIRE ALARM MAGNETIC DOOR HOLD OPEN r HANDICAP ACTUATOR 5 SECURITY - CARD READER 5K SECURITY - CAMERA 5 DOOR HARDWARE ELECTRIC STRIKE Rq AV SYSTEM CAMERA FLOOR BOX WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR w/ POWER, DATA (WIRELESS PRESENTATION w/ HDMI GONNEGTION (1) HARDWIRE GONNEGTION) PIS �17MINISTR�TION GONF. RM �1�✓ I \j-gz 9�✓ �l-L✓ LAM1 VENTEAV GAB Y� _ I 'd1 'd 1 ?1 ?� �! �! IL IL J� SMART TV LJ1� _J� w/ GABLE ROLL CALL TIGKER MONITORS (ON SOFFIT w/ ROUGH IN) SEG. GAMERA MONITORS (ON SOFFIT w/ ROUGH IN) H91H ROLL GALL ROOM 1/8" = 1'-0" 10/11/2017 4:43:07 PM C:Wserskmrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@horlyelving.com(Recovery)(Recovery). rvl \\Wee- _n woldae. com\8tPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polia.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central),rvt 0 >i ' 12' TRANSOMS MAGNETIG MARKER 8 FT. BOARD TAGK STRIP @ 6 FT ALONG WALL FLOOR BOX w/ POWER, DATA $ HDMI LOCKABLE DOOR INTO GONFERENGE ROOM CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOF (WIRELESS PRESENTATION w (1) HARD WIRE GONNEGTION GABINETS FOR GO KITS (18" WIDE) INVESTIGATIVE CASE MANAGEMENT GOND. RM 1/8" = 1'-0" MARKER BOARD H91H 'W j``�' " SURFACE MOUNT RAGEHAY FOR BODY GAM GHARGING 0 6' 12' WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR (HIRELESS PRESENTATION w/ (1) HARD HIRE GONNEGTION) MAGNETIG MARKER BOARD FLOOR BOX W/ POHER, DATA 4 HDMI CON 4 J CITY HALL GOND. ROOM CONFERENCE ROOMS Page 22 Comm No: 172007 �1�✓ I \j-gz 9�✓ �l-L✓ TIGKER MONITORS (ON SOFFIT w/ ROUGH IN) SEG. GAMERA MONITORS (ON SOFFIT w/ ROUGH IN) H91H ROLL GALL ROOM 1/8" = 1'-0" 10/11/2017 4:43:07 PM C:Wserskmrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@horlyelving.com(Recovery)(Recovery). rvl \\Wee- _n woldae. com\8tPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polia.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central),rvt 0 >i ' 12' TRANSOMS MAGNETIG MARKER 8 FT. BOARD TAGK STRIP @ 6 FT ALONG WALL FLOOR BOX w/ POWER, DATA $ HDMI LOCKABLE DOOR INTO GONFERENGE ROOM CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOF (WIRELESS PRESENTATION w (1) HARD WIRE GONNEGTION GABINETS FOR GO KITS (18" WIDE) INVESTIGATIVE CASE MANAGEMENT GOND. RM 1/8" = 1'-0" MARKER BOARD H91H 'W j``�' " SURFACE MOUNT RAGEHAY FOR BODY GAM GHARGING 0 6' 12' WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR (HIRELESS PRESENTATION w/ (1) HARD HIRE GONNEGTION) MAGNETIG MARKER BOARD FLOOR BOX W/ POHER, DATA 4 HDMI CON 4 J CITY HALL GOND. ROOM CONFERENCE ROOMS Page 22 Comm No: 172007 Construction and Financial Schedule Police/City Hall Facility Construction and Financial Schedule Date Description 08/10/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 5:30 pm 08/21/17 Work Session: review design development and financing 08/28/17 Council Mtg: 1) approve design development 2) adopt resolution calling for public hearing on issuance of bonds and capital im rovement plan 09/07/17 Advertise public hearing on bonds 09/25/17 Council Mtg - public hearing on bonds; adopt resolution giving preliminary approval for issuance and approving capital improvement plan (requires 3/5ths vote) 10/16/17 Work Session - review construction documents 10/23/17 Council Mt - approve construction documents 10/25/17 Reverse referendum period ends (within 30 days of public hearing) 11/09/17 and 11/16/17 Advertisements for bids 11/13/17 Council Mt - provide for sale of bonds (tentative re -sale date) 11/30/17 Bid opening 12/04/17 Work Session - review bids 12/11/17 Council Mtg: 1) Bond sale - adopt res approving sale of bonds 2) Award construction contract 12/28/17 Tentative closing/receipt of funds. I:\Space Needs Study\ Schedules\ Construction and Financial Schedule.docx Wold Architects Approved Proposal 1/9/17 Council Meeting Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Resolution approving contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving contract for design and construction services for a new police station and city hall with Wold Architects and Engineers. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The contract with Wold Architects was discussed at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the contract on a regular council agenda for consideration. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance at the meeting and will make a presentation and be available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens task force to study the issue. The task force consisted of representatives from all the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The task force presented a recommendation to the Council in September 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November of 2015 to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the task force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the task force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the task force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the task force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The task force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June 2016. The task force met several times and studied a variety of options and cost estimates. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force unanimously recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Design and Construction Contract for City Hall and PD Station w Wold 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. The survey responses were presented to the council at the December 19 work session. The responses from the open house, online and Leatherman 2015 city-wide survey generally indicate public support for the task force recommendation. The Wold Architects proposal is divided into the following phases: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services After the completion of each phase, the documents are presented to the owner (City Council) for approval before proceeding to the next phase. The overall contract cost is based on a fixed fee of 6% of the new building construction cost and includes a credit for work that has already been completed to date. The maximum contract amount for Wold Architects contract, including reimbursable expenses and services for furniture and equipment, is $915,200. The Stantec civil engineering services proposal (a separate agenda item) is $117,370. A critical path schedule showing the phases for the police station/city hall/pool projects is attached and is compared to the projects in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The schedule can be modified as needed. Funding The funding for the Wold Architectural services agreement will be funded partially from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. The estimated cost to construct a new police station/city hall facility on the pool site is $18,879,000, which would require a bond issue of $19,355,000. The estimated tax impact to a New Hope resident with an estimated market value of $196,000 is $147.98 per year or $12.33 per month. The estimated cost to repair the pool in the current location is $6.5 million and an additional $2 million would be required to replace the pool in another location, for a total of $8.5 million. The cost estimate recommended an additional $100,000 to replace any displaced park amenities for a total cost of $8.6 million. The city would need a bond issue of $8,935,000 to net $8.6 million for construction. The estimated tax impact would be $74.73 per year or $6.23 per month for the pool project. When combining the tax impact for both the police station/city hall project and the pool replacement project, the estimated tax impact is $222.71 per year or $18.56 per month. Bonding for both the police station/city hall facility and the future pool improvements is included in the city's long range financial plan. Attachments • Resolution • 12/14/16 Wold Architects Proposal • 1/5/17 City Attorney Correspondence • Wold Architects Contract Request for Action, Page 3 • Tentative Timeline • September 2015 Task Force Recommendation • September 2016 Task Force Recommendation • City Engineer Memo - Pool Renovation • Soil Boring Data • Ehlers Financial Impact • Facility Analysis/Building Deficiencies • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes • Project History December 14, 2016 Kirk McDonald, City Administrator New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon�Avenue North New Hopei Minnesota 55428 Re: City of New Hope New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 Dear Kirk: We are pleased to provide our proposal to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed New Police Station and City Hall project as approved by the City Council. As a culmination of many years of thoughtful study regarding the condition of your existing facility, the space needs of each of the departments housed in the facility, and the most effective siting of a potential new facility, Wold is excited by the prospect of participating in the realization of turning these concepts into actuality. As with the Space Needs Study and Site Master Planning we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. We propose to provide full service architectural and engineering services, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering for all project phases from Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Observation and Post Occupancy Close-out as outlined in the American Institute of Architects Document B101— Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. This letter is to serve as an amendment to that contract per Article 11A.B. Phases of work are delineated as follows. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES During the first phase—Schematic Design—an Architect consults with the Owner to determine project goals and requirements. During Schematic Design, study drawings, documents, or other media are developed that illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form for the Owner to review. Schematic Design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. This phase produces a final Schematic Design, to which the Owner agrees after consultation and discussions with the Architect. Costs are estimated based on overall project volume. The design then moves forward to the Design Development phase. Schematic Design often produces a site plan, floor plans, sections, an elevation, and other illustrative materials; computer images, renderings, or models. Typically, the drawings include overall dimensions, and a construction cost is estimated. Schematic Design accounts for 15% of architectural services. Wold Architects and Engineers1L/! I" I f.P RS 332 Mimicsota Sucrt. Sniic Aa720()0 Saint Patil, MN 5I M R C 1-1 IT F. CT S wol(lmwoni 1 65 1 227 7773 I' KI G I N F F R S Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES Design Development services use the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take them one step further, This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. Typically referred to as DD, this phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. The DD phase often ends with a formal presentation to, and approval by, the owner. Design Development often produces floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door and window details and outline material specifications. DD accounts for 20% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SERVICES The next phase is Construction Documents (CDs). Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once CDs are completed, the Architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. CDs accounts for 40% of architectural services. BID PHASE SERVICES The first step of this phase is preparation of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. The Architect and Owner may elect to have a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. The final step is to award the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. The final deliverable is a construction contract. Once this document is signed, project construction can begin. Bidding accounts for 5% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Contract Administration (CA) services are outlined in the Owner -Architect construction agreement. CA services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. The Architect's core responsibility during this phase is to help the Contractor to build the project as specified in the CDs as approved by the Owner. Questions may arise on site that require the Architect to develop architectural sketches: drawings issued after construction documents have been released that offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. Deliverables: A successfully built and contracted project. CA accounts for 20% of architectural services. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 3 For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction based on your approved construction cost. In addition, we believe that although much of our work to date was exploring concepts that have been abandoned, some of the work that we have already performed has value in the forthcoming design process. Therefore, we offer that half of all fees paid to date be credited towards the project. This results in the following calculation for the overall building design and construction phases: Building Construction Budget $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition Budget $ 250,000.00 P 1 of Cans rut'lic�sl �r-'4inlir�,� c,i�t �_ $ 342,000.00 Total Building Construction Budget $14,272,000.00 E,till Servico Fix,d Fee Haie x 6.0% Typical Full Service Fixed Fee $ 856,000.00 Cry for Pijeyiogs Eff u-ls ($ 26.000.OQ) Full Service Fixed Fee, $ 830,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Supplemental Basic Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: • Transportation in connection with travel. • Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web Sites, and extranets. 40 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. • Printing, reproductions (except sets of each phase for Owner review), plots, standard form documents. • Postage, handling and delivery. • Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner. Renderings, models, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner. • Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants and, if authorized in advance by the Owner. • All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses. • Other similar Project -related expenditures, if authorized in advance by the Owner. We have found that reimbursable expenses typically do not exceed $2,500.00 per million of construction cost on a project of this size. Therefore, we propose to invoice reimbursable expenses at actual cost with a maximum amount capped at $36,000.00 resulting in a total contract amount of $866,000.00. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 4 � t In addition to these phases for design and construction of the building, Wold Architects and Engineers has full Interior Design and Audio/Visual Systems Design capability and offers to provide the services needed to design, procure and administer implementation of these building elements. We offer a similar fixed fee approach, calculated by our offered 6% rate multiplied by the value of the furnishings or equipment that we are responsible for. Therefore, based upon the approved budget, typical fees would be calculated as follows: Furniture Budget $655,000.00 Pull Service Fixed Fee Rate x 6.0% Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Equipment Budget $165,000.00 Hill SeEvice 11xed &e Rate x 6.0'/. Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900,O() In summary, Wold Architects and Engineers offers the City of New Hope the following proposed fees. Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 _T'y_ical EIuipi a n[ 1_ix* � - $ 9'90Q -Q11} Wold's Maximum Contract Amount $ 915,200.00 SLantec's Cavi] Desigii Fees $ 117,37(,QO Total Profession Design and Engineering Services $1,032,570.00 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, W Li Architects and Engineers Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED A Partner cc: Ban Beery, Wold Matt Mooney, Wold City of New Hope April 26, 2013 Space Needs Study Kickoff History January 21, 2014 Council Update —Space Needs and Site Exploration May 13, 2014 Council Update —Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project August 12, 2014 — Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues Spring 2015 Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force May 15, 2015 —T— Task Force Kick Off September 21, 2015 —wr Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 17, 2015 1 Public Open House on New Police/City Hall Spring 2016 —r-' Site Analysis and Options Developed May 2016 —Jr— Citizen Task Force Reconvened September 19, 2016 —— Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 2, 2016 — Public Open House � Task Force Recommendation Task Force 2016 Recommendation: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. 4. A public open house should be scheduled for November 2nd. Option 3 Pool Site rr�\� �• ��'`'— ani `�` ;1 � � ! � - ' L,- � L- _.! � -. •- ... r,� --. T _ I 1. jj— rr�\� �• ��'`'— ani `�` ;1 � � ! � - ' L,- � L- _.! � -. •- ... r,� --. T _ I 1. Wol Cost Worksheet — Option 3 Potential Park Improvements Option 3 Pool Site Police it Hall $0.00 Building Construction 000.00 Building Demolition --lium Site Development Police Parkin $200,000.00 ParkinQ Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75,000.00 Construction Contingency $684,000.00 Subtotal Construction $15,554,000.00 Te Temp Tenant Improvements Temp Technology Costs Furniture Allowance 0.00 — $0 -00 -- _So -w $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technoloov Allowance $165,000.00 PrQject ContinQency_ $780,000.00 Fees Testing, Printing $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $0.00 Skate Park Replacement MOO Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parking Lot $0.00 BasketballNolleyball Replacement $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium $2,000,000.00 Total Park Improvements $2,100,000.00 Total $20,979,000,00 Wol Next Steps Architectural/Engineering Design: » Schematic Design » Design Development » Construction Documents » Bidding Construction (Contract) Administration Furniture Design Equipment Design Wol Next Steps Schematic Design (15%): » Determine project goals and requirements. » Illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form. » Zoning / Code requirements are discovered. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » A site plan, floor plans, sections, elevations, computer images, renderings, or models. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » Council Reviews and Approves a Final Report. rW7011 Next Steps Design Development (20%): » Takes the SD Concepts one step further. » Lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. » Results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. » Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. » Floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions including door and window details and outline material specifications. » Formal approval by the owner. Next Steps Construction Documents (40%): » Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. » A cost estimate is completed. » The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. » Approval by the Council is sought to proceed. Wol Next Steps Bidding (5%): » Issuing of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. » The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. » Hold a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. » The Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. » The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. » Council awards the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. » The final deliverable is a construction contract. Wol Next Steps Construction Administration (20%): Contract Administration (CA) services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. » Architect's core responsibility is to help the Contractor to build the project as designed » Architect to offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. » Deliverable: A successfully built and contracted project. rw7o], Next Steps Furniture and Equipment Design: » Evaluating the condition of existing assets » Developing a plan for reuse and new purchases » New Furniture and Equipment selection » Develop installation plan » Procurement » Submittal Review » Installation coordination and oversight » Punch Lists » Warranty walkthrough Next Steps Wold's Calculated Fixed Fees: Schematic Design (15%) $ 1281400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 3421400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9.900.00 $ 915,200.00 Request for Action October 16, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.2 Agenda Title Space Needs Study Update: Review Construction Documents Phase Services with Wold Architects (Project No. 926) Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council review the new police station/city hall survey construction documents phase services prepared by Wold Architects. If the Council is supportive of the documents, staff recommends placing the item on the October 23 council meeting agenda for a motion to approve the construction document phase services and authorization to proceed with the bid phase services. Representatives from Wold Architects will be in attendance. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered into contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background The city has been discussing the space needs issue since 2013 and a citizen task force was formed in 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Three public open houses have been held to gather community feedback. On January 9, 2017, Council approved a five -phase contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers. The phases are: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services It was agreed that after the completion of each phase, the documents would be presented to the Council for formal acceptance before proceeding to the next phase. The schematic design plans were shared with the space needs task force on April 20, were reviewed with the Council at the May 15 work session and the plans were approved with authorization to proceed with the design development phase at the May 22 council meeting. The design development plans were reviewed with the Council at the August 21 work session and the plans were approved with authorization to proceed with construction documents at the August 28 council meeting. Over the past two months, staff and other consultants (LOGIS, Solution Builders, CCX Media and others) have worked with Wold Architects on the construction documents and updates have been shared with the Council in the weekly update memo. Once the owner (city) and architect are satisfied with the documents produced during the design development phase, the architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once the construction I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Work Session\Space Needs Study 101617\WS-Space Needs Study 101617.docx Request for Action, Page 2 documents are completed and accepted by the owner, the architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The result of the construction document phase is a set of drawings and specifications that includes all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. The construction documents phase accounts for 40% of architectural services. Per the current schedule, if the city council approves the construction documents and authorizes proceeding with bid phase services at the October 23 council meeting, the architect will prepare the bid documents. This includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, etc. A pre-bid meeting may be held for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the architect answers contractors' questions. The architect would then open and evaluate the bids and review with the Council at the December 4 special work session (6:30 pm). If the bids are acceptable, the Council could award a contract at the December 11 council meeting and the bond sale would also be considered at that meeting. Attachments • Wold Architects' Construction/Contract Documents Report • Construction and Financial Schedule • Wold Architects' 1/19/17 Proposal Construction/ Contract Documents Report Wold Architects Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, MN 55101 woldae.com 1 651 227 7773 Contract Documents Submittal NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA r•t �a _ .dEl l i i'h �� iF� Fii�: " R; IIIIfif�r Comm No: 172007 nwo, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Guiding Principles 2 Site Plan 3 Building Program Summary 4 - 9 Floor Plan - Main Level 10 Floor Plan - Lower Level 11 Interior Views 12-18 Exterior Views 19-26 Projected Schedule 27 Projected Budget 28 0'"194GdVii4f%%"hls\172067 New Pollce Gsly Fall Facility (Canlral)_mrodgaraQhoAyalving,d m(Recovery)(Rcmirry).M \\Wae-s"-mn.woldae.com\S1Paal\CI-N—Hope\172007 Now PolicCity Hall FacilitA02_ARCHU2evi11172007New Police Contents Comm No: 172007 City Hell Facility (Central) M n INTRODUCTION CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Wold Architects and Engineers is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council the Design Development submittal for the New Police & City Hall facility. We wish thank the City Council, Core Planning Group, Citizen's Task Force and multiple sub -committees for their comprehensive efforts in providing the Design Team the information necessary to advance to this stage of development in a timely fashion. The Design Team will commence the procurment phase of this project upon approval by the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of this Design Development submittal. Joel Dunning, AIA Partner WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS VM098rR44MOdcumenls\172007 New Police City Hall Facility Introduction (Central)_mradgem@hortyelving com(Recovery)(Recovery).rvt \\Wee-srv-mn.woldae. coMMtPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Poli,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH1Revil\172007 New Police Page 1 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) rvt Wol GUIDING PRINCIPLES CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL (1.) New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for COMMUNITY PRIDE. (2.) New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up-to-date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. a. Implement common sense, sustainable approaches. (3.) New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments onsite today with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. (4.) New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a SAFE & SECURE facility for the public, elected and appointed officials and staff. a. Public spaces should be designed so that they are accessible after hours. (5.) Build a Public Safety/ City Hall facility that is a functional, adaptable and great place to work. a. The facility should ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY INTERACTION & COLLABORATION among all departments. (6.) Enhance Civic Center Park and the surrounding neighborhood. a. Plan for a facility that is cohesive and complimentary to the master space planned Civic Center Park and pool complex. b. The building's design and the park should work together to create A UNIFIED SPACE. (7.) The facility should strive to have a feel that is WELCOMING & FAMILIAR, open and accessible. a. Respect recent civic center redevelopment and streetscape. b. Respect the existing fire department. c. Architecture should be TIMELESS 1Qi'7+$o147s1}cumeMs\172LW7 New Police City Hall Facilily Guiding Principles (CV*AlL cdgwtab ry: wingc m(Recovery)(Recovery).rvt \\WPage 2 ae-srv-mn.woldae com\S(Paul\CI-NewHope\772007 NPolic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\ReAM72007 New Police Comm No: 172007 City Hall Faciliewly (Central) M CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL a+ z - - + Q I J I +. X X3.3 ii N J ML \ I C5 PD o z 9 LL w CD w SWAT Cfzz' 9 _ IIIIII-- "� 1 1 1 22 1 EXISTING FIRE DEPT— I 1 PARKING �3r:S 0 1811 111 TENNIS COURTS t li� Fr IlI rlpll I z �I�• I �. 913.9 I p ry — � ` Ix EXISTING - -r- CITY HALL � I r" / l�l 928.2 Z7- I ' r --�_ W f- 920 0 1,3 al _ —� C7-) C:D 1 IO 0 1 If 1 I a REPLACEMENT PARKING LOT { I S i II C I D C� D I 177. EETING ROOMS a+ z - - + Q I J I +. X X3.3 ii N J ML \ I C5 PD o z 9 LL w CD w SWAT Cfzz' 9 _ IIIIII-- "� 1 1 1 22 1 EXISTING FIRE DEPT— I 1 PARKING �3r:S 0 1811 111 TENNIS COURTS t li� Fr IlI rlpll I z �I�• I �. r `I F Ill � I r" / l�l 928.2 L 1 IO 0 1 If a+ z - - + Q I J I +. X X3.3 ii N J ML \ I C5 PD o z 9 LL w CD w SWAT Cfzz' 9 _ IIIIII-- "� 1 1 1 22 1 EXISTING FIRE DEPT— I 1 PARKING �3r:S 0 1811 111 �rfl li� IlI rlpll �I�• I �. `I Ill � l�l V&1A93\lr4@h4 kWcuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility Site Plan (Central)_mrodgers�hortyelving,com(Recovery)(Recovery) M \\Wae-sry-mn Woldae cOm\StPaul\CI-NewHape\172007 New Palk, City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Mice Page 3 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central). rvt n Space Program Summary Departmental Summary - Police 1.100 Public Spaces Net Area Total: 1.200 Administration Net Area Total: 1.300 Patrol Net Area Total: 1.400 Investigations Net Area Total: 1.500 Holding Net Area Total: 1.600 Evidence Net Area Total: 1.700 Support Spaces Net Area Total: 1.800 Garage Support Net Area Total: 574 s.f. Total Police Office NSF Total Police Office USF Departmental Summary - City Hall 2.100 Public Space Net Area Total: 2.200 City Manager Net Area Total: 2.300 Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 2.400 Comm Development Net Area Total: 2.500 Parks and Rec Net Area Total: 2.600 Shared Space Net Area Total: Total City Hall Office NSF Total City Hall Office USF Garage Summary 3.100 Total Police Garage TOTAL 3.200 Total City Hail Garage Total Garage NSF Total Garage USF Total Gross Square Footage - Police Total Gross Square Footage - City Hall Total Gross Square Footage - Garage Sub Total Total Building Gross Square Footage CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 560 s.f. 520 s.f. 574 s.f. 412 s.f. 1,869 s,f,i 1,885 s.f 1,906 s.f.1 1,849 s.f. 2,748 s.f. 2,922 s.f. 2,964 s.f. 2,725 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 904 s.f. 861 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,630 s.f. 1,751 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2,380 s.f 2,070 s.f. 2,029 s.f. 4,188 s.f. 3,948 s.f. 4,508 s.f. 4,634 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 544 s.f. 533 s.f. 14,745 s.f. 14,655 s.f. 15,100 s.f. 14,794 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.41 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 21,140 s.f. 20,843 s.f. 4,860 s.f. 4,460 s.f. 4,418 s.f. 4,303 s.f. 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,113 s.f. 1,076 s.f. 1,808 s.f. 1,958 s.f. 1,726 s.f. 1,688 s.f. 1,356 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,619 s.f. 1,588 s.f. 1,651 s.f. 1,801 s.f. 1,778 s.f. 1,766 s.f. 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,623 s.f. 1,576 s.f. 12,105 s.f. 12,964 s.f. 12,277 s.f. 11,997 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.50 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 17,188 s.f. 18,017 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 12,864 s.f. 12,858 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 866 s.f. 861 s.f. 12,080 s.f. 12,380s , f. 13,730 s.f. 13,719 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.0 x 1.30 x 1.26 15,704 s.f. 16,094 s.f. 17,849 s.f. 17,340 s.f. 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 21,140 s.f. 20,843 s.f. 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 17,188 s.f. 18,017 s.f. 12,080 s.f. 12,380 s.f. 17,849 s.f. 17,340 s.f. 49,670 s.f. 51,047 s.f. 56,177 s.f. 56,200 s.f. x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.16 56,889 s.f. 58,704 s.f. 64,604 s.f. 65,409 s.f. t11�'rRXilCwn is\17QT Hew Police City Mall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Cant±al)_mfodgenlMhorlyoiving.[Dm[Ror vy)(Recevay).M %ft -x n.%,*Mme.cam\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\772007 New Polic. City Hall Facility\02_ARC H\RevM172007New Police Page 4 Comm No: 172007 City Nall Fetality(Central).M CITY OF NEW HOPE eo NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Space Program Summary Public Waiting 450 s.f. 400 s.f. Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program I I Development Documentation 1.000 Police 112 s.f. 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 1.100 Public Spaces 1.101 Public Waiting 450 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f 451 s.f. 300 s.f. 1.102 Lobby Interview Room incl 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 123 s.f. 112 s.f. 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 148 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 240 s.f. 1.104 Community Room Storage 226s. 40 s.f. 0 s.f 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 82 s.f. Public Spaces Net Area Total: 1.406 560 s.f. 520 s.f. 574 s.f. 412 s.f. 0 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor Investigations Net Area Total: x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.42 Public Spaces Total USF x 1.40 784 s.f. 728 s.f. 804-0. 584 s.f. 1.200 Administration 1,456 s.f. QTY Unit Size 1,624 s.f, 1,624 s.f. 1.201 Chief Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f 203 s.f. 189 s.f. 1.202 Captain Office 2 130 s f 300 s.f. 300 s.f 296 s.f. 278 s.f. 1.203 Admin. Assistant Office/Crime Analyst 110 s.f. 110 s.f, 116 s.f. 109 s.f. 1.204 Office Supervisor Office 135 s.f. 135 s.f 116 s.f. 109 s.f. 1.205 Clerical Workstation 4 640 f 240 s.f. 256 s.f 270 s f 240 s.f. 1.206 Future IT Coordinator - Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f 60 s f. 60 s.f. 1.207 Active Records Storage 160 s.f. 160 s.f 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 1.208 Archive Records Room 200 s.f. 200 s.f 157 s.f. 157 s.f. 1.209 Copy/Supply/Workroom 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 104 s.f. 147 s.f. 1.210 Conference Room 240 s.f. 240 s.f, 303 s.f. 285 s.f. 1.211 Admin Storage 80 s.f, 80 s.f 175 s.f. 175 s.f. 1.212 Reception 0 s.f. 0 s.f 106 s.f. 100 s.f. Administration Net Area Total: 1,869 s.f. 1,885 s.f. 1,906 s.f. 1,849 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.60 x 1.58 Administration Bldg Total USF 2,617 s.f. 2,639 s.f. 3, o 97 Tsf- 3,007 s.f. 1.300 Patrol 1.301 Sergeants Paired Offices 2 67 s f 480 s.f. 480 s.f. 547 s.f. 528 s.f. 1.302 Shared Patrol Workstations 640 s.f. 896 s f. 900 s.f. 720 s.f. 1.303 Patrol File Storage incl incl incl incl 1.304 Community Service Officer Wkstn 64 s.f. 0 s.f. incl incl 1.305 Animal Control Officer Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 167 s.f. 167 s.f. 1.306 Crime Prevention Specialist Office 64 s.f. 110 s.f. 137 s.f. 137 s.f. 1.307 PTE CSO/Reserve Officer Wkstn 2 192 s.f. 128 s.f. see 1.305 see 1.305 1.308 School Resource Officer Hotel Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. see 1.302 see 1.302 1.309 Copy/Workarea See 1.209 See 1.209 50 s.f. 50 s.f. 1.310 Roll Call Area /Radio Charging 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 844 s.f. 804 s.f. 1.311 CSO/Reserve Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f 115 s.f. 115 s.f. 1.312 Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev.) 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 204 s.f. 204 s.f. Patrol Net Area Total: 2,748 s.f. 2,922 s.f. 2,964 s.f. 2,725 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.61 x 1.58 Patrol Total USF 3,847 s.f. 4,091 s.f 4,692 s.f. 4,692 s.f. 1.400 Investigations 1.401 Investigator's Office 2 130 s f 450 s.f. 450 s.f. 296 s.f, 278s. 1.402 Investigator's Office - Part Time incl incl 149 s.f. 137s. 1.403 Computer Forensics / DTF Office 150 s,f. 150 s.f. 148 s.f. 147s. 1.404 Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 229 s.f. 226s. 1.405 Soft Interview Room 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 82 s.f. 73s. 1.406 Invest. Storage/ Elect. Equip. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. Investigations Net Area Total: 1,040 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 904 s.f. 861 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.56 x 1.80 Investigations Total USF 1,456 s.f. 1,456 s.f. 1,624 s.f, 1,624 s.f. VwMAante suments\172007 New Police Cily Hall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (CenlralLrnrotlg-@hortyelving com(Recovery)(Recovery),M Mae-e-mnwoldee.com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\772007N-Polic.CityHallFacilily\02_ARCHIRaAR172007N-Police Page 5 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) M nwo Space Program Summary 1.500 Holding 1.501 Holding Cell (2@67 s f. , 1 @105 s.f. 3 60 s.f 1.502 Holding Cell Juvenile 1.503 Booking/Intox. 1.504 Sallyport 1.505 Hard Interview 1.506 Release 1.707 Holding Net Area Total: 1.708 Net to Usable SF Factor 1.709 Holding Total USF 1.600 Evidence 1.601 Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 1.602 Evidence Storage 1.603 Large Property Storage 1.604 Vault Storage/ Drugs/ Weapons/ Drying Room 1.605 Evidence Garage Women's Toilet/ Shower Evidence Net Area Total: Women's Vestibule Net to Usable SF Factor Support Spaces Net Area Total: Evidence Total USF 1.700 Support Spaces 1.701 Armory/Weapon Cleaning/Ammo Storage 1.702 Ammunition Room 1.703 Fitness Center 1.704 City Staff Changing Room 1.705 Defensive Tactics Training Room 1.706 Defensive Tactics Training Storage 1.707 Breakroom w/ Kitchenette (6-8 people) 1.708 Quiet/Mothers Room 1.709 Beverage Station 1.710 Staff Toilet 2 25 s f 1.711 Men's Locker Room 30 1.712 Men's Toilet/ Shower 1.713 Men's Vestibule 1.714 Women's Locker Room 10 1.715 Women's Toilet/ Shower 1.716 Women's Vestibule Support Spaces Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Support Spaces Total USF 1.800 Police Garage Support 1.801 Swat Gear Storage / Lockers for 6 1.802 Gear bag storage 1.803 Squad Supply Storage (helmets, shields, etc) 1.804 Toilet Garage Support Net Area Total: Net to Gross Factor Garage Support Total USF CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program I I Design I I Development I [Documentation 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 132 s.f. 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 91 s.f. 280 s.f. 280 s.f. 279 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,038 s.f. 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 90 s.f. 1,560 s.f. x 1.40 2,184 s.f. 300 s.f. 1,200 s.f. incl 80 s.f. 800 s.f. 2,380 s.f. x 1.40 3,332 s.f 120sf 80 s.f 900 s.f- 160 s.f 800 s.f. 40 s.f. 640 s.f. 80 s.f. 72 s.f 128 s.f. 600 s.f. 120 s.f. 44 s.f. 240 s.f 120 s.f 44 s.f. 4,186 s.f. x 1.35 5,654 s.f 180 s.f 120 s.f 100 s.f 1,560 s.f. 1,630 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.57 2,184 s.f. 2,449 s.f 300 s.f. 329 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 992 s.f. incl 165 s.f 80 s.f. 800 s.f. 584 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2,070 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.16 3,332 s.f. 2,051 s.f. 200 s.f. 0 s.f. 900 s.f. 160 s.f. 800 s.f. 40 s.f. 400 s.f. 80 s.f. 72 s.f. 128 s.f. 360 s.f. 360 s.f. 44 s.f. 120 s.f. 240 s.f. 44 s.f. 3,948 s.f. x 1.35 5,330 s.f 180 s.f 120 s.f 100 s.f 112 s.f. 133 s.f. 871 s.f. 408 s.f. 812 s.f. 40 s.f. 455 s.f. 77 s.f. 95 s.f. 521 s.f 351 s.f. incl 265 s.f. 368 s.f. incl 4,508 s.f. x 1.30 5,874 s.f 203 s.f 341 s.f 0 s.f 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 544 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 520 s.f. 520 s.f. 707 s.f 200 s.f. 91 s.f. 237 s.f. 1,049 s.f. 90 s.f. 84 s.f. 1,751 s.f. 1.50 2,449 s.f 273 s.f 985 s.f. 319 s.f. 452 s.f. 2,029 s.f. x 1.01 2,051 s.f. 273 s.f. 133 s.f. 857 s.f. 371 s.f. 806 s.f. 65 s.f. 429 s.f. 77 s.f. 95 s.f. 521 s.f 288 s.f 69 s.f 265 s.f 316 s.f 69 s.f 4,634 s.f. x 1.24 5,732 s.f 203 s.f. 204 s.f. 73 s.f. 53 s.f. 533 s.f. x 1.32 704 s.f. A919aR1'drdGdlpddnmenls\13x007 New Police City Hall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (C+ne-s mn-waI�-com%StPauhCI-Nmng ope\1 2007 e.P Page 6 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-srv-mn.ty (Central) rStPau11G-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Fecilityt02_ARCtBIfteWtl? 11007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) M nwo, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Space Program Summary Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 2.000 City Hall 2.100 Public Spaces 2.101 Public Lobby 600 s.f. 600 s.f. 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 2.102 Council Chambers 1,500 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 1,252 s.f. 1,249 sf. 2.103 Council Chambers Table Storage 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 133 s.f. 2 104 TV Control Room 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 164 s.f. 164 s.f. 2.105 Council Work Session Room 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 813 s.f. 727 s.f. 2.106 Public After Hours Conference /Training 600 s.f. 800 s.f. 773 s.f. 727 s.f. 2.107 Kitchenette 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 128 s.f. 130 s.f. 2.108 Conference Room 400 s.f. 0 s f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 2.109 Public Toilets 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 368 s f. 373 s.f. Public Space Net Area Total 4,860 s.f. 4,460 s.f. 4,418 s.f. 4,303 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.39 Public Space Total USF 6,804 s.f 6,244 s.f. 6,185 s.f. 5,965 s.f 2.200 City Manager 2.201 City Manager Office 200 s.f. 250 s.f. 249 s.f. 229 s.f. 2.202 City Clerk Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 123 s.f. 2.203 Admin. Assistant 0.0 110 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.204 Assessor Hoteling Wkstn 0.0. 64 s.f 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.205 Mayor/Council Workspace/Conference Room 150 s.f 150 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 2.206 Public Counter incl 100 s.f 118 s.f. 117 s.f. 2.207 Ballot Storage 40 s.f. 40 s.f. see 2.208 see 2.206 2.208 Elections Storage 600 s.f. 500 s.f. 427 s.f. 427 s.f. 2.209 Public Record Viewing Kiosk 25 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 2.211 City Engineer Wkstn 00 64 s.f 60 s.f. 60 s.f. City Manager Net Area Total: 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,113 s.f. 1,076 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.53 City Manager Total USF 1,875 s.f. 1,935 s.f 1,558 s.f. 1,645 s.f. 2.300 Finance / IT / HR / Communications 2.301 HR/Admin Director Office 200 s.f 200 s f. 195 s.f. 182 s f. 2.302 HR Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 132 s.f. 2.303 Wellness Workstation See 1.703 See 1.703 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.304 Finance Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 196 s.f. 184 s.f. 2.305 Finance Storage 80 s.f 80 s.f. 123 s.f, 123 s.f. 2.306 Storage 28 s.f. 28 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 2.307 Finance Workstation (1 @80 1 @110) 192 s.f. 192 s.f. s f 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 2.308 Cash Handling/Safe Room 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.309 I.T. Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 146 s.f. 147 s.f. 2.310 I.T. Support Workstation 64 s.f 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.311 I.T. Set Up Workstation 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 107 s.f. 109 s.f. 2.312 I.T. Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f. see 2.313 see 2.313 2.313 Server Room 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 243 s.f. 243 s.f. 2.314 Communications Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 134 s.f 126 s.f. 2.315 Communications Intern Work Area/Storage Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.316 Small Conference Room - 150 s.f. 143 s.f. 142 s.f. Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 1,808 s.f. 1,958 s.f. 1,726 s.f. 1,668 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.45 Finance/IT/HR Total USF 2,531 s.f. 2,741 s.f. 2,416 s.f 2,445 s.f. d95W4 1@EPMMumenls1172007NewPoliceCityHallFacility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Central)_mrodgws@hortyelving cum(Recovery)(Recovery). wt Mae-srvtnn.woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewHope1172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 7 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) wt n Space Program Summary 2.400 Community Development 2.401 CD Director Office 2.402 CD Specialist Office 2.403 Building Official Office 2.404 Housing Inspector Office 2.405 General Inspector Office 2.406 CD Assistant Workstation 2.407 Intern Workstation 2.408 Office Support Specialist 2.409 Work Area 2.410 Plan Storage / Layout Area 2.411 Public Counter 2.412 Small Conference Room 2.413 Address File Storage 150 s.f. Comm. Development Net Area Total: 144 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 64 s.f. Comm. Development Bldg Total USF 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office 2.503 Rec. Coordinator Office 2.504 Office Support Spec. Workstation 2.505 Seasonal Supervisor 2.506 Work Area 2.507 Work Room 2.508 Supply Storage 2.509 Park and Rec Counter 2.510 Small Conference Room 139 s.f. Parks and Rec Net Area Total: 150 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 141 s.f. Parks and Rec Total USF 2.600 Shared Spaces 2.601 Copy/Supplies/Work Room 2.602 Mail/Work Area 2.603 Quiet/Mother's Room 2.604 Break Room 2.605 Coats 2.606 Archive Storage 2.607 Receiving 2.608 Janitorial 2.609 Staff Toilets 150 s.f. Shared Space Net Area Total: 139 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 150 s.f. Shared Space Total USF CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Ms1172007 New Pial ice City Hall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Crwsl)_mroarvglwrtydving.wm(Rsewreey)(Recovery).rvl g Comm No: 172007 Mae-srv-mn.woldaecon,\SIPWKCl-Nev.Mope1172007 NewPolic-CityHall Facildy102_ARCMRevill172007 New Police Pae 8 City Hall Facilily (Central) M Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program Design Development Documentation 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 185 s.f. 174 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. s f 278 s.f. 264 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 132 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 141 s.f. 139 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 144 s.f. 144 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2 48 s f 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f, incl incl 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 150 s.f. 200 s.f. 193 s.f. 195 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 97 s.f. 97 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 143 s.f. 96 s.f. 0 s.f 0 s.f. 1,356 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,619 s.f. 1,588 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.60 1,898 s.f 2,313 s.f. 2,267 s.f. 2,544 s. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 185 s.f. 174 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 155 s.f. 152 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 152 s -f. 154 s.f. 2 48 s.f 128 s.f. 128 s.f. s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f, 108 s.f. 108 s.f. 120 s.f 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. incl incl 190 s.f. 190 s.f. 315 s.f. 315 s.f. 505 s f 505 s.f. 492 s.f. 492 s.f. 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 97 s -f. 96 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 143 s.f. 1,651 s.f. 1,801 s.f. 1,778 s.f. 1,766 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.66 2,311 s.f 2,521 s.f. 2,489 s.f. 2,934 s.f. 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 167 s.f. 168 s.f, incl incl 77 s.f 77 s.f. 63 s.f. 63 s.f. 60 s.f. 64 s.f. 0 s.f. 600 s.f. 691 s.f. 663 s.f. 20 s.f 11 s.f. 11 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 257 s.f. 260 s.f. 250 s.f. 250 s.f. 180 s.f. 174 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 50 s.f. 61 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 130 s.f. 98 s.f. 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,623 s.f. 1,576 s.f x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.58 1,527 s.f. 2,395 s.f. 2,272 s.f. 2,48 Ms1172007 New Pial ice City Hall Facility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Crwsl)_mroarvglwrtydving.wm(Rsewreey)(Recovery).rvl g Comm No: 172007 Mae-srv-mn.woldaecon,\SIPWKCl-Nev.Mope1172007 NewPolic-CityHall Facildy102_ARCMRevill172007 New Police Pae 8 City Hall Facilily (Central) M nwo, Space Program Summary 3.100 Vehicle Garage 3.101 Parking Stalls 3.101A Ramp and Landing 3.102 Swat Truck Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage Total USF 3.200 Community Development Vehicle Garage CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Predesign Schematic Design Construction Program I I Design Development I Documentation 8,100 s.f. 8,100 s.f. bay 8,640 s.f. 8,640 s.f 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 3,696 s.f. 3,696 s.f 500 s f. 500 s.f. 528 s.f. 522 s.f. 8,600 s.f. 8,600 s.f. 12,864 s.f. 12,858 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.35 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 16,723 s.f. 17,340 s.f 3.201 Parking Stalls - CD 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 866 s.f. 861 s.f. Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 866 s.f. 861 s.f. Net to Gross Factor x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.12 Vehicle Garage USF 1,170 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,126 s.f. 968 s.f. Z ;"S*WJ—4a%1?2007NawPdiceCityHallFacility PROGRAM SUMMARY (Cantest]_rt ndgvraCjhogjwking w (Reeovary)(Recovery).rvt Novae-srv-mnwoldee.eam\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007NewPolic:City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\R.Ml72007N—Peiice Page 9 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) t rwo], PO ENTRY PUBLIC SAFETY/ADMIN EVIDENCE 10/62017 9:13:59 AM C:\Uaer %—d"reL9oeo nt,%V2007 New Police City Hall Facility(CenlrwLmmdi&re@hortyelving.CWMAeaovetVNFtwGvanll. rvt \\wae-.�mmwodae.cmti SlPwl\Cl-Ne Hope\172007 New Pow.Cily Hall FecYIlyW2�RCH\FEevil\172067 New Polka Coy HM1t Facility (Centrall.M UCCTiuP. RnnMS < SECURE GATE CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL MAIN ENTRY _I. FINANCE 1W CITY MGMT COMM, DEVELOP. PARKS & REC. FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL Page 10 Comm No: 172007 rw-0j, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL SQUAD CAR PARKING y I I I I UNEXGAVATEP I I I I I I I I I 10/62017 9:13:55 AM C-%Users\mrodgers%Documentst172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cenlral)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com(Recovery)(Recovery) wt \\Wae-src-mn woldee com\S[PauhCI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility%02_ARCHUtevig172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central).rvt FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL Page 11 Comm No: 172007 n CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL -21 I'"' 111114' i 3\Tr&'dFyaf @Acuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility City Hall Lobby (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelvi ng.com(Recovery)( Recovery), M \\Wae-sry-mn woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 12 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).rvt k i �f -21 I'"' 111114' i 3\Tr&'dFyaf @Acuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility City Hall Lobby (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelvi ng.com(Recovery)( Recovery), M \\Wae-sry-mn woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 12 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).rvt Ei CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL �tW@09%rffowbar305<uments\172007 New Police City HallFacllRy City Hall Open Office (Centra I)_mrodgers@hortyelving,com\Recovery)(Recovery] m \\Wae-srv-mmwoldae.com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 NewPolic.CrtyHal1Facil',ty\02_ARCH\Ravi!\172007N—Pallce Page 13 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Gentral),M CITY OF NEW HOPE 106 NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL f�. A —; tGffi14AMb1YgA*&cuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility Council Chamber (Central )_mrodgers@h ortyelvi ng.com( Recovery)(Recovery).M Mae-srv-mnwoldaecom\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 Naw Polic,CityHall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police Page 14 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central),wt CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL City Hall Worksession M6R6Wd%97s*6cumentW72007 New Police City Hall Facility Room (Ce ntral)_mrodgers@hortyelving com(RecoveryNRecovery).M Page 15 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-sry-mn woldae,com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facilty\02_ARCH\RevM172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central).rvt CITY OF NEW HOPE es NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 9— t9M9PVWb%@A;Mcuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility Police Lobby ( Central )_m rodg ers@h ortyelving. corn( Recovery)(Recovery).rvt \\Wae-s mn.woldae,com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\772007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\772007 New Police Page 17 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) wt R CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL I 10/5/20177: 02:05 PM Police Patrol Open Office C:\Users\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility(Central )_burrk@hortyelving.conn.M \\Wae_mzn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewH,p,\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 18 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).rA 1 q A� 9\ j 10/5/20177: 02:05 PM Police Patrol Open Office C:\Users\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility(Central )_burrk@hortyelving.conn.M \\Wae_mzn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewH,p,\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 18 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).rA CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL A u r L AN 3 EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 10/1112017 3:11:12 PM THE SOUTH EAST C:\Usem\kburr\DocumentsV72007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_b—k('�bortyaMng.eom.rA Mae-srv-mn woldse cam\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polie.City Hall Fac1lity\02_ARCH\Rwit\172007 New Police Page 19 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) M n a CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL �M� . ,.l-, EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 10/11/2017 3:06:12 PM THE EAST Q\Usem\khurr\Documents\172007 Nm Police City Hall Facility e. (Central) DumkQhortyeMng. com.M Page 20 Comm No: 172007 Mae-s—nnn woldaeom\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Faciliry\02_ARCH\Re it\172007 New Police g City Hall Facility (Central). rvt n got CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL a rl ■ BROWNE EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 1011120173: 03:22 PM THE NORTH EAST CAU:ersWbur 1Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_bumk@hortyelvin9 com wt \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Faci@y\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 21 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central)—t Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 10/1112017 2:55:01 PM C:\Users\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_burrk@hortyelving.com.rvt \\Wae sry mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central).rA EXTERIOR VIEW -CITY HALL ENTRANCE & LOBBY Page 22 Comm No: 172007 Wol Wol own== 1■■I ®� I 'fir: - , __.:^ y. n ■�s� Imo— - own== 1■■I ®� I 'fir: - , __.:^ nwo CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS 10111/20172: 17:29 PM EYE (NE) C:\Users\kbuu\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_burtk@hortyehnn9.com.M Page 25 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae sry mn.woldae.com\StPaulkCl-NmHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02\R _ARCHevit1172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) wt n CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS 10111/2017 2:15:37 PM EYE (SE) C:\Usem\kburr\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility es (Central)_bumk@hortyelvin9.com M Page 26 MaZ woidae cam\StPaul\Cl-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facif \02_ARCH\Rwil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) M Comm No: 172007 rwid, APPROVAL TO BEGIN City Council Authorization 1/9/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 5/15/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 5/22/17 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3 mos Public Open House 6/27/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 8/10/17 City Council Work Session 8/21/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 8/28/17 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2 1/2 mos City Council Work Session 10/16/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 10/23/17 - Approval of CD's Issue Construction Documents 11/1/17 BUILDING CONSTR. BID/AWARD 2 mos Advertise Bidding 11/9/17 Advertise Bidding 11/16/17 Receive and Open Bids 11/30/17 City Council Work Session 12/4/17 City Council Meeting 12/11/17 - Approval of Contracts for Construction A - Sell Bonds S BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 mos FURNITURE/EQUIP INSTALL 1 mos NEW POLICE/CITY HALL OCCUPANCY CITY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 6 mos CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 2017 2018 2019 J F M A M J I J A S 0 N D J F M A M 1 I J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Pool Open Pool Closed Pool Closed LLL Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action 101R[2d17 g:10 11 AM PROJECTED C:\UserslmrodgerslDocumenlsl172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgersahonyelving com(Recovery)(Recovery) M SCHEDULE %N.—..woldae com\StPauhG-N—Hope%172007 New Pollc City Hall Feciiilyl0'2_ARCH1R-01172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central} nrt Comm No: 172007 City of New Hope Police & City Hall • . 8/11/2017 COST ANALYSIS Schematic Design Construction Design Development Documents FUNDING SOURCE 5/22/2017 8/21/2017 10/23/2017 New Police/City Hall (net proceeds) $18,879,000 $18,879,000 $18,879,000 Utility - Energy Rebates $0 $0 $0 TOTAL FUNDING $ 18,879,000 $ 18,879,000 $ 18,879,000 CONSTRUCTION Bid Pack #1 Building Construction $ 14,870,000 $ 13,200,000 $ 13,200,000 Construction Contingency $ 684,000 $ 684,000 $ 684,000 Site Development incl $ 875,000 $ 875,000 Subtotal $ 15,554,000 $ 14,759,000 $ 14,759,000 Bid Pack #2 Parking Lot incl $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Contingency incl $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Subtotal $ - $ 940,000 $ 940,000 SUBTOTAL $ 15,554,000 $ 15,699,000 $ 15,699,000 FEES, TE5TING Architectural Fees $ 830,000 $ 830,000 $ 830,000 Engineering Fees $ 117,370 $ 117,370 $ 117,370 Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriter's Discount $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Stantex - Geotechnical/Surveying/Wetland Deliniation $ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Reimbursables $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Metropolitan Council / City SAC ([#] SAC units) $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Abatement - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Trunk Storm Drainage Fee $ $ - $ Trunk Sanitary Fee $ - $ $ Engineering/City Inspections (Watermain Plan Review and Inspection) $ $ $ Water Access Charge Fee incl incl incl Trunk Water Fee incl incl incl Engineering/City Inspections $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 State or City Building Code Plan Review Fee $ - $ - $ - State or City Review/Inspection Fee $ - $ - $ - Health Dept. Plumbing Plan Review Fee $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Health Dept. Food Service Plan Review Fee $ $ - $ - City Roads and Services Fees $ - $ . $ - Utility Transformer Fees/Inspection $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Bid Advertisement/Printing $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Legal Allowance $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Special Structural Inspections $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Commissioning $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Moving Costs $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Contingency $ 75,000 S 100,000 $ 100,000 SUBTOTAL $ 1,467,370 $ 1,612,370 $ 1,612,370 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT/ Furniture Allowance $ 655,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Equipment Allowance $ 165,000 $ 165,000 $ 165,000 Technology Allowance $ 165,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 Furnishing/Consultant Fees $ 39,300 $ 39,300 $ 39,300 Technology Consulting Fees $ 9,900 $ 9,900 $ 9,900. Contingency $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 SUBTOTAL (FF&E) $ 1,084,200 $ 1,199,200 $ 1,199,200 PROJECT BALANCE $ $ 368,430 773,430 $ 368,430 WlDocs/projects/predesign/cost_analysis_master Commission No. [COMM #] W J O= U W 0 Z Z Q L.L F - o W Ua w 0 w J LU Z vi w LU F- C:) - O ¢ cn ¢ U CD M � Cf) z LU Z w w CL Com/) Z � O O Y pC O O w Lu, > s il C/) cc: ¢ m LU w M F- U) < LU ¢ > _ J U cn J_ U z 00 Z U > C) C) J C) J w LU ¢ LL- <LU CL Qp K z Q,w U-1 Qp -<� v� Olwn <UA w > z�Q� m CD y� z ~ z H kb O > w WiMz' ? cn IL �O E?Q Q A m m O J 2 1 U 119 C/) 0 Z J m m U-1 N 0 O MO LUz� p�Q �vD- 10 ai Oz v=) V qui>>D� w U— zD � pv zIU) LL Qin a*�nz-� - w < <` O►uvO z►►� O�� w w� Www �z�z z�(a z �O �Q�� w ��Op v �� �Qu � O v w D- z Q Z i Q m Q w w w u v UA m�Q � ��LU Z w v ZW LU z �n'-' Qv Q� 0C) �� z�n li 'u�dptX XON N O� �>� �nQ �O °vw� IL CD m0. ,v Q Fez L °- ll1Z � ° �w,wz pp �L_p - <Q w O m 0 0� J Oz�� QOQ u�pw ti 0 0 N ti 0 Z E 0 U NJ UW ZJ]f OUm a� a) _ M _ UUCL 19- o 0 rwo], ELIC RIiCAL 5'(L KC_Y DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (HIGH AND/OR LOW) TRIPLE LIGHT SWITCH DUPLEX RECEPTACLE 4 DUPLEX GFCI RECEPTACLE LPB 4 DOUBLE DUPLEX RECEPTACLE EMERGENCY POWER RECEPTACLES g SURFACE MOUNT DEVICES FLOOR BOX -O JUNCTION BOX `4 SPECIAL PURPOSE OUTLET -4&"� SINGLE LIGHT SWITCH -e2 DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH 0604 V TRIPLE LIGHT SWITCH OCCUPANCY SENSING LIGHT SWITCH 4 RECEPTACLE POWER SHUT OFF LPB 4 LOCKDOWN PUSH BUTTON WALL OR CEILING PROJECTOR N N WALL OR CEILING SPEAKER WALL OR CEILING LOUD SPEAKER -Q VOLUME CONTROL a MICROPHONE & AUXILIARY CONNECTOR < TV OUTLET (HIGH AND/OR LOW) -4ygVOICE WALL OUTLET AV SYSTEM CAMERA DATA OUTLET WITH DIRECT PHONE LINE OUTLET HANDICAP ACTUATOR DATA OUTLET I# OF DROPS INDICATED) HAP SECURITY - CARD READER (3) GAMERAS FOR OFF SITE GONF -PRESENTER -WIDE SHOT -TRAGKING CAMERA q0° TV/MONITOR (ADD ROUGH IN) Ku/ PONER4 DATA; ABILITY FOR REMOTE GONF: AUTO TRAGKING GAMERAS, WILL WANT AV REAL TIME FEED FROM CHAMBERS DISPLAY CASE WIRELESS PRESENTER PLUS (1) HARD WIRE LOCATION 8 HDMI db 0 Fr ` L db r r ► < GOUNGIL GHAMBERS 4 PD LOBBY DATA OUTLET CEILING & WIRELESS DATA ACCESS POINT PARKS & REC 7 CLOCK CITY HALL PUSLIG 1 �"� x'( I� SECURITY -CAMERA T5 SMOKE DETECTOR — MONITOR FOR I r F FIRE ALARM W/STROBE AND HORN DISPLAY (ADD DOOR HARDWARE ELECTRIC STRIKE ROUGH IN) FIRE ALARM MAGNETIC DOOR HOLD OPEN AV SYSTEM CAMERA 4 HANDICAP ACTUATOR Gp 5 SECURITY - CARD READER 1 UG DISPLAY AREA IVa I SM CONF y` MONITQg' LOBBY COMM. DEVELOPMENT - -----`e_tSim MONITOR FOR DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) cR (8) POWER, DATA FOR TRAINING MOTORIZED BLINDS VENTED AV GABINET AFTER HOURS BILL DROP OFF (LU/ MAIL PASS THROUGH) CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL VEST I d) 0 ROUGH IN FOR GOMPUTER KIOSK MONITOR FOR PHOTO DISPLAY CSEGURITY GAMERA (TYP CITY MANAGEMENT Lt��� l = SM CONF TAT L r��� �m J I I MONITO 6-3,0 a 5. I `� J I I MONITOR FOR DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) USER GROUP NOTES -THE PUBLIC GONFERENGE ROOM SHOULD HAVE VIDEO GONFERENGING GAPABILITIES. FLOOR BOX (TYP.) L D t U L y I CI d Fob I 1P6BilIC6" 0 TAGK� BOARD I I I �, I �� LL-� PHOTO DISPLAY NALL STAFF ENTRY CH - PUBLIC LOBBY Page 4 Comm No: 172007 CITY HALL PUSLIG LOSSY EN SECURITY -CAMERA q 5 DOOR HARDWARE ELECTRIC STRIKE AV AV SYSTEM CAMERA 1 011112 01 7 4:42:46 PM C:\Users\nn dgers\Documenls\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cen4alL mrod gers@horlyelvingcom(Recovery)(Recovery�rvt \\Wae-srv-mn,woldae,com\StPaul\CI-NeWHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facilily\02_ARCH\Re R\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (CentralGwt LOBBY COMM. DEVELOPMENT - -----`e_tSim MONITOR FOR DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) cR (8) POWER, DATA FOR TRAINING MOTORIZED BLINDS VENTED AV GABINET AFTER HOURS BILL DROP OFF (LU/ MAIL PASS THROUGH) CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL VEST I d) 0 ROUGH IN FOR GOMPUTER KIOSK MONITOR FOR PHOTO DISPLAY CSEGURITY GAMERA (TYP CITY MANAGEMENT Lt��� l = SM CONF TAT L r��� �m J I I MONITO 6-3,0 a 5. I `� J I I MONITOR FOR DISPLAY (ADD ROUGH IN) USER GROUP NOTES -THE PUBLIC GONFERENGE ROOM SHOULD HAVE VIDEO GONFERENGING GAPABILITIES. FLOOR BOX (TYP.) L D t U L y I CI d Fob I 1P6BilIC6" 0 TAGK� BOARD I I I �, I �� LL-� PHOTO DISPLAY NALL STAFF ENTRY CH - PUBLIC LOBBY Page 4 Comm No: 172007 ell ELEGTFZ]GAL �1'MfBE)L DUPLEX RECEPTACLE (HIGH AND/OR LOW) DUPLEX RECEPTACLE DUPLEX GFCI RECEPTACLE DOUBLE DUPLEX RECEPTACLE VMERGENCY POWER RECEPTACLES g SURFACE MOUNT DEVICES FLOOR BOX -0 JUNCTION BOX SPECIAL PURPOSE OUTLET -{R SINGLE LIGHT SWITCH DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH TRIPLE LIGHT SWITCH _C OCCUPANCY SENSING LIGHT SWITCH EPO 4 RECEPTACLE POWER SHUT OFF LP6 If LOCKDOWN PUSH BUTTON WALL OR CEILING PROJECTOR N N WALL OR CEILING SPEAKER WALL OR CEILING LOUDSPEAKER -0` VOLUME CONTROL a MICROPHONE & AUXILIARY CONNECTOR < TV OUTLET (HIGH AND/OR LOW) -4VWV010E WALL OUTLET DATA OUTLET WITH DIRECT PHONE LINE OUTLET DATA OUTLET (# OF DROPS INDICATED) KAP DATA OUTLET CEILING &WIRELESS DATA ACCESS POINT FLOOR BOX WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR Lu/ POWER, DATA (WIRELE55 PRESENTATION W/ HDMI GONNEGTION (1) HARDWIRE GONNEGTION) P� CLOCK �5 SMOKE DETECTOR FIRE ALARM W/STROBE AND HORN ] FIRE ALARM MAGNETIC DOOR HOLD OPEN 4 HANDICAP ACTUATOR GR 5 SECURITY - CARD READER LN SECURITY - CAMERA 5M DOOR HARDWARE ELECTRIC STRIKE EK AV SYSTEM CAMERA FLOOR BOX WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR Lu/ POWER, DATA (WIRELE55 PRESENTATION W/ HDMI GONNEGTION (1) HARDWIRE GONNEGTION) P� �flM IN_ ISTR�TION GONF. RM VENTED PLAM AV GAB -41 1 14 I 1 11 �1 IIr ,71 IL SMART TV L I L -J� L J� Lu/ GABLE ROLL CALL I �✓ ) _Z2 9 \j 711� Q I -,L,/-g/ I /1 1 71 1 , 1,,,,,,,,� !I� -& 71 -E! TIGKER MONITORS (ON SOFFIT Lu/ ROUGH IN) SEG. GAMERA MONITORS (ON SOFFIT Lu/ ROUGH IN) H91H ROLL GALL ROOM 1/8" = 1'-0" 10/11/2017 9:93:07 PM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cenlrai mrodgers@horlyelving.com(Recovery)(Recovery),rvl \\Wae-sry mn.wolda%cam\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cenlral),rvt 0 6' 12' TRANSOMS MAGNETIG MARKER 8 FT. BOARD TACK STRIP @ 6 FT ALONG WALL FLOOR BOX Lll/ POWER, DATA 8 HDMI LOGKABLE DOOR INTO GONFERENGE ROOM CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOF (WIRELE55 PRESENTATION W (1) HARD WIRE GONNEGTION GABINETS FOR 60 KITS (15" WIDE) INVESTIGATIVE CASE MANASEMENT GONF. RM 1/8" = 1'-0" MARKER BOARD uv SURFACE MOUNT RAGENAY H91H FOR BODY GAM GHARGING 0 6' 12' WALL -MOUNTED TV/MONITOR (NIRELESS PRESENTATION L)/ (1) HARD WIRE GONNEGTION) MAGNETIG MARKER BOARD FLOOR BOX Lu/ POWER, DATA 4 HDMI CITY HALL GONF. ROOM CONFERENCE ROOMS Page 22 Comm No: 172007 Construction and Financial Schedule Police/City Hall Facility Construction and Financial Schedule Date Descri tion 08/10/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 5:30 j2m 08/21/17 Work Session: review design development and financing 08/28/17 Council Mtg: 1) approve design development 2) adopt resolution calling for public hearing on issuance of bonds and capital improvement plan 09/07/17 Advertise public hearing on bonds 09/25/17 Council Mtg - public hearing on bonds; adopt resolution giving preliminary approval for issuance and approving capital improvement plan (requires 3/5ths vote) 10/16/17 Work Session - review construction documents 10/23/17 Council Mt - approve construction documents 10/25/17 Reverse referendum period ends (within 30 days of public hearing) 11/09/17 and 11/16/17 Advertisements for bids 11/13/17 Council Mt - provide for sale of bonds (tentative re -sale date) 11/30/17 Bid opening 12/04/17 Work Session - review bids 12/11/17 Council Mtg: 1) Bond sale - adopt res approving sale of bonds 2) Award construction contract 12/28/17 Tentative closing/receipt of funds, IASpace Needs Study\ Schedules\ Construction and Financial Schedule.docx Wold Architects Approved Proposal 1/9/17 Council Meeting MME Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Resolution approving contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving contract for design and construction services for a new police station and city hall with Wold Architects and Engineers. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The contract with Wold Architects was discussed at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the contract on a regular council agenda for consideration. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance at the meeting and will make a presentation and be available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens task force to study the issue. The task force consisted of representatives from all the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The task force presented a recommendation to the Council in September 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November of 2015 to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the task force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the task force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the task force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the task force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The task force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June 2016. The task force met several times and studied a variety of options and cost estimates. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force unanimously recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at L•\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Design and Construction Contract for City Hall and PD Station w Wold 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. The survey responses were presented to the council at the December 19 work session. The responses from the open house, online and Leatherman 2015 city-wide survey generally indicate public support for the task force recommendation. The Wold Architects proposal is divided into the following phases: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services After the completion of each phase, the documents are presented to the owner (City Council) for approval before proceeding to the next phase. The overall contract cost is based on a fixed fee of 6% of the new building construction cost and includes a credit for work that has already been completed to date. The maximum contract amount for Wold Architects contract, including reimbursable expenses and services for furniture and equipment, is $915,200. The Stantec civil engineering services proposal (a separate agenda item) is $117,370. A critical path schedule showing the phases for the police station/city hall/pool projects is attached and is compared to the projects in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The schedule can be modified as needed. Funding The funding for the Wold Architectural services agreement will be funded partially from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. The estimated cost to construct a new police station/city hall facility on the pool site is $18,879,000, which would require a bond issue of $19,355,000. The estimated tax impact to a New Hope resident with an estimated market value of $196,000 is $147.98 per year or $12.33 per month. The estimated cost to repair the pool in the current location is $6.5 million and an additional $2 million would be required to replace the pool in another location, for a total of $8.5 million. The cost estimate recommended an additional $100,000 to replace any displaced park amenities for a total cost of $8.6 million. The city would need a bond issue of $8,935,000 to net $8.6 million for construction. The estimated tax impact would be $74.73 per year or $6.23 per month for the pool project. When combining the tax impact for both the police station/city hall project and the pool replacement project, the estimated tax impact is $222.71 per year or $18.56 per month. Bonding for both the police station/city hall facility and the future pool improvements is included in the city's long range financial plan. Attachments • Resolution • 12/14/16 Wold Architects Proposal • 1/5/17 City Attorney Correspondence • Wold Architects Contract Request for Action, Page 3 • Tentative Timeline • September 2015 Task Force Recommendation • September 2016 Task Force Recommendation f City Engineer Memo — Pool Renovation • Soil Boring Data a Ehlers Financial Impact • Facility Analysis/Building Deficiencies • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes • Project History Re: City of New Hope New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 Dear Kirk: December 14, 2016 Kirk McDonald, City Administrator New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon�Avenue North New Hopei Minnesota 55428 We are pleased to provide our proposal to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed New Police Station and City Hall project as approved by the City Council. As a culmination of many years of thoughtful study regarding the condition of your existing facility, the space needs of each of the departments housed in the facility, and the most effective siting of a potential new facility, Wold is excited by the prospect of participating in the realization of turning these concepts into actuality. As with the Space Needs Study and Site Master Planning we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. We propose to provide full service architectural and engineering services, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering for all project phases from Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Observation and Post Occupancy Close-out as outlined in the American Institute of Architects Document B101— Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. This letter is to serve as an amendment to that contract per Article 11.1.B. Phases of work are delineated as follows. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES During the first phase—Schematic Design—an Architect consults with the Owner to determine project goals and requirements. During Schematic Design, study drawings, documents, or other media are developed that illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form for the Owner to review. Schematic Design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. This phase produces a final Schematic Design, to which the Owner agrees after consultation and discussions with the Architect. Costs are estimated based on overall project volume. The design then moves forward to the Design Development phase. Schematic Design often produces a site plan, floor plans, sections, an elevation, and other illustrative materials; computer images, renderings, or models. Typically, the drawings include overall dimensions, and a construction cost is estimated. Schematic Design accounts for 15% of architectural services. Wold Architects and Etti91neers L A N N E R S 312 Mimicsota iii -co. tiirirrlC'?[1l�fl ARCHITECTS Saim hniif. MN 95101 woldatw mt 16S 1 227 7773 ENGINEERS Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES Design Development services use the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take them one step further. This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. Typically referred to as DD, this phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. The DD phase often ends with a formal presentation to, and approval by, the owner. Design Development often produces floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door and window details and outline material specifications. DD accounts for 20% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SERVICES The next phase is Construction Documents (CDs). Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once CDs are completed, the Architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. CDs accounts for 40% of architectural services. BID PHASE SERVICES The first step of this phase is preparation of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. The Architect and Owner may elect to have a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. The final step is to award the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. The final deliverable is a construction contract. Once this document is signed, project construction can begin. Bidding accounts for 5% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Contract Administration (CA) services are outlined in the Owner -Architect construction agreement. CA services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. The Architect's core responsibility during this phase is to help the Contractor to build the project as specified in the CDs as approved by the Owner. Questions may arise on site that require the Architect to develop architectural sketches: drawings issued after construction documents have been released that offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. Deliverables: A successfully built and contracted project. CA accounts for 20% of architectural services. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 3 For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction based on your approved construction cost. In addition, we believe that although much of our work to date was exploring concepts that have been abandoned, some of the work that we have already performed has value in the forthcoming design process. Therefore, we offer that half of all fees paid to date be credited towards the project. This results in the following calculation for the overall building design and construction phases: Building Construction Budget $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition Budget $ 250,000.00 Half of (-*otistrttctioit Cantingenr $ 342,000.00 Total Building Construction Budget $14,272,000.00 F-1111 Serv` i+°xe 1 I= Rat x 6.0% Typical Full Service Fixed Fee $ 856,000.00 credit or I_'revious Efforts ($ 26.000,00) Full Service Fixed Fee, $ 830,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Supplemental Basic Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: • Transportation in connection with travel. • Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web Sites, and extranets. • Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. A Printing, reproductions (except sets of each phase for Owner review), plots, standard form documents. • Postage, handling and delivery. • Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner. a Renderings, models, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner. Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants and, if authorized in advance by the Owner. • All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses. • Other similar Project -related expenditures, if authorized in advance by the Owner. We have found that reimbursable expenses typically do not exceed $2,500.00 per million of construction cost on a project of this size. Therefore, we propose to invoice reimbursable expenses at actual cost with a maximum amount capped at $36,000.00 resulting in a total contract amount of $866,000.00. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 4 In addition to these phases for design and construction of the building, Wold Architects and Engineers has full Interior Design and Audio/Visual Systems Design capability and offers to provide the services needed to design, procure and administer implementation of these building elements. We offer a similar fixed fee approach, calculated by our offered 6% rate multiplied by the value of the furnishings or equipment that we are responsible for. Therefore, based upon the approved budget, typical fees would be calculated as follows: Furniture Budget $655,000.00 Pttli_',k,ry (e Fixed Fee Rate xLT Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Equipment Budget $165,000.00 Ftill Service Fi .ec ! Itile x Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 In summary, Wold Architects and Engineers offers the City of New Hope the following proposed fees. Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Typical Gc ui pt otil Fixed Fee t y Wold's Maximum Contract Amount $ 915,200.00 ;ilInLeg, " Civil Gng`tit c:crin lf,0rUlsc s�+cF Qesi Vi k -t s --J-11737 ,0(J Total Profession Design and Engineering Services $1,032,570.00 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, W d Architects and Engineers q t / " % /. It 0 "— Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED A Partner cc: Ben Beery, Wold Matt Mooney, Wold Wol City of New Hope April 26, 2013 = Space Needs Study Kickoff History ————-————--— .. .- — — — — -- — — — '! _ — — — — — — — — — -_ _- -- -- — -- — -- — — .- — — -. — — — -- — — — — — — — — — .e ._ . — _ — — — -- — January 21, 2014 "'�— Council Update — Space Needs and Site Exploration May 13, 2014Council Update —Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project August 12, 2014Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues Spring 2015 '� Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force May 15, 2015 --r- Task Force Kick Off September 21, 2015 —1— Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 17, 2015 TPublic Open House on New Police/ City Hall Spring 2016 —1— Site Analysis and Options Developed May 2016 - - Citizen Task Force Reconvened September 19, 2016 Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 2, 2016 -- -- Public Open House Task Force Recommendation Task Force 2016 Recommendation: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. 4. A public open house should be scheduled for November 2nd. wol Option 3 Pool Site 4., a i7Y,NF'00N IFIL_ � � I ' ,g. I r r+.• A` � c., - - ' �n 2i[is fFfW `..7.. Ri4+a�}- _. � ) � 11 now tITErn Y r - K0- VF1fYVN:\1 -6cl Cost Worksheet — Option 3 Potential Park Improvements Option 3 Pool Site Police City Hall $0.00 Building Construction $13.680,000-00 Building Demolition $0.00 Site Development Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75.000.00 Construction Continaency $684,000.00 Subtotal Construction $15,554,000.00 Temp Relo atiorLIHIm Cats $0.00 Temp Tenant Improvements -$0-00 Tem�Technology Costs Furniture Allowance E ui ment Allowance $0 00 i $655,000.00 $165,000.00 Technolopy Allowance $165,000.00 Project Contingency $780,000.00 Fees, Testing, Printing $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $0.00 Skate Park Replacement Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parking Lot $0.00 BasketballNolleyball Replacement $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium $2,000,000.00 Total Park Improvements $2,100,000.00 Total $20,979,000.00 Wol Next Steps Architectural/Engineering Design: » Schematic Design » Design Development » Construction Documents » Bidding Construction (Contract) Administration Furniture Design Equipment Design Next Steps Schematic Design (15%): » Determine project goals and requirements. » Illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form. » Zoning/Code requirements are discovered. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » A site plan, floor plans, sections, elevations, computer images, renderings, or models. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » Council Reviews and Approves a Final Report. Wol Next Steps Design Development (20%): » Takes the SD Concepts one step further. » Lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. » Results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. » Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. » Floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions including door and window details and outline material specifications. » Formal approval by the owner. Wol Next Steps Construction Documents (40%): » Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. » A cost estimate is completed. » The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. » Approval by the Council is sought to proceed. rw-011 Next Steps Bidding (5%).- Issuing of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. » The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. » Hold a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. » The Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. » The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. » Council awards the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. » The final deliverable is a construction contract. Next Steps � Construction Administration (20%): � » Contract Administration (CA) services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. » Architect's core responsibility is to help the Contractor to build the project as designed » Architect to offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. » Deliverable: A successfully built and contracted project. Wol Next Steps Furniture and Equipment Design. - Evaluating the condition of existing assets » Developing a plan for reuse and new purchases » New Furniture and Equipment selection » Develop installation plan » Procurement » Submittal Review » Installation coordination and oversight » Punch Lists » Warranty walkthrough Next Steps Wold's Calculated Fixed Fees: Schematic Design (15%) $ 1281400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 1711200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 1711200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Typical Equipment Fixed Fee 91900.00 $ 915,200.00 Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Resolution approving contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving contract for design and construction services for a new police station and city hall with Wold Architects and Engineers. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The contract with Wold Architects was discussed at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the contract on a regular council agenda for consideration. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance at the meeting and will make a presentation and be available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens task force to study the issue. The task force consisted of representatives from all the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The task force presented a recommendation to the Council in September 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November of 2015 to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the task force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the task force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the task force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the task force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The task force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June 2016. The task force met several times and studied a variety of options and cost estimates. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force unanimously recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at I:\RFA\City Manager\ 2017\ Q -Design and Construction Contract for City Hall and PD Station w Wold 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. The survey responses were presented to the council at the December 19 work session. The responses from the open house, online and Leatherman 2015 city-wide survey generally indicate public support for the task force recommendation. The Wold Architects proposal is divided into the following phases: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services After the completion of each phase, the documents are presented to the owner (City Council) for approval before proceeding to the next phase. The overall contract cost is based on a fixed fee of 6% of the new building construction cost and includes a credit for work that has already been completed to date. The maximum contract amount for Wold Architects contract, including reimbursable expenses and services for furniture and equipment, is $915,200. The Stantec civil engineering services proposal (a separate agenda item) is $117,370. A critical path schedule showing the phases for the police station/city hall/pool projects is attached and is compared to the projects in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The schedule can be modified as needed. Funding The funding for the Wold Architectural services agreement will be funded partially from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. The estimated cost to construct a new police station/city hall facility on the pool site is $18,879,000, which would require a bond issue of $19,355,000. The estimated tax impact to a New Hope resident with an estimated market value of $196,000 is $147.98 per year or $12.33 per month. The estimated cost to repair the pool in the current location is $6.5 million and an additional $2 million would be required to replace the pool in another location, for a total of $8.5 million. The cost estimate recommended an additional $100,000 to replace any displaced park amenities for a total cost of $8.6 million. The city would need a bond issue of $8,935,000 to net $8.6 million for construction. The estimated tax impact would be $74.73 per year or $6.23 per month for the pool project. When combining the tax impact for both the police station/city hall project and the pool replacement project, the estimated tax impact is $222.71 per year or $18.56 per month. Bonding for both the police station/city hall facility and the future pool improvements is included in the city's long range financial plan. Attachments • Resolution • 12/14/16 Wold Architects Proposal and Contract • 1/5/17 City Attorney Correspondence 0 Tentative Timeline Request for Action, Page 3 • September 2015 Task Force Recommendation September 2016 Task Force Recommendation • City Engineer Memo — Pool Renovation • Soil Boring Data Ehlers Financial Impact • Facility Analysis/Building Deficiencies • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes • Project History -0—k - Memo To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager From: Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers Date: January 4th, 2017 Subject: Analysis of Tax Impact: 2017/2018 Police Station / City Hall Building and 2019 Pool Project Attached to this memorandum is an analysis of the tax impacts prepared in October, 2016 related to the proposed Police Station and City Hall Building, as well as the pool replacement project anticipated in 2019. Both analyses are based on the recommended location and related costs identified in the Space Needs Study Report dated September 19, 2016 (The "Report"). The Report recommends constructing the new Police Station and City Hall Building on the site of the existing City Pool, referred to as option #3. The total estimated project cost for this option is $18,879,000. Ehlers used this estimated cost to determine the bond size necessary to fund the project. The table below shows that the City would need to issue $19,355,000 in bonds to net $18,879,000 for the project. The estimated tax impacts are based on this amount of debt issuance. Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $19,355,000.00 Total Sources $19.355,000.00 Uses Of Funds TotalUndenvriter's Discount (0.900%) 174,195.00 Costs ofIssuance _ 133,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF)Fund 165,088.13 Deposit to Project Construction Fund _ 18,879,000.00 Deposit to Project Fund 3,716.87 Total Uses $19,355,000.00 The City had previously identified $6.5 million in total project costs to repair the existing pool. The selection of the pool site for construction of the Police Station and City Hall Building means the pool would be replaced rather than repaired. The Report estimates the "premium" to replace rather than repair the pool is $2 million. In addition, replacing other displaced park elements would add $100,000. Based on this, the total project cost for anew City pool is estimated to be $8.6 million. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE www.ehlers-inc.com Minnesota phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois fax 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1122 toll free 800-552-1171 Kirk McDonald Analysis of Tax Impact: 2017/2018 Police Station / City Hall Building and 2019 Pool Project January 4, 2017 Page 2 Similar to the Police Station and City Hall Building, Ehlers sized a potential bond issue sufficient to provide funding for this project. The table below shows that the City would need to issue $8,935,000 in bonds to net $8,600,000 for the project. The estimated tax impacts are based on this amount of debt issuance. Sources Of Funds Par Amount ofBonds $8,935,000.00 Total Sources $8,935,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.900%) 80,415.00 Costs of Issuance 65,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 186.046.88 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 8,600,000.00 Rounding Amount 3,538.12 Total Uses $8.935.000.00 In both cases, the tax impacts may vary based on the actual project costs, which will be established through a competitive bidding process, as well as the bond market and interest rates at the time of the bond sale. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-697-8512. New Hope, Minnesota $19,355,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2017 & Series 2018 Issue Summary - 2017 BQ Bonds & 2018 BQ Bonds Assumes Current Market AA Rates plus 50bps Sources & Uses Dated 05/01/2017 1 Delivered 05/01/2017 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $19,355,000.00 Total Sources Uses Of Funds $19,355,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.900%) 174,195.00 Costs of Issuance 133,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 165,088.13 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 18,879,000.00 Deposit to Project Fund 3,716.87 Total Uses $19,355,000.00 Series 2017 GO CIP Bonds I Issue Summary 1 10/ 5/2016 1 9:08 AM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Debt Issuance Services City of New Hope, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact 2017 and 2018 Combined BQ Bonds - New Police Station and City Hall Building $18,879,000 Project Cost October 25, 2016 BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION Bond Issue Amount $19,365,000 Number of Years 20 Average Interest Rate 2.54% Estimated Bond Rating S&P Market Value AA PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2016 15,484,296 Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 1,298,998 Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: Payable - 2016 Without Proposed Bonds 56.668% Payable - 2016 With Proposed Bonds 65.057% Estimated Tax Rate Increase 8.389% TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Proposed Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Annual Tax Increase* Monthly Tax Increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 60.20 $ 5.02 150,000 23,740 126,260 105.92 8.83 Residential 196,000 19,600 176,400 147.98 12.33 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 243.08 20.26 400,000 1,240 398,760 334.52 27.88 $ 100,000 $ $ 100,000 $ 83.77 $ 6.98 200,000 200,000 181.49 15.12 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 300,000 293.18 24.43 400,000 400,000 404.87 33.74 500,000 500,000 516.55 43.05 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,074.99 89.58 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. Prepared by Ehlers EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE New Hope, Minnesota $8,935,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2019 Assumes Current Market BQ AA Rates plus 100bps Sources & Uses Dated 05/01/2019 1 Delivered 05/01/2019 Sources Of Funds Par Amount ofBondc ;;,() s {I/10.0(1 Total Sources Uses Of Funds $8,935,000.00 Total Undcmrilcr's Discount (0.9000%) $0,415.00 Costs of Issuance 65,000,00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 1$6,046.98 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 8,600,000.00 Rounding Amount 3,538.12 Total Uses $8,935,000.00 Series 2019 GO Bonds I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/18/2016 1 9:12 AM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Debt Issuance Services City of New Hope, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019 - Pool Improvements $8.6M Project Costs October 18, 2016 BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION Bond Issue Amount $8,930,000 Number of Years 20 Average Interest Rate 3.09% Estimated Bond Rating S&P Market Value AA PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2016 15,484,296 Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 655,945 Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: Payable - 2016 Without Proposed Bonds 56.668% Payable - 2016 With Proposed Bonds 60.904% Estimated Tax Rate Increase 4.236% TAX IMPX7 ANALYSIS Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Proposed Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Annual Tax Increase* Monthly Tax Increase" $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 30.40 $ 2.53 150,000 23,740 126,260 53.49 4.46 Residential 196,000 19,600 176,400 74.73 6.23 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 122.75 10.23 400,000 1,240 398,760 168.92 14.08 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 42.30 $ 3.52 200,000 200,000 91.65 7.64 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 300,000 148.04 12.34 400,000 400,000 204.44 17.04 500,000 500,000 260.84 21.74 1.000,000 1,000,000 542.83 45.24 The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. Prepared by Ehlers J+:Ar r EHLERS_ LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 17-09 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR NEW POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, as a part of the design and construction of the new Police Station and City Hall which will replace the existing City facilities ("City Hall Project'), Wold Architects and Engineers, the architect being considered by the City for the City Hall Project, has submitted a proposed Contract Agreement for the comprehensive engineering, design and consultant services ("Services") with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which will be provided by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. at the City's direction; WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to formally select Wald Architects and Engineers as the architect for the City Hall Project and to enter into a contract with Wold Architects and Engineers for the purpose of performing the Services; and WHEREAS, City staff is hereby seeking approval from the City of the selection of Wold Architects and Engineers as the duly qualified contractor to perform the Services and approval of the proposed contract which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Contract"); WHEREAS, City staff and City Attorney have reviewed the proposed Contract and are agreeable with the terms, believing them to be in the best interest of the City to accept the proposal from Wold Architects and Engineers to handle the Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the Contract attached as Exhibit A, it being in the best interest of the City to engage the Services of Wold Architects and Engineers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Wold Architects and Engineers is hereby selected as the architect for the City Hall Project. 3. That the Contract with Wold Architects and Engineers, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney of the final language and exhibits and final negotiation regarding the terms. 4. The Mayor, City Manager and New Hope City staff are authorized and directed to sign the Contract and all other appropriate documents, and to take whatever additional actions are necessary or desirable, to complete the Contract and engage the services of Wold Architects and Engineers. Dated the 9th day of January, 2017. 'Z Kathi He en, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, ity Clerk P.\Attomcy\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-11412 City Hall Construction\Resolution approving contract with Wold Architects and Enginccrs.docx p- 1-211-'AIA tom :r -2 w. Document B101 TM —2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect AGREEMENT made as of the day of in the year (In Ivor res, indicale day, month and }near.) BETWEEN the Architect's client identified as the Owner: (Name, legal status, address and other information) City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 and the Architect: (Name, legal status, address and other information) Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone Number: 651-227-7773 Fax Number: 651-223-5646 for the following Project: (Name, location and detailed description) Basic Contract Agreement for current and future projects agreed upon in writing by both parties. The Owner and Architect agree as follows. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: The author of this document has added information needed for its completion. The author may also have revised the text of the original AIA standard form. An Additions and Deletions Report that notes added information as well as revisions to the standard form text is available from the author and should be reviewed. A vertical line in the left margin of this document indicates where the author has added necessary information and where the author has added to or deleted from the original AIA text. This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. Init. AIA Document 61012" — 2007 (formerly B15111 —1997). Copyrigh[Q 1974. 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects, All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties, Unauthorized reproduction or dlsWbuti0n of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the taw, This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 0110512017 under Order NO -3604317011 1 which expires on 0 111 X2017, and is not for resole,. User Notes: (1146435425) TABLE OF ARTICLES 1 INITIAL INFORMATION 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 6 COST OF THE WORK 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11 COMPENSATION 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A INITIAL INFORMATION ARTICLE 1 INITIAL INFORMATION § 1.1 This Agreement is based on the Initial Information set forth in this Article 1 and in optional Exhibit A, Initial Information: (Complete Exhibit A, Initial Information, and incorporate it into the Agreement at Section 13.2, or state below Initial Information such as details of the Project's site and progrwm, Owner's contractors and consultants, Architect's consultants, Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, authorized representatives, anticipated procurement method, and other information relevant to the Project.) N/A § 1.2 The Owner's anticipated dates for commencement of construction and Substantial Completion of the Work are set forth below: .1 Commencement of construction date: To be determined .2 Substantial Completion date: To be determined § 1.3 The Owner and Architect may rely on the Initial Information. Both parties, however, recognize that such information may materially change and, in that event, the Owner and the Architect shall appropriately adjust the schedule, the Architect's services and the Architect's compensation. ARTICLE 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 2.1 The Architect shall provide the professional services as set forth in this Agreement. AIA Document B101 "" —2007 (formerly B151 T"' —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 2 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/1312017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 2.2 The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. § 2.3 The Architect shall identify a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. Joel Dunning § 2.4 Except with the Owner's knowledge and consent, the Architect shall not engage in any activity, or accept any employment, interest or contribution that would reasonably appear to compromise the Architect's professional judgment with respect to this Project. § 2.5 The Architect shall maintain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the requirements set forth below exceed the types and limits the Architect normally maintains, the Owner shall reimburse the Architect for any additional cost: (Idents types and limits of insurance coverage, and other insurance requirements applicable to the Agreement, if any) .1 General Liability $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate .2 Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence .3 Workers' Compensation Statutory .4 Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate 5. Umbrella Policy $4,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES § 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Article 3 and include usual and customary architectural design, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services, cost estimating, food service, theater, and acoustical, with consultants to be hired by Architect as services are required as part of Basic Services with the exception of the civil engineer and landscape architect who will contract directly with Owner... Services not set forth in this Article 3 are Additional Services. § 3.1.1 The Architect shall manage the Architect's services, consult with the Owner, research applicable design criteria, attend Project meetings, communicate with members of the Project team and report progress to the Owner. § 3.1.2 The Architect shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information furnished by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall provide prompt written notice to the Owner if the Architect becomes aware of any error, omission or inconsistency in such services or information. § 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Work as set forth in the Initial Information. The schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of Init. AIA document 8101"m — 2007 (formerly B151'10 —1897). Copyright ® 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AJAe Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 3 of this AIAW Document, or any portion of f, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 1r under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:38:39 on 01/0512017 under Order No.3604317011 1 which expires on 01/1312017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) the Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, if necessary as the Project proceeds until the commencement of construction. § 3.1.4 The Architect shall not be responsible for an Owner's directive or substitution made without the Architect's approval. § 3.1.5 The Architect shall, at appropriate times, contact the governmental authorities required to approve the Construction Documents and the entities providing utility services to the Project. In designing the Project, the Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements imposed by such governmental authorities and by such entities providing utility services. § 3.1.6 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES § 3.2.1 The Architect shall review the program and other information furnished by the Owner, and shall review laws; codes, and regulations applicable to the Architect's services. § 3.2.2 The Architect shall prepare a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, schedule, budget for the Cost of the Work, Project site, and the proposed procurement or delivery method and other Initial Information, each in terms of the other, to ascertain the requirements of the Project. The Architect shall notify the Owner of (1) any inconsistencies discovered in the information, and (2) other information or consulting services that may be reasonably needed for the Project. § 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design approaches .. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project. § 3.2.4 Based on the Project's requirements agreed upon with the Owner, the Architect shall prepare and present for the Owner's approval a preliminary design illustrating the scale and relationship of the Project components. § 3.2.5 Based on the Owner's approval of the preliminary design, the Architect shall prepare Schematic Design Documents for the Owner's approval. The Schematic Design Documents shall consist of drawings and other documents including a site plan, if appropriate, and preliminary building plans, sections and elevations; and may include some combination of study models, perspective sketches, or digital modeling. Preliminary selections of major building systems and construction materials shall be noted on the drawings or described in writing. § 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider, environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain other environmentally responsible design services under Article 4. § 3.2.5.2 The Architect shall consider the value of alternative materials, building systems and equipment, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design for the Project that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. § 3.2.6 The Architect shall submit to the Owner an estimate of the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with Section 6.3. § 3.2.7 The Architect shall submit the Schematic Design Documents to the Owner, and request the Owner's approval. AIA Document B101 TM —2007 (formerly B151 T" —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 4 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES § 3.3.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design Development Documents for the Owner's approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and such other elements as may be appropriate. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish in general their quality levels. § 3.3.2 The Architect shall update the estimate of the Cost of the Work § 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE SERVICES § 3.4,1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Design Development Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Construction Documents for the Owner's approval. The Construction Documents shall illustrate and describe the further development of the approved Design Development Documents and shall consist of Drawings and Specifications setting forth in detail the quality levels of materials and systems and other requirements for the construction of the Work. The Owner and Architect acknowledge that in order to construct the Work the Contractor will provide additional information, including Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other similar submittals, which the Architect shall review in accordance with Section 3.6.4. § 3.4.2 The Architect shall incorporate into the Construction Documents the design requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.4.3 During the development of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in the development and preparation of (1) bidding and procurement information that describes the time, place and conditions of bidding, including bidding or proposal forms; (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions). The Architect shall also compile a project manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction and Specifications and may include bidding requirements and sample forms. § 3.4.4 The Architect shall update the estimate for the Cost of the Work. § 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action required under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval. The Architect shall after consultation with the Owner be primarily responsible for the preparation of the necessary bidding information and bidding forms. The Architect shall also assist the Owner in the preparation of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, and form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor. All bidding documents and contractual agreements shall be in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota's public bidding and contracting law as those laws apply to public entities. § 3.4.6 The Architect shall work with the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. The Architect shall have the primary responsibility to complete the required documents and ensure that they are properly filed on behalf of the Owner. The Architect shall observe those applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations in force and publically announced as of the date of this Agreement or as of the date of subsequent compensation amendments whichever is the latter. § 3,4.7 Owner understands that guidelines are available with respect to compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Architect is aware of developments in this field, including ADA guidelines that are incorporated in the building code, and legal decisions, but cannot guarantee or warrant that Architect's opinion of appropriate compliance measures will be found valid. Init. AIA Document 8101w — 2007 (formerly 9151w —1997). Copyright (D 1974,19M 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA' Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAe Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 5 / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:5$:39 on 01105/2017 Under Order No.3604317011 1 which expires on 01/1312017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE SERVICES § 3.5.1 GENERAL The Architect shall assist the Owner in establishing a list of prospective contractors. Following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in (1) obtaining either competitive bids or negotiated proposals; (2) confirming responsiveness of bids or proposals; (3) determining the successful bid or proposal, if any, and, (4) awarding and preparing contracts for construction. § 3.5.2 COMPETITIVE BIDDING § 3.5.2.1 Bidding Documents shall consist of bidding requirements and proposed Contract Documents. § 3.5.2.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in bidding the Project by .1 procuring the reproduction of Bidding Documents for distribution to prospective bidders; .2 distributing the Bidding Documents to prospective bidders, requesting their return upon completion of the bidding process. and maintaining a log of distribution and retrieval and of the amounts of deposits, if any, received from and returned to prospective bidders; .3 organizing and conducting a pre-bid conference for prospective bidders, if requested by Owner; .4 preparing responses to questions from prospective bidders and providing clarifications and interpretations of the Bidding Documents to all prospective bidders in the form of addenda; and .5 organizing and conducting the opening of the bids, and subsequently documenting and distributing the bidding results, as directed by the Owner. § 3.5.2.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Bidding Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective bidders. § 3.5.3 NEGOTIATED PROPOSALS § 3.5.3.1 Proposal Documents shall consist of proposal requirements and proposed Contract Documents. § 3.5.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in obtaining proposals by .1 procuring the reproduction of Proposal Documents for distribution to prospective contractors, and requesting their return upon completion of the negotiation process; .2 organizing and participating in selection interviews with prospective contractors; and .3 participating in negotiations with prospective contractors, and subsequently preparing a summary report of the negotiation results, as directed by the Owner. § 3.5.3.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Proposal Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective contractors. § 3.5,3.4 In the event the lowest bid (or bids) exceeds the budget for the Project, the Architect, in consultation with and at the direction of the Owner, shall provide such modifications in the Contract Documents as necessary to bring the cost of the Project within the budget, unless Owner directs the Architect to bid a project estimated over budget. § 3.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES § 3.6.1 GENERAL § 3.6.1.1 The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set fortis below and in AIA Document A20ITM 2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. If the Owner and Contractor modify AIA Document A201-2007, those modifications shall not affect the Architect's services under this Agreement unless the Owner and the Architect amend this Agreement. § 3.6.1.2 The Architect shall advise and consult with the Owner during the Construction Phase Services. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in this Agreement. The Architect shall not have control over, charge of, or responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, nor shall the Architect be responsible for the Contractor's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall be responsible for the Architect's negligent acts or omissions, but shall not have control over or charge of, and shall not be responsible for, acts or omissions of the Contractor or of any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Archltects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 6 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.6.'1.3 Subject to Section 4.3, the Architect's responsibility to provide Construction phase Services commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates at the end of the one year contractor's construction warranty period. § 3.6.2 EVALUATIONS OF THE WORK § 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. Architect shall make regular on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work as it deems necessary in its professional opinion. On the basis of the regular site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (1) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. § 3.6.2.2 The Architect has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or advisable, the Architect shall have the authority to require inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the Architect nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. § 3,6.2.31he Architect shall interpret and decide matters concerning performance under, and requirements of, the Contract Documents on written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness. § 3.6.2.4 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and decisions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions rendered in good faith. "Che Architect's decisions on matters relating to aesthetic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent expressed in the Contract Documents. § 3.6.2.5 Unless the Owner and Contractor designate another person to serve as an Initial Decision Maker, as that terra is defined in AIA Document A201-2007, the Architect shall render initial decisions on Claims between the Owner and Contractor as provided in the Contract Documents. § 3.6.3 CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR § 3.6.3.1 the Architect shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall issue certificates in such amounts. The Architect's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Owner, based on the Architect's evaluation of the Work as provided in Section 3.6.2 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that, to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief, the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3) to correction of minor deviations from the Contract Documents prior to completion, and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Architect. (Paragraph deleted) § 3.6.3.2 The issuance of Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how orfor what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum.. Init. AIA Document 113104- —2007 (formerly 8151- —1987). Copyright@ 1974. 1976, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAP Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA'a Document, or any portlon of It, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 7 t under the law. This document was ,produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 0110512017 under Ordw No.3604317011 not for resale. 1 which expires on 011131201 7. and Is User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.6.3.3 The Architect shall maintain a record of the Applications and Certificates for Payment. § 3.6.4 SUBMITTALS § 3.6.4.1 The Architect shall review the Contractor's submittal schedule and shall not unreasonably delay or withhold approval. The Architect's action in reviewing submittals shall be taken in accordance with the approved submittal schedule or, in the absence of an approved submittal schedule, with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to permit adequate review. § 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Architect -approved submittal schedule, the Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component.t. § 3.6.4.3 If the Contract Documents specifically require the Contractor to provide professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment, the Architect shall specify the appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. The Architect shall review Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor that bear such professional's seal and signature when submitted to the Architect. The Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications and approvals performed or provided by such design professionals. § 3.6.4.4 Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall review and respond to requests for information about the Contract Documents. The Architect shall set forth in the Contract Documents the requirements for requests for information. Requests for information shall include, at a minimum, a detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature of the clarification requested. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon, or otherwise with reasonable promptness. If appropriate, the Architect shall prepare and issue supplemental Drawings and Specifications in response to requests for information. § 3.6.4.5 The Architect shall maintain a record of submittals and copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5 CHANGES IN THE WORK § 3.6.5.1 The Architect may authorize minor changes in the Work that are consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents and do not involve an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5.2 The Architect shall maintain records relative to changes in the Work. § 3.6.6 PROJECT COMPLETION § 3.6.6.1 The Architect shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion; issue Certificates of Substantial Completion; receive from the Contractor and forward to the Owner, for the Owner's review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and issue a final Certificate for Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.6.2 The Architect's inspections shall be conducted with the Owner to check conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. AIA Document B101 T"' — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 8 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of It, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible f under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.6.6.3 When the Work is found to be substantially complete, the Architect shall inform the Owner about the balance of the Contract Sum remaining to be paid the Contractor, including the amount to be retained from the Contract Sum, if any, for final completion or correction of the Work. § 3.6,6.4 The Architect shall forward to the Owner the following information received from the Contractor: (1) consent of surety or sureties, if any, to reduction in or partial release Of retainage or the making of final payment; (2) affidavits, receipts, releases and waivers of liens or bonds indemnifying the Owner against liens; and (3) any other documentation required of the Contractor under the Contract Documents. § 3.6,6.5 Upon request of the Owner, and prior to the expiration of one year from the date of Substantial Completion, the Architect shall, without additional compensation, conduct a meeting with the Owner to review the facility operations and performance. ARTICLE 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES § 4.1 Additional Services listed below are not included in Basic Services but may be required for the Project. The Architect shall provide the listed Additional Services only if specifically designated in the table below as the Architect's responsibility, and the Owner shall compensate the Architect as provided in Section 11.2. (Designate the Additional Services the Architect shall provide in the second column of the table below. In the third column indicate whether the service description is located in Section 4.2 or in an attached exhibit. If in an exhibit, idents the exhibit.) Additional Services Responsibility (Architect, Owner or Not Provided) 4.1.1 Pro ammin _ Basic Services 4.1.2 Multiple Preliminary designs N/P 4.1.3 Measured drawings Owner 4.1.4 Existing facilities surveys Owner 4.1.5 Site Evaluation and Planning B203Tm-2007 Basic Services 4.1.6 Buildin information modeling N/P 4,1.7 Civil engineering Owner 4.1.8 landscape design Owner 4.1.9 Architectural Interior Desi 252TM 2007 Basic Services 4.1.10 Value Analysis 204Tm-2007 NIP 4.1.11 Detailed cost estimating Basic Services 4.1.12 On-site prqiect representation MIP 4.1.13 Conformed construction documents N/P 4.1.14 As -Designed Record drawings N/P 4.1.15 As -Constructed Record drawings NIP 4.1,16 Post Occupancy evaluation N/P 4.1.17 Facili Su art Services B210TK-200 N/P 4.1.18 Tenant -related services N/P 4.1.19 Coordination of Owner's consultants Basic Services 4.1.20 Telecommunications/data design Basic Services § 4.1.21 Security Evaluation and Planning Nil) 206TM-2007 4.1.22 Commiss onin 211TM-2407 NIP 4.1.23 Extensive environmentally responsible desi 1 N/P 4.1.24 LEEDw Certification 13214Tm-2007 N/P 4.1.25 Fast-track desi services N/P 4.1.26 Historic Preservation B20STm2007 NIP § 4.1.27 Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Design Basic Services Location of Service Description (Section 4.2 below or in an exhibit attached to this document and Init. AIA Document B1011 —2007 (formerly B151 — 1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING. This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 9 / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011 not for resale. _1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and Is User Notes: (1146435425) § 4.2 Insert a description of each Additional Service designated in Section 4.1 as the Architect's responsibility, if not further described in an exhibit attached to this document. § 4.3 Additional Services maybe provided after execution of this Agreement, without invalidating the Agreement. Except for services required due to the fault of the Architect, any Additional Services provided in accordance with this Section 4.3 shall entitle the Architect to compensation pursuant to Section 11.3 and an appropriate adjustment in the Architect's schedule. § 4.3.1 Upon recognizing the need to perform the following Additional Services, the Architect shall notify the Owner with reasonable promptness and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. The Architect shall not proceed to provide the following services until the Architect receives the Owner's written authorization: .1 Services necessitated by a change in the Initial Information, previous instructions or approvals given by the Owner, or a material change in the Project including, but not limited to, size, quality, complexity, the Owner's schedule or budget for Cost of the Work, or procurement or delivery method; .2 Services necessitated by the Owner's request for extensive environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as unique system designs, in-depth material research, energy modeling, or LEEDO certification; .3 Changing or editing previously prepared Instruments of Service necessitated by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations or official interpretations; .4 Services necessitated by decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner or any other failure of performance on the part of the Owner or the Owner's consultants or contractors; .5 Preparing digital data for transmission to the Owner's consultants and contractors, or to other Owner authorized recipients; .6 Preparation of design and documentation for alternate bid or proposal requests proposed by the Owner; .8 Preparation for, and attendance at a dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except where the Architect is party thereto; .9 Evaluation of the qualifications of bidders or persons providing proposals; .10 Consultation concerning replacement of Work resulting from fire or other cause during construction; or .11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect. .12 Additional Services shall specifically include Services and Reimbursable regarding Architect responses or actions related to requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"). Owner's obligation to pay Architect for Additional Services regarding the MGDPA shall survive the termination or completion of Services under this Agreement § 4.3.2 To avoid delay in the Construction Phase, the Architect shall provide the following Additional Services, notify the Owner with reasonable promptness, and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. If the Owner subsequently determines that all or parts of those services are not required, the Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Architect, and the Owner shall have no further obligation to compensate the Architect for those services: .1 Reviewing a Contractor's submittal out of sequence from the submittal schedule agreed to by the Architect; .2 Responding to the Contractor's requests for information that are not prepared in accordance with the Contract Documents or where such information is available to the Contractor from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner -provided information, Contractor -prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation; .3 Preparing Change Orders and Construction Change Directives that require evaluation of Contractor's proposals and supporting data, or the preparation or revision of Instruments of Service; .4 Evaluating an extensive number of Claims as the Initial Decision Maker; .5 Evaluating substitutions proposed by the Owner or Contractor and making subsequent revisions to Instruments of Service resulting therefrom; or AIA Document 8101'"' — 2007 (formerly 0161 "" --1997). Gopyrlght @ 1974, 1978„ 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIAo Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 10 of this AIAb Document, or any portion of It, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13.58:39 on 01105!2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 0111312017, and Is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) .6 To the extent the Architect's Basic Services are affected, providing Construction phase Services 60 days after (1) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or (2) the anticipated date of Substantial Completion identified in Initial information, whichever is earlier. (Paragraphs deleted) § +4.3.4 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within sixty ( 60 ) months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as Additional Services. ARTICLE 5 owNER'S RESpONSIBICITIES § 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project, including a written program which shah set forth the Owner's objectives, schedule, constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships, flexibility, expandability, special equipment, systems and site requirements. Within 15 days after receipt of a written request furnish the requester) information as necessary and relevant for the Architect to from the Architect, the Owner shall evaluate, give notice of or enforce lien rights. § 5.2 The Owner shall establish and periodically update the Owner's budget for the Project, including (l) the budget for the Cost of the Work as defined in Section 6.1; (2) the Owner's other costs; and, (3) reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. if the Owner significantly increases or decreases the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Owner shall notify the Architect. The Owner and the Architect shall thereafter agree to a corresponding change in the Project's scope and quality. § 5.3 The Owner shall identify a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Prgject. The Owner shall render decisions and approve the Architect's submittals in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services. § 5.4 The Owner shall furnish surveys to describe physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; designated wetlands; adjacent drainage; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and. contours of the site; locations, dimensions and necessary data with respect to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the information on the survey shall be referenced to a Project benchmark. § 5.5 The Owner shall furnish services of geotechnical engineers, which may include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, seismic evaluation, ground corrosion tests and resistivity tests, including necessary operations for anticipating subsoil conditions, with written reports and appropriate recommendations. § 5.6 Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants maintain professional liability insurance as appropriate to the services provided. § 5.7 The Owner shall furnish tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents, such as structural, mechanical, and chemical tests, tests for air and water pollution, and tests for hazardous materials. § 5.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, insurance and accounting services, including auditing services, that may be reasonably necessary at any time for the Project to meet the Owner's needs and interests. § 5.9 The Owner shall provide prompt written notice to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project, including errors, omissions or inconsistencies in the Architect's Instruments of Service. Init. AIA Document 81011— 2007 (formerly B1511 —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1976, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 11 / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011 1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and Is not for resale. _ User Notes: (1146435425) § 5.10 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, or when direct communications have been specially authorized, the Owner shall endeavor to communicate with the Contractor and the Architect's consultants through the Architect about matters arising out of or relating to the Contract Documents. The Owner shall promptly notify the Architect of any direct communications that may affect the Architect's services. § 5.11 Before executing the Contract for Construction, the Owner shall coordinate the Architect's duties and responsibilities set forth in the Contract for Construction with the Architect's services set forth in this Agreement. The Owner shall provide the Architect a copy of the executed agreement between the Owner and Contractor, including the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. § 5.12 The Owner shall provide the Architect access to the Project site prior to commencement of the Work and shall obligate the Contractor to provide the Architect access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. ARTICLE 6 COST OF THE WORK § 6.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the Cost of the Work shall be the total cost to the Owner to construct all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Architect and shall include contractors' general conditions costs, overhead and profit. The Cost of the Work does not include the compensation of the Architect, the costs of the land, rights-of-way, financing, contingencies for changes in the Work or other costs that are the responsibility of the Owner. § 6.2 The Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work is provided in Initial Information, and may be adjusted throughout the Project as required under Sections 5.2, 6.4 and 6.5. Evaluations of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the preliminary estimate of the Cost of the Work and updated estimates of the Cost of the Work prepared by the Architect, represent the Architect's judgment as a design professional. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment; the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices; or competitive bidding, market or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work or from any estimate of the Cost of the Work or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Architect. § 6.3 In preparing estimates of the Cost of Work, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the program and scope of the Project; and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work. The Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work shall be based on current area, volume or similar conceptual estimating techniques. § 6.4 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, through no fault of the Architect, the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the applicable construction market. § 6,5 If at any time the Architect's estimate of the Cast of the Work exceeds the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall make appropriate recommendations to the Owner to adjust the Project's size, quality or budget for the Cost of the Work, and the Owner shall cooperate with the Architect in making such adjustments. § 6.6 If the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall .1 give written approval of an increase in the budget for the Cost of the Work; .2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project within a reasonable time; .3 terminate in accordance with Section 9.5; .4 in consultation with the Architect, revise the Project program, scope, or quality as required to reduce the Cost of the Work; or .5 implement any other mutually acceptable alternative. § 6.7 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Section 6.6.4, the Architect, without additional compensation, shall modify the Construction Documents as necessary to comply with the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services, or the budget as adjusted under Section 6.6.1. The AIA Document B101 Tm —2007 (formerly B1517m —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 12 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Architect's modification of the Construction Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's resjionsibility under this Article 6. ARTICLE 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES § 7.1 The Architect and the Owner warrant that in transmitting Instruments of Service, or any other information, the transmitting party is the copyright owner of such information or has permission from the copyright owner to transmit such information for its use on the Project. If the Owner and Architect intend to transmit Instruments of Service or any other information or documentation in digital form, they shall endeavor to establish necessary Protocols governing such transmissions. § 7.2 The Architect and the Architect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. Submission or distribution of Instruments of Service to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the reserved rights of the Architect and the Architect's consultants. § 7.3 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations, including prompt payment of all sums when due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect's consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub -subcontractors, and material or equipment suppliers, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for use in performing services or construction for the Project. If the Architect rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 9.4, the license granted in this Section 7.3 shall terminate. § 7.3.1 In the event the Owner uses the Instruments of Service without retaining the author of the Instruments of Service, the Owner releases the Architect and Architect's consultant(s) from all claims and causes of action arising from such uses. The Owner, to the extent permitted by law, further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Architect and its consultants from all costs and expenses, including the cost of defense, related to claims and causes of action asserted by any third person or entity to the extent such costs and expenses arise from the Owner's use of the Instruments of Service under this Section 7.3.1. The terms of this Section 7.3.1 shall not apply if the Owner rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause under Section 9.4. § 7.4 Except for the licenses granted in this Article 7, no other license or right shall be deemed granted or implied under this Agreement. The Owner shall not assign, delegate, sublicense, pledge or otherwise transfer any license granted herein to another party without the prior written agreement of the Architect. Any unauthorized use of the Instruments of Service shall be at the Owner's sole risk and without liability to the Architect and the Architect's consultants. ARTICLE 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 8.1 GENERAL § 8.1.1 The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, against the other arising out of or related to this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the method of binding dispute resolution selected in this Agreement within the period specified by applicable law, but in any case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Owner and Architect waive all claims and causes of action not commenced in accordance with this Section 8.1.1. § 8,1.2 To the extent damages are covered by property insurance, the Owner and Architect waive all rights against each other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of the other for damages, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance as set forth in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the. Contract for Construction. The Owner or the Architect, as appropriate, shall require of the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of any of them similar waivers in favor of the other parties enumerated herein. Init. AIA Document 6104 Ta —2007 (formerly 8154 rm —1987). Copyright 0 1974. 1978, 1987, 1957 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AlAaa Qocument is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and international Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAe Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 13 { under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 011[}5!2017 under order No.3604317011 not for resale. 1 which expires on 01!1312017, and is User Notes: (1146435425) § 8.1.3 The Architect and Owner waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of orrelating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party's termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in Section 9.7. § 8.2 MEDIATION § 8.2.1 Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. § 8.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of the Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of a complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. § 8.2.3 The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. The mediation shall be held in the place where the Project is located, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof. § 8.2.4 If the parties do not resolve a dispute through mediation pursuant to this Section 8.2, the method of binding dispute resolution shall be the following: (Check the appropriate box. If the Owner and Architect do not select a method of binding dispute resolution below, or do not subsequently agree in writing to a binding dispute resolution method other than litigation, the dispute will be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.) [ X ] Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction ] Other (Specify) (Paragraphs deleted) § 8.3.4 CONSOLIDATION OR JOINDER 8.3.4.1 No mediation or legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include, by consolidation or joinder or in any other manner, an additional person or entity not a party to this Agreement, except by written consent containing a specific reference to this Agreement and signed by the Owner, Architect, and any other person or entity sought to be joined. Consent to mediation or legal action involving an additional person or entity shall not constitute consent to mediation or legal action of any claim, dispute or other matter in question not described in the written consent or with a person or entity not named or described therein. The foregoing agreement to mediate and other agreements to mediate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. (Paragraphs deleted) ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION § 9.1 If the Owner fails to make payments to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination or, at the Architect's option, cause for suspension of performance of services under this Agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend services, the Architect shall give seven days' written notice to the Owner before suspending services. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of services. Before resuming services, the Architect shall be paid all sums due prior to suspension and any expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. AIA Document B101 TM —2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA6 Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 14 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. (1146435425) User Notes: § 9,2 If the Owner suspends the Project, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect shall be compensated for expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. § 9.3 if the Owner suspends the Project for more than 90 cumulative days for reasons other than the fault of the Architect, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than severs days' written notice. § 9.4 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner upon seven (7) days written notice to Architect in its sole discretion. The Architect may terminate this Agreement only in the event of substantial non-performance by the Owner. In the event the Architect proposes to terminate this Agreement, the Architect shall notify the Owner in writing stating with specificity the alleged non-performance and further stating that the proposed termination shall be effective if the non-performance remains uncorrected for a period not less than 15 days following said notice. § 9,5 The Owner may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice to the Architect for the Owner's convenience and without cause. § 9.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due. (Paragraph deleted) § 9.8 The Owner's rights to use the Architect's Instruments of Service in the event of a termination of this Agreement are set forth in Article 7 and Section 11.9. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIoms § 10..1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located, except that if the parties have selected arbitration as the method of binding dispute resolution, the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern Section 8.3. § 10.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. § 10.3 The Owner and. Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns and legal representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except that the Owner may assign this Agreement to a lender providing financing for the Project if the tender agrees to assume the Owner's rights and obligations under this Agreement. § 10.4 If the Owner requests the Architect to execute certificates, the proposed language of such certificates shall be submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to the requested dates of execution. If Owner requests the Architect to execute consents reasonably required to facilitate assignment to a lender, the Architect shall execute all such consents that are consistent with this Agreement, provided the proposed consent is submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to execution. The Architect shall not be required to execute certificates or consents that would require knowledge, services or responsibilities beyond the scope of this Agreement. § 10.5 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Architect. § 10.8 Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure ofpersons to, hazardous materials or toxic substances in any form at the Project site. § 10.7 The Architect shall have the right to include photographic or artistic representations of the design of the Project among the Architect's promotional and professional materials. The Architect shall be given reasonable access to the completed Project to make such representations. However, the Architect's materials shall not include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of Init. AIA Document 6101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 T°' —1997). Copyright G 1974, 1978, 4 987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. Ali rights reserved, WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Caw and Intemational Trestles. Unauthorlxed reproduction or distribution of this AIAei Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 15 under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:5$39 on 0110512017 under Order No.3604317011 1 which exp#res on 01l43t2017, and is not for resale. — User Notes: (1146435425) the specific information considered by the Owner to be confidential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Architect in the Owner's promotional materials for the Project. (Paragraph deleted) § 10.9 Owner irrevocably assigns to Architects all rights to claim Section 179D federal tax credits under Energy Policy Act of 2005 as amplified and clarified in IRS Notice 2008-40. Owner shall cooperate with Architect to establish Architect's eligibility for these federal tax credits. Architect shall be responsible for the costs of the independent third party energy study and certification. ARTICLE 11 COMPENSATION § 11.1 For the Architect's Basic Services described under Article 3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of or basis for, compensation) A. As delineated in the attached Exhibit A: Proposal Letter, dated December 14, 2016 B. Format for Fixed Fees Assigned to Specific Future Projects: *New Building: 6% x Construction Cost Estimate *Simple Additions: 7% x Construction Cost Estimate *Additions with Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate *Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate * "Gut" Job Renovations: 8.5% x Construction Cost Estimate C. Furnish and Equipment Services (if requested) Fixed Fee Based on 6% of the Furnishings Cost Documented by Architect § 11.2 For Additional Services designated in Section 4. 1, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of, or basis for, compensation. If necessary, list speck services to which particular methods of compensation apply) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.3 For Additional Services that may arise during the course of the Project, including those under Section 4.3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of, or basis for, compensation.) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.4 Compensation for Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in Section 11.2 or 11.3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect times 1.25. § 11.5 Where compensation for Basic Services is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of the Cost of the Work, the compensation for each phase of services shall be as follows: Schematic Design Phase fifteen percent { 15 %) Design Development Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Construction Documents forty percent ( 40 %) Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase five percent ( 5 %) Construction Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Total Basic Compensation one hundred percent ( 100 %) AIA Document 8101 TM —2007 (formerly 13151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 16 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 11.6 When compensation is based on a percentage of the Cost of the Work and any portions of the Project are deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for those portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are performed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 11.5 based on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent estimate of the Cost of the Work for such portions of the Project. The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not the Construction Phase is commenced. § 11.7 The hourly billing rates for services of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, if any, are set forth below. The rates shall be adjusted in accordance with the Architect's and Architect's consultants' normal review practices. (If applicable, attach an exhibit of hourly billing rates or insert them below.) Employee or Category Rate § 11.8 COMPENSATION FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES § 11.8.1 reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows:. .1 mileage based on Federal rates in connection with the project and Owner requested out-of-state travel; ,2 Dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Protect Web sites, and extranets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project, including government agency review and permit fees; .4 Printing, reproductions, plots, standard form documents; .5 Postage, handling and delivery; (Paragraphs deleted) .8 Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants; •9 All taxes leviers on professional services and on reimbursable expenses; .10 Site office expenses; and .11 Other similar Project -related expenditures. •12 Expense of computer aided design and drafting equipment time when used in connection with the Project. § 11.8.2 For Reimbursable Expenses, the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants and be billed at actual cost to Architect plus zero percent ( 0 %) of the expenses incurred. § 11.9 COMPENSATION FOR USE OF ARCHITECT'S INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE If the Owner terminates the Architect for its convenience under Section 9.5, or the Architect terminates this Agreement under Section 9.3, the Owner shall pay a licensing fee as compensation for the Owner's continued use of the Architect's Instruments of Service solely for purposes of completing, using and maintaining the Project as follows: § 11.10 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT § 11.10.1 An initial payment of zero ($ 0.00 ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice. § 11.10.2 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid sixty Init. AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 formerly B161 TM —1997). Copyright 0 1974, 1978, 1887, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING; This AIAO Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAP Documerrt, or any portion of It, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 17 t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 0 110 512 01 7 under Order No.3604317011_i which expires on 01/1 X2017. and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) 60 ) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Insert rate of monthly or annual interest agreed upon) Local rate of interest as set by Minnesota Statute Section 549.09. § 11.10.3 The Owner shall not withhold amounts from the Architect's compensation to impose a penalty or liquidated damages on the Architect, or to offset sums requested by or paid to contractors for the cost of changes in the Work unless the Architect agrees or has been found liable for the amounts in a binding dispute resolution proceeding. § 11.10.4 Records of Reimbursable Expenses, expenses pertaining to Additional Services, and services performed on the basis of hourly rates shall be available to the Owner at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows: ARTICLE 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT § 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreemen{s, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. § 13.2 This Agreement is comprised of the following documents listed below: .1 AIA Document B101TM-2007, Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Architect .2 AIA Document E201Tm-2007, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit, if completed, or the following: .3 Other documents: (List other documents, if any, including Exhibit A, Initial Information, and additional scopes of service, if any, forming part of the Agreement.) This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER (Signature) Kirk McDonald City Manager, City of New Hope (Printed name and title) ARCHITECT (Signature) Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED AP Partner (Printed name and title) AIA Document B101 Tm —2007 (formerly 8161 w —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 18 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of It, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Additions and Deletions Report for fir AJAc" Document B101r17— 2007 This Addltions and Deletions Report, as defined on page 1 of the associated document, reproduces below all text the author has added to the standard form AIA document in order to complete it, as well as any text the author may have added to or deleted from the original AfA text. Added text is shown underlined. Deleted text is indicated with a horizontal line through the original AiA text. Note: This Additions and Deletions Report is provided for information purposes only and is not incorporated into or constitute any part of the associated AIA document. This Additions and Deletions Report and its associated document were generated simultaneously by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017. Cily of New Hou 4401 XVlon Avenue Nord, New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street Suite W2000 Saint Paul. Minnesota 55101 "Telephone Number: 651-227-_7773 Fax Nurnber. 051-223-5646 Basic Contract Attireement fol' current and futu�cts agreed upon in uTtting by both l)arties, PAGE 2 N/A PAGE 3 TO be deterinined To be determined § 2.3 The Architect shall identify a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. Joel Dustnule 1.000.000 per clain11S2 000,000 agate $1,000,0001 er occurrence Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 8101' 2007 (formerly 91617- —1997). Copyright 071974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA, Document is protected by U.S, Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAc Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and crimtnai penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 0110512017 under Order No_3604317011_1 which explres on 0111312017. and Is not for resale, User Notes: (1146435425) Statutory .4 Professional Liability $1,000,000 er claiiiii "2 000 000 aggegate 5. Umbrella Policy $4.000,000 per occurrence and agg„eRate § 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Article 3 and include usual and customary StMetWOI, eBh ' 0d 01e9t i8ft' �g:-9—.architectural desi , structural, mechanical, and electrical -- en ineerin services cost estimating,food service theater and acoustical with consultants to be hired by, Architect as services are r aired as part of Basic Services with the exception of the civil engineer and landscape architect who will contract directly with Owner... Services not set forth in this Article 3 are Additional Services. § 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Work as set forth in the Initial Information. The schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of the Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, if neeessal"y, necessary as the Project proceeds until the commencement of construction. PAGE 4 § 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design a eadies:-a ro7�aches . The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project. § 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall eansider consider. environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain other environmentally responsible design services under Article 4. PAGE 5 § 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development Deetimentsdocuments to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action required under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval. The Architect shall after consultation with the Owner be primarily responsible for the preparation of the necessM bidding information and bidding forms. The Architect shall also assist the Owner inthe preparation -of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction and form of a . e.ement between the Owner and Contractor. All Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 81011 —2007 (formerly 13151 TM' —1997). Copyright 01974. 1976, 1987,1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright taw and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAo Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penattles, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This documentwas produced by AIA software at 13:5$:39 on 01105/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) bidding documents and contractual a cements shall be in conii2liance with the re uirements of Minnesota's ublic biddies and contractin law as those laws a l to ublic entities. 3.4.6 The Architect shall work with the Owner in connection with the Owner's sibilitv for film documents r aired for the a roval of overnmental authorities havin hvrierfiC on over the Pro ect. The Architect shall have the ima res onsibili to cam lete there aired documents and ensure that they are proverly filed on behalf of the Owner. The Architect shall observe those al2plicable laws statutes ordinances codes rules and rpaulations in farce and PublicallY announced as of the date of this A gement or as of the date of subs uent compensation amendments whichever is the latter 3.4.7 Owner understands that guidelines are available with res ect to coo Bance witb Americans with Disabilities Act ADA i. Architect is aware of devel ments in this field inpliielinLADAggidelines that are inco orated in the buildin code and le al decisions but cannot 99AMntee or warrant that Architect's o inion of appLoXriate compliance measures will be found valid. PAGE 6 .3 organizing and conducting a pre-bid conference for prospective bidders. if requested }�v Owner: 3.5.3.4 In the event the lowest bid or bids exceeds the bud et for the Project the Architect in consultation with and at the direction of the Owner shall 3rovide such modifications in the Contract Documents as necessM to bring the cost of the Pro•ect within the bud et unless Owner directs the Architect to bid a project estimated over bud et. PAGE 7 § 3.6.1.3 Subject to Section 4.3, the Architect's responsibility to provide Construction Phase Services commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates the date _- � . d1. A_et t s crnsrcaxr cac c-ras�-raae�rrr�+'GnFete mat the end of the ane ear contractor's construction warrenty period. § 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. be _equin d to M e* Architect shall make regular on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the War -k. Work as it deems necessary in its professional, opinion. On the basis of the regular site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (1) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. _ Methods, leahniques, , 3.6.3.2 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a re resentation that the Architect has 1 made exhaustive or continuous on site ins ections to check the ualii or Quantity of the Work 2 reviewed construction means methods technigges,sgquences or porocedures, (3)reviewed cMies of r uisitions received from Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B1011" — 2007 (formerly SIM` —1857). Copyright 0 1974, 1975, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The AmerIcan Institute rights WARNING: Document lt�iUnauthorizedreproduction or distribution o his ADocument, anporton of it, may result In severeCopyright and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA soUare at 13;58:39 on 0110512017 under order 3 No,3604317011_1 which expires on 0111312017. and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Subcontractors and material supl2liers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's rigbt to payment, or 4) ascertained how orfor what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum.. PAGE 8 § 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Architect -approved submittal schedule, the Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a oempaaea-component.t. PAGE 9 4.1.1 Programmin Basic Services 4.1.2 Multiple preliminary desi s N/P 4.1.3 Measured drawings Owner 4.1.4 Existing facilities surveys Owner 4.1.5 Site Evaluation and Planning (B203TM-2007) Basic Services § 4.1.6 Building In&Fm6en Medeling information modeling N/P 4.1.7 Civil engineering Owner 4.1.8 Landsca a design Owner 4.1.9 Architectural Interior Desi B252TM-2007 Basic Services 4.1.10 Value Analysis B204TM-2007) N/P 4.1.11 Detailed cost estimating Basic Services § 4.1.12 On-site FFejeel Represenfagea ro"ect re resentation N/P 4.1.13 Conformed construction documents _ N/P 4.1.14 As -Designed Record drawings N/P 4.1.15 As -Constructed Record drawings N/P 4.1.16 Post oc2upancy occupancyevaluation N/P 4.1.17 Facility Su ort Services B210TM-2007 N/P _ 4.1.18 Tenant -related services N/P 4.1.19 Coordination of Owner's consultants Basic Services 4.1.20 Telecommunications/data desip Basic Services § 4.1.21 Security Evaluation and Planning B206TM-2007 N/P 4.1.22 Commissioning B211TM-2007 N/P 4.1.23 Extensive environmentally responsible design N/P § 4.1.24 (B2141M LEEDS' Certification 20441) B214T"'-2007 N/P 4.1.25 Fast-track design services N/P _ 4.1.26 Historic Preservation B205TM-2007 N/P § 4.1.27 Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Design (B253TM-2007 Basic Services PAGE 10 Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 13101 TO —2007 (formerly 9141 TM —1987). Copyright tD 1974. 1978, 1987, 19$7 and 2047 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAv Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright. Law and International Treaties. 4 Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAP Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/0512017 under Order No.3$04317011_1 whichexpires on 0111312017, and Is not for resale. User Notes: (114$435425) .11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect. .12 Additional Services shall specifically include Services and Reimbursable r2garding regardingArchitect LeVonses or actions related to r nests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act "MGDPA." . Owner's obligation to inay Architect for Additional Services re ardin the MGDPA shall survive the termination or completing of Services under this A eement PAGE 11 ' item, Gentreetef BOY POMen of the WMc to detem.1— .4 iflapee4:eas do--* § 4.3.4 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within six 60 months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as Additional Services. § 5.6 Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies ofthe scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants maintain professional liability insurance as appropriate to the services provided. PAGE 12 § 6.3 In preparing estimates of the Cost of Work, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the program and scope of the Project; and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work. The Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work shall be based on current area, volume or similar conceptual estimating techniques. I4e-9 wfw PAGE 14 § 8.2.1 Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. b § 8.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of the Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of a complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B101 Tm — 2007 (formerly B1511 —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American and of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. if aft ar-bib:Miet� { }A4 [ X I Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction fi 8.3 ARBITRATION § 8.3.4 if die paFfies have seleeted ar-bitFatien as the Fnetbad fef binding dispute r-esahitiea in tWs A#Feemefft, my elaint, dispute or athef MaRef in question --*-'"--- -- —rer- related te this Agreement wdbjeet to, but net r-eselved b5,, . atim shall be made in , Agrvemea;dminister-ing the ? ith tAy . of a J "i4h the filing request final,atedia4ion, but in no eyeat -1-aH it be made aftef the date when the ins6tutien of legal or- equitable preeeedings based ftr-bitFafieft shall ee"s4itute the ilts6mien ef legal of eqftitable -Pr-eeeedings based So the -P-we of other matter- in queqtien. -.and judgraeat may - with applieeble law in any b Ji•isdietion - § 8.3.4.1 , - rvrry v,.�..v:. y... ,.........».... _».., ltiio mediation or regal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include, by consolidation or ioinder or in any other manner, an additional person or entity not a Varty to this Agreement~ except by written consent containing a specific reference to this A eemen# and sigLied by the Owner Architect and any other person or entity sought to be joined. Consent to mediation or legal action involyhi an additional person or enti shall not constitute consent to mediation or legal action of an claim dispute or other matter in question not described in the written consent or with a Person or entity not named or described therein_ The foregoing agreement to mediate and other ageements to mediate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by parties to this Agreement steal I be s ecificall enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof Additions and Deletions Report for ATA Document B101 TM —20D7 (formerly B161 T1" —1997). Copyright @ 1974, 1978, 1987,1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of ArOilects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAa Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution ofthis AIAe Document, or any portion of It, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the low. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01105/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and Is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) 111011, 1 loom R. Additions and Deletions Report for ATA Document B101 TM —20D7 (formerly B161 T1" —1997). Copyright @ 1974, 1978, 1987,1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of ArOilects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAa Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution ofthis AIAe Document, or any portion of It, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the low. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01105/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and Is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) PAGE 15 - -- -.- _--. -- -.- its sole discretion. The Architect ma . is A Bement ma be terminated b�tlze Own anon seven (7) days written notice to Architect in terminate this A eement 0,1111V in the event of substantial non-performance b the Owner. In the event the Architect RLoposes to terminate this A eement the Architect shall notify the Owner in writing stating with s ecifici v the alleged non-performance and further stat ig that the proposed termination shall be effective if the non- mance remains uncorrected fora ersod not less Phan 1 S days folIowin said notice. § 9.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses thenr9;n_;;;, ue. PAGE 16 MW M 0Z - 10.9 Owner irrevocabl assigns to Architects all rights to claim Section 179D federal tax credits under Ener Policv Act of 2005 as M lified and clarified in IRS Notice 2008-40. Owner shall co erste with Architect to establish Architect's els ib for these federal tax credits. Architect shall be res onsible for the costs of the independent third party energy study and certification. A. As delineated in the attached Exhibit A: PrnnAQ5,1 letter, dated December 14. 2016 B. Format for Fixed Fees Assigned to S ecific Future Proiects: *New Buildsng_, 6% x Construction Cost Estimate *Sim le Additions: 7% x Construction Cost Estimate *Additions with Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate *Remodelin : 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate * "Gut" ,lob Renovations: 8.5% x Construction Cost Estimate C. Furnish and E i meat Servicesif r ested Fixed Fee Based on 60/0 of the Fumit s Cost Documented b Architect 1_25 x (salary plus overhead) Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 13101 TM —2007 (formerly 8161 T" —1997), Copyright 01874.1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Insiltute of Architects. Ali rights reserved. WARNING: This AiAe Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAP Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be Prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIR software at 13:58:39 on 01/0512017 under order No.3604317011 1 which expires on 01/1312017. and Is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) 1.25 x (salnplus overhead § 11.4 Compensation for Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in Section 11.2 or 11. 3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect Alis pereent ( 4q, or as efhaFwise-stated beie.;;times 1.2.5. Schematic Design Phase fifteen percent ( 15 %) Design Development Phase twen percent ( 20 %) Construction Documents forty percent ( 40 %) Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase five percent ( 5 %) Construction Phase twen percent ( 20 %) PAGE 17 ,1, mileage based on Federal rates in connection with the project and Owner reguested out -of --state travel. .2 Long di-itaaee .,.a.sn e% de e+Qedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web sites, and extranets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the "eet;Pryiect. including government agency review and permit models,.1 Rmder-ings, meek ups, the Oymer.; fees ., ; .11 Other similar Project -related expenditures. .12 ) x ease of computer aided desigg and drafting equipment time when used in connection with the Project. § 11.8.2 For Reimbursable &tpeases-__xpenses. the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants and be billed at actual cyst to Architectlus zero percent ( 0 %) of the expenses incurred. § 11.10.1 An initial payment of zero ($ 0.00) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice. § 11.10.2 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid sixly 60 days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. PAGE 18 Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B101 TM —2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. 8 Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) We—Local rate d interest as set byMinnesota Statute Section 549.09. Kirk McDonaId Joel L. Dunning[„AIA, LEED AP City Manager- City of New I-Iane pa Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B101"— 2047 (formerly 8151r —1997). Copyright O 1974, 1878, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Inslltute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING; This MAG Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIM- Document, or any portion of It, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the lave. Thls document was produced by AIA software al 13:58:39 on 01!0512017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01113{2017, and Is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Certification of Document's Authenticity AIA® Document D401 TM — 2003 I, , hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, that I created the attached final document simultaneously with its associated Additions and Deletions Report and this certification at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No. 3604317011_1 from AIA Contract Documents software and that in preparing the attached final document I made no changes to the original text of AIA® Document B101TM — 2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, as published by the AIA in its software, other than those additions and deletions shown in the associated Additions and Deletions Report. (Signed) (Title) (Dated) AIA Document D401 TM — 2003. Copyright ©1992 and 2003 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01 /05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) TM .—.AIA ; Document B101 —2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect AGREEMENT made as of the day of in the year (In words, indicate day, month and year.) BETWEEN the Architect's client identified as the Owner: (Name, legal status, address and other information) City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 and the Architect: (Name, legal status, address and other information) Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone Number: 651-227-7773 Fax Number: 651-223-5646 for the following Project: (Name, location and detailed description) Basic Contract Agreement for current and future projects agreed upon in writing by both parties. The Owner and Architect agree as follows. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: The author of this document has added information needed for its completion. The author may also have revised the text of the original AIA standard form. An Additions and Deletions Report that notes added information as well as revisions to the standard form text is available from the author and should be reviewed. A vertical line in the left margin of this document indicates where the author has added necessary information and where the author has added to or deleted from the original AIA text. This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) TABLE OF ARTICLES 1 INITIAL INFORMATION 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 6 COST OF THE WORK 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11 COMPENSATION 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A INITIAL INFORMATION ARTICLE 1 INITIAL INFORMATION § 1.1 This Agreement is based on the Initial Information set forth in this Article 1 and in optional Exhibit A, Initial Information: (Complete Exhibit A, Initial Information, and incorporate it into the Agreement at Section 13.2, or state below Initial Information such as details of the Project's site and program, Owner's contractors and consultants, Architect's consultants, Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, authorized representatives, anticipated procurement method, and other information relevant to the Project.) N/A § 1.2 The Owner's anticipated dates for commencement of construction and Substantial Completion of the Work are set forth below: .1 Commencement of construction date: To be determined .2 Substantial Completion date: To be determined § 1.3 The Owner and Architect may rely on the Initial Information. Both parties, however, recognize that such information may materially change and, in that event, the Owner and the Architect shall appropriately adjust the schedule, the Architect's services and the Architect's compensation. ARTICLE 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 2.1 The Architect shall provide the professional services as set forth in this Agreement. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA? Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 2 of this AIA' Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 2.2 The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. § 2.3 The Architect shall identify a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. Joel Dunning § 2.4 Except with the Owner's knowledge and consent, the Architect shall not engage in any activity, or accept any employment, interest or contribution that would reasonably appear to compromise the Architect's professional judgment with respect to this Project. § 2.5 The Architect shall maintain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the requirements set forth below exceed the types and limits the Architect normally maintains, the Owner shall reimburse the Architect for any additional cost: (Identify types and limits of insurance coverage, and other insurance requirements applicable to the Agreement, if any.) .1 General Liability $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate .2 Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence .3 Workers' Compensation Statutory .4 Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate 5. Umbrella Policy $4,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES § 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Article 3 and include usual and customary architectural design, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services, cost estimating, food service, theater, and acoustical, with consultants to be hired by Architect as services are required as part of Basic Services with the exception of the civil engineer and landscape architect who will contract directly with Owner... Services not set forth in this Article 3 are Additional Services. § 3.1.1 The Architect shall manage the Architect's services, consult with the Owner, research applicable design criteria, attend Project meetings, communicate with members of the Project team and report progress to the Owner. § 3.1.2 The Architect shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information furnished by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall provide prompt written notice to the Owner if the Architect becomes aware of any error, omission or inconsistency in such services or information. § 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Work as set forth in the Initial Information. The schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of Init. AIA Document B10111 —2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) the Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, if necessary as the Project proceeds until the commencement of construction. § 3.1.4 The Architect shall not be responsible for an Owner's directive or substitution made without the Architect's approval. § 3.1.5 The Architect shall, at appropriate times, contact the governmental authorities required to approve the Construction Documents and the entities providing utility services to the Project. In designing the Project, the Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements imposed by such governmental authorities and by such entities providing utility services. § 3.1.6 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES § 3.2.1 The Architect shall review the program and other information furnished by the Owner, and shall review laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the Architect's services. § 3.2.2 The Architect shall prepare a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, schedule, budget for the Cost of the Work, Project site, and the proposed procurement or delivery method and other Initial Information, each in terms of the other, to ascertain the requirements of the Project. The Architect shall notify the Owner of (1) any inconsistencies discovered in the information, and (2) other information or consulting services that may be reasonably needed for the Project. § 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design approaches .. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project. § 3.2.4 Based on the Project's requirements agreed upon with the Owner, the Architect shall prepare and present for the Owner's approval a preliminary design illustrating the scale and relationship of the Project components. § 3.2.5 Based on the Owner's approval of the preliminary design, the Architect shall prepare Schematic Design Documents for the Owner's approval. The Schematic Design Documents shall consist of drawings and other documents including a site plan, if appropriate, and preliminary building plans, sections and elevations; and may include some combination of study models, perspective sketches, or digital modeling. Preliminary selections of major building systems and construction materials shall be noted on the drawings or described in writing. § 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider, environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain other environmentally responsible design services under Article 4. § 3.2.5.2 The Architect shall consider the value of alternative materials, building systems and equipment, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design for the Project that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. § 3.2.6 The Architect shall submit to the Owner an estimate of the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with Section 6.3. § 3.2.7 The Architect shall submit the Schematic Design Documents to the Owner, and request the Owner's approval. AIA Document 13101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIAD Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 4 of this AIA' Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 1 under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES § 3.3.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design Development Documents for the Owner's approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and such other elements as may be appropriate. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish in general their quality levels. § 3.3.2 The Architect shall update the estimate of the Cost of the Work. § 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE SERVICES § 3.4.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Design Development Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Construction Documents for the Owner's approval. The Construction Documents shall illustrate and describe the further development of the approved Design Development Documents and shall consist of Drawings and Specifications setting forth in detail the quality levels of materials and systems and other requirements for the construction of the Work. The Owner and Architect acknowledge that in order to construct the Work the Contractor will provide additional information, including Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other similar submittals, which the Architect shall review in accordance with Section 3.6.4. § 3.4.2 The Architect shall incorporate into the Construction Documents the design requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.4.3 During the development of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in the development and preparation of (1) bidding and procurement information that describes the time, place and conditions of bidding, including bidding or proposal forms; (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions). The Architect shall also compile a project manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction and Specifications and may include bidding requirements and sample forms. § 3.4.4 The Architect shall update the estimate for the Cost of the Work. § 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action required under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval. The Architect shall after consultation with the Owner be primarily responsible for the preparation of the necessary bidding information and bidding forms. The Architect shall also assist the Owner in the preparation of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, and form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor. All bidding documents and contractual agreements shall be in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota's public bidding and contracting law as those laws apply to public entities. § 3.4.6 The Architect shall work with the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. The Architect shall have the primary responsibility to complete the required documents and ensure that they are properly filed on behalf of the Owner. The Architect shall observe those applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations in force and publically announced as of the date of this Agreement or as of the date of subsequent compensation amendments whichever is the latter. § 3.4.7 Owner understands that guidelines are available with respect to compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Architect is aware of developments in this field, including ADA guidelines that are incorporated in the building code, and legal decisions, but cannot guarantee or warrant that Architect's opinion of appropriate compliance measures will be found valid. Init. AIA Document 131OJT' — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 5 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE SERVICES § 3.5.1 GENERAL The Architect shall assist the Owner in establishing a list of prospective contractors. Following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in (1) obtaining either competitive bids or negotiated proposals; (2) confirming responsiveness of bids or proposals; (3) determining the successful bid or proposal, if any; and, (4) awarding and preparing contracts for construction. § 3.5.2 COMPETITIVE BIDDING § 3.5.2.1 Bidding Documents shall consist of bidding requirements and proposed Contract Documents. § 3.5.2.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in bidding the Project by .1 procuring the reproduction of Bidding Documents for distribution to prospective bidders; .2 distributing the Bidding Documents to prospective bidders, requesting their return upon completion of the bidding process, and maintaining a log of distribution and retrieval and of the amounts of deposits, if any, received from and returned to prospective bidders; .3 organizing and conducting a pre-bid conference for prospective bidders, if requested by Owner; .4 preparing responses to questions from prospective bidders and providing clarifications and interpretations of the Bidding Documents to all prospective bidders in the form of addenda; and .5 organizing and conducting the opening of the bids, and subsequently documenting and distributing the bidding results, as directed by the Owner. § 3.5.2.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Bidding Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective bidders. § 3.5.3 NEGOTIATED PROPOSALS § 3.5.3.1 Proposal Documents shall consist of proposal requirements and proposed Contract Documents. § 3.5.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in obtaining proposals by .1 procuring the reproduction of Proposal Documents for distribution to prospective contractors, and requesting their return upon completion of the negotiation process; .2 organizing and participating in selection interviews with prospective contractors; and .3 participating in negotiations with prospective contractors, and subsequently preparing a summary report of the negotiation results, as directed by the Owner. § 3.5.3.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Proposal Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective contractors. § 3.5.3.4 In the event the lowest bid (or bids) exceeds the budget for the Project, the Architect, in consultation with and at the direction of the Owner, shall provide such modifications in the Contract Documents as necessary to bring the cost of the Project within the budget, unless Owner directs the Architect to bid a project estimated over budget. § 3.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES § 3.6.1 GENERAL § 3.6.1.1 The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A201TM-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. If the Owner and Contractor modify AIA Document A201-2007, those modifications shall not affect the Architect's services under this Agreement unless the Owner and the Architect amend this Agreement. § 3.6.1.2 The Architect shall advise and consult with the Owner during the Construction Phase Services. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in this Agreement. The Architect shall not have control over, charge of, or responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, nor shall the Architect be responsible for the Contractor's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall be responsible for the Architect's negligent acts or omissions, but shall not have control over or charge of, and shall not be responsible for, acts or omissions of the Contractor or of any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. Init. AIA Document B1 01 TM — 2007 (formerly B161 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 6 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.6.1.3 Subject to Section 4.3, the Architect's responsibility to provide Construction Phase Services commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates at the end of the one year contractor's construction warranty period. § 3.6.2 EVALUATIONS OF THE WORK § 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. Architect shall make regular on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work as it deems necessary in its professional opinion. On the basis of the regular site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (1) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. § 3.6.2.2 The Architect has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or advisable, the Architect shall have the authority to require inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the Architect nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. § 3.6.2.3 The Architect shall interpret and decide matters concerning performance under, and requirements of, the Contract Documents on written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness. § 3.6.2.4 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and decisions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions rendered in good faith. The Architect's decisions on matters relating to aesthetic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent expressed in the Contract Documents. § 3.6.2.5 Unless the Owner and Contractor designate another person to serve as an Initial Decision Maker, as that term is defined in AIA Document A201-2007, the Architect shall render initial decisions on Claims between the Owner and Contractor as provided in the Contract Documents. § 3.6.3 CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR § 3.6.3.1 The Architect shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall issue certificates in such amounts. The Architect's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Owner, based on the Architect's evaluation of the Work as provided in Section 3.6.2 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that, to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief, the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3) to correction of minor deviations from the Contract Documents prior to completion, and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Architect. (Paragraph deleted) § 3.6.3.2 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how orfor what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum.. Init. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 7 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.6.3.3 The Architect shall maintain a record of the Applications and Certificates for Payment. § 3.6.4 SUBMITTALS § 3.6.4.1 The Architect shall review the Contractor's submittal schedule and shall not unreasonably delay or withhold approval. The Architect's action in reviewing submittals shall be taken in accordance with the approved submittal schedule or, in the absence of an approved submittal schedule, with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to permit adequate review. § 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Architect -approved submittal schedule, the Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component.t. § 3.6.4.3 If the Contract Documents specifically require the Contractor to provide professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment, the Architect shall specify the appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. The Architect shall review Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor that bear such professional's seal and signature when submitted to the Architect. The Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications and approvals performed or provided by such design professionals. § 3.6.4.4 Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall review and respond to requests for information about the Contract Documents. The Architect shall set forth in the Contract Documents the requirements for requests for information. Requests for information shall include, at a minimum, a detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature of the clarification requested. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon, or otherwise with reasonable promptness. If appropriate, the Architect shall prepare and issue supplemental Drawings and Specifications in response to requests for information. § 3.6.4.5 The Architect shall maintain a record of submittals and copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5 CHANGES IN THE WORK § 3.6.5.1 The Architect may authorize minor changes in the Work that are consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents and do not involve an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5.2 The Architect shall maintain records relative to changes in the Work. § 3.6.6 PROJECT COMPLETION § 3.6.6.1 The Architect shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion; issue Certificates of Substantial Completion; receive from the Contractor and forward to the Owner, for the Owner's review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and issue a final Certificate for Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.6.2 The Architect's inspections shall be conducted with the Owner to check conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. Init. AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 (formerly 13151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 8 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 3.6.6.3 When the Work is found to be substantially complete, the Architect shall inform the Owner about the balance of the Contract Sum remaining to be paid the Contractor, including the amount to be retained from the Contract Sum, if any, for final completion or correction of the Work. § 3.6.6.4 The Architect shall forward to the Owner the following information received from the Contractor: (1) consent of surety or sureties, if any, to reduction in or partial release of retainage or the making of final payment; (2) affidavits, receipts, releases and waivers of liens or bonds indemnifying the Owner against liens; and (3) any other documentation required of the Contractor under the Contract Documents. § 3.6.6.5 Upon request of the Owner, and prior to the expiration of one year from the date of Substantial Completion, the Architect shall, without additional compensation, conduct a meeting with the Owner to review the facility operations and performance. ARTICLE 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES § 4.1 Additional Services listed below are not included in Basic Services but may be required for the Project. The Architect shall provide the listed Additional Services only if specifically designated in the table below as the Architect's responsibility, and the Owner shall compensate the Architect as provided in Section 11.2. (Designate the Additional Services the Architect shall provide in the second column of the table below. In the third column indicate whether the service description is located in Section 4.2 or in an attached exhibit. If in an exhibit, idents the exhibit.) Additional Services Responsibility (Architect, Owner or Not Provided) Location of Service Description (Section 4.2 below or in an exhibit attached to this document and identified below) 4.1.1 Pro ramminE Basic Services 4.1.2 Multiple preliminary designs N/P 4.1.3 Measured drawin s Owner 4.1.4 Existing facilities surveys Owner 4.1.5 Site Evaluation and Planning B203TM-2007 Basic Services 4.1.6 Building information modeling N/P 4.1.7 Civil engineering Owner 4.1.8 Landscape design Owner 4.1.9 Architectural Interior Desi (B252TM-2007) Basic Services 4.1.10 Value Analysis (B204TM-2007) N/P 4.1.11 Detailed cost estimating Basic Services 4.1.12 On-site project representation N/P 4.1.13 Conformed construction documents N/P 4.1.14 As -Designed Record drawings N/P 4.1.15 As -Constructed Record drawings N/P 4.1.16 Post occupancy evaluation N/P 4.1.17 Facility Support Services B21OT14-2007) N/P 4.1.18 Tenant -related services N/P 4.1.19 Coordination of Owner's consultants Basic Services 4.1.20 Telecommunications/data design Basic Services § 4.1.21 Security Evaluation and Planning B206TM-2007) N/P 4.1.22 Commissioning B211TM-2007) N/P 4.1.23 Extensive environmentally responsible design N/P 4.1.24 LEEDO Certification B214TM-2007) N/P 4.1.25 Fast-track desip services N/P 4.1.26 Historic Preservation B205TM-2007) N/P § 4.1.27 Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Design B253TM-2007) Basic Services Init. AIA Document 13101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 9 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 4.2 Insert a description of each Additional Service designated in Section 4.1 as the Architect's responsibility, if not further described in an exhibit attached to this document. § 4.3 Additional Services may be provided after execution of this Agreement, without invalidating the Agreement. Except for services required due to the fault of the Architect, any Additional Services provided in accordance with this Section 4.3 shall entitle the Architect to compensation pursuant to Section 11.3 and an appropriate adjustment in the Architect's schedule. § 4.3.1 Upon recognizing the need to perform the following Additional Services, the Architect shall notify the Owner with reasonable promptness and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. The Architect shall not proceed to provide the following services until the Architect receives the Owner's written authorization: .1 Services necessitated by a change in the Initial Information, previous instructions or approvals given by the Owner, or a material change in the Project including, but not limited to, size, quality, complexity, the Owner's schedule or budget for Cost of the Work, or procurement or delivery method; .2 Services necessitated by the Owner's request for extensive environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as unique system designs, in-depth material research, energy modeling, or LEEDO certification; .3 Changing or editing previously prepared Instruments of Service necessitated by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations or official interpretations; .4 Services necessitated by decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner or any other failure of performance on the part of the Owner or the Owner's consultants or contractors; .5 Preparing digital data for transmission to the Owner's consultants and contractors, or to other Owner authorized recipients; .6 Preparation of design and documentation for alternate bid or proposal requests proposed by the Owner; .8 Preparation for, and attendance at a dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except where the Architect is party thereto; .9 Evaluation of the qualifications of bidders or persons providing proposals; .10 Consultation concerning replacement of Work resulting from fire or other cause during construction; or .11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect. .12 Additional Services shall specifically include Services and Reimbursable regarding Architect responses or actions related to requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"). Owner's obligation to pay Architect for Additional Services regarding the MGDPA shall survive the termination or completion of Services under this Agreement § 4.3.2 To avoid delay in the Construction Phase, the Architect shall provide the following Additional Services, notify the Owner with reasonable promptness, and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. If the Owner subsequently determines that all or parts of those services are not required, the Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Architect, and the Owner shall have no further obligation to compensate the Architect for those services: .1 Reviewing a Contractor's submittal out of sequence from the submittal schedule agreed to by the Architect; .2 Responding to the Contractor's requests for information that are not prepared in accordance with the Contract Documents or where such information is available to the Contractor from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner -provided information, Contractor -prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation; .3 Preparing Change Orders and Construction Change Directives that require evaluation of Contractor's proposals and supporting data, or the preparation or revision of Instruments of Service; .4 Evaluating an extensive number of Claims as the Initial Decision Maker; .5 Evaluating substitutions proposed by the Owner or Contractor and making subsequent revisions to Instruments of Service resulting therefrom; or AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8157 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 0 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible r under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) .6 To the extent the Architect's Basic Services are affected, providing Construction Phase Services 60 days after (1) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or (2) the anticipated date of Substantial Completion identified in Initial Information, whichever is earlier. (Paragraphs deleted) § 4.3.4 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within sixty ( 60 ) months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as Additional Services. ARTICLE 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project, including a written program which shall set forth the Owner's objectives, schedule, constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships, flexibility, expandability, special equipment, systems and site requirements. Within 15 days after receipt of a written request from the Architect, the Owner shall furnish the requested information as necessary and relevant for the Architect to evaluate, give notice of or enforce lien rights. § 5.2 The Owner shall establish and periodically update the Owner's budget for the Project, including (1) the budget for the Cost of the Work as defined in Section 6.1; (2) the Owner's other costs; and, (3) reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. If the Owner significantly increases or decreases the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Owner shall notify the Architect. The Owner and the Architect shall thereafter agree to a corresponding change in the Project's scope and quality. § 5.3 The Owner shall identify a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner shall render decisions and approve the Architect's submittals in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services. § 5.4 The Owner shall furnish surveys to describe physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; designated wetlands; adjacent drainage; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and necessary data with respect to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the information on the survey shall be referenced to a Project benchmark. § 5.5 The Owner shall furnish services of geotechnical engineers, which may include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, seismic evaluation, ground corrosion tests and resistivity tests, including necessary operations for anticipating subsoil conditions, with written reports and appropriate recommendations. § 5.6 Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants maintain professional liability insurance as appropriate to the services provided. § 5.7 The Owner shall furnish tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents, such as structural, mechanical, and chemical tests, tests for air and water pollution, and tests for hazardous materials. § 5.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, insurance and accounting services, including auditing services, that maybe reasonably necessary at any time for the Project to meet the Owner's needs and interests. § 5.9 The Owner shall provide prompt written notice to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project, including errors, omissions or inconsistencies in the Architect's Instruments of Service. Init. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 11 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 5.10 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, or when direct communications have been specially authorized, the Owner shall endeavor to communicate with the Contractor and the Architect's consultants through the Architect about matters arising out of or relating to the Contract Documents. The Owner shall promptly notify the Architect of any direct communications that may affect the Architect's services. § 5.11 Before executing the Contract for Construction, the Owner shall coordinate the Architect's duties and responsibilities set forth in the Contract for Construction with the Architect's services set forth in this Agreement. The Owner shall provide the Architect a copy of the executed agreement between the Owner and Contractor, including the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. § 5.12 The Owner shall provide the Architect access to the Project site prior to commencement of the Work and shall obligate the Contractor to provide the Architect access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. ARTICLE 6 COST OF THE WORK § 6.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the Cost of the Work shall be the total cost to the Owner to construct all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Architect and shall include contractors' general conditions costs, overhead and profit. The Cost of the Work does not include the compensation of the Architect, the costs of the land, rights-of-way, financing, contingencies for changes in the Work or other costs that are the responsibility of the Owner. § 6.2 The Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work is provided in Initial Information, and may be adjusted throughout the Project as required under Sections 5.2, 6.4 and 6.5. Evaluations of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the preliminary estimate of the Cost of the Work and updated estimates of the Cost of the Work prepared by the Architect, represent the Architect's judgment as a design professional. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment; the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices; or competitive bidding, market or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work or from any estimate of the Cost of the Work or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Architect. § 6.3 In preparing estimates of the Cost of Work, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the program and scope of the Project; and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work. The Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work shall be based on current area, volume or similar conceptual estimating techniques. § 6.4 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, through no fault of the Architect, the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the applicable construction market. § 6.5 If at any time the Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work exceeds the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall make appropriate recommendations to the Owner to adjust the Project's size, quality or budget for the Cost of the Work, and the Owner shall cooperate with the Architect in making such adjustments. § 6.6 If the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall .1 give written approval of an increase in the budget for the Cost of the Work; .2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project within a reasonable time; .3 terminate in accordance with Section 9.5; .4 in consultation with the Architect, revise the Project program, scope, or quality as required to reduce the Cost of the Work; or .5 implement any other mutually acceptable alternative. § 6.7 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Section 6.6.4, the Architect, without additional compensation, shall modify the Construction Documents as necessary to comply with the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services, or the budget as adjusted under Section 6.6.1. The AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 2 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Architect's modification of the Construction Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's responsibility under this Article 6. ARTICLE 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES § 7.1 The Architect and the Owner warrant that in transmitting Instruments of Service, or any other information, the transmitting party is the copyright owner of such information or has permission from the copyright owner to transmit such information for its use on the Project. If the Owner and Architect intend to transmit Instruments of Service or any other information or documentation in digital form, they shall endeavor to establish necessary protocols governing such transmissions. § 7.2 The Architect and the Architect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. Submission or distribution of Instruments of Service to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the reserved rights of the Architect and the Architect's consultants. § 7.3 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations, including prompt payment of all sums when due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect's consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub -subcontractors, and material or equipment suppliers, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for use in performing services or construction for the Project. If the Architect rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 9.4, the license granted in this Section 7.3 shall terminate. § 7.3.1 In the event the Owner uses the Instruments of Service without retaining the author of the Instruments of Service, the Owner releases the Architect and Architect's consultant(s) from all claims and causes of action arising from such uses. The Owner, to the extent permitted by law, further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Architect and its consultants from all costs and expenses, including the cost of defense, related to claims and causes of action asserted by any third person or entity to the extent such costs and expenses arise from the Owner's use of the Instruments of Service under this Section 7.3.1. The terms of this Section 7.3.1 shall not apply if the Owner rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause under Section 9.4. § 7.4 Except for the licenses granted in this Article 7, no other license or right shall be deemed granted or implied under this Agreement. The Owner shall not assign, delegate, sublicense, pledge or otherwise transfer any license granted herein to another party without the prior written agreement of the Architect. Any unauthorized use of the Instruments of Service shall be at the Owner's sole risk and without liability to the Architect and the Architect's consultants. ARTICLE 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 8.1 GENERAL § 8.1.1 The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, against the other arising out of or related to this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the method of binding dispute resolution selected in this Agreement within the period specified by applicable law, but in any case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Owner and Architect waive all claims and causes of action not commenced in accordance with this Section 8.1.1. § 8.1.2 To the extent damages are covered by property insurance, the Owner and Architect waive all rights against each other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of the other for damages, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance as set forth in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. The Owner or the Architect, as appropriate, shall require of the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of any of them similar waivers in favor of the other parties enumerated herein. Init. AIA Document B101 Tm — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 13 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible f under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 8.1.3 The Architect and Owner waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party's termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in Section 9.7. § 8.2 MEDIATION § 8.2.1 Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. § 8.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of the Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of a complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. § 8.2.3 The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. The mediation shall be held in the place where the Project is located, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof. § 8.2.4 If the parties do not resolve a dispute through mediation pursuant to this Section 8.2, the method of binding dispute resolution shall be the following: (Check the appropriate box. If the Owner and Architect do not select a method of binding dispute resolution below, or do not subsequently agree in writing to a binding dispute resolution method other than litigation, the dispute will be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.) [ X ] Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction ] Other (Specify) (Paragraphs deleted) § 8.3.4 CONSOLIDATION OR JOINDER § 8.3.4.1 No mediation or legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include, by consolidation or joinder or in any other manner, an additional person or entity not a party to this Agreement, except by written consent containing a specific reference to this Agreement and signed by the Owner, Architect, and any other person or entity sought to be joined. Consent to mediation or legal action involving an additional person or entity shall not constitute consent to mediation or legal action of any claim, dispute or other matter in question not described in the written consent or with a person or entity not named or described therein. The foregoing agreement to mediate and other agreements to mediate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. (Paragraphs deleted) ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION § 9.1 If the Owner fails to make payments to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination or, at the Architect's option, cause for suspension of performance of services under this Agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend services, the Architect shall give seven days' written notice to the Owner before suspending services. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of services. Before resuming services, the Architect shall be paid all sums due prior to suspension and any expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. Init. AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 (formerly 13151 T"" —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 14 of this AIA' Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 9.2 If the Owner suspends the Project, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect shall be compensated for expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. § 9.3 If the Owner suspends the Project for more than 90 cumulative days for reasons other than the fault of the Architect, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than seven days' written notice. § 9.4 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner upon seven (7) days written notice to Architect in its sole discretion. The Architect may terminate this Agreement only in the event of substantial non-performance by the Owner. In the event the Architect proposes to terminate this Agreement, the Architect shall notify the Owner in writing stating with specificity the alleged non-performance and further stating that the proposed termination shall be effective if the non-performance remains uncorrected for a period not less than 15 days following said notice. § 9.5 The Owner may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice to the Architect for the Owner's convenience and without cause. § 9.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due. (Paragraph deleted) § 9.8 The Owner's rights to use the Architect's Instruments of Service in the event of a termination of this Agreement are set forth in Article 7 and Section 11.9. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS § 10.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located, except that if the parties have selected arbitration as the method of binding dispute resolution, the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern Section 8.3. § 10.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. § 10.3 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns and legal representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except that the Owner may assign this Agreement to a lender providing financing for the Project if the lender agrees to assume the Owner's rights and obligations under this Agreement. § 10.4 If the Owner requests the Architect to execute certificates, the proposed language of such certificates shall be submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to the requested dates of execution. If the Owner requests the Architect to execute consents reasonably required to facilitate assignment to a lender, the Architect shall execute all such consents that are consistent with this Agreement, provided the proposed consent is submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to execution. The Architect shall not be required to execute certificates or consents that would require knowledge, services or responsibilities beyond the scope of this Agreement. § 10.5 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Architect. § 10.6 Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials or toxic substances in any form at the Project site. § 10.7 The Architect shall have the right to include photographic or artistic representations of the design of the Project among the Architect's promotional and professional materials. The Architect shall be given reasonable access to the completed Project to make such representations. However, the Architect's materials shall not include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of Init. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 15 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penattles, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible l under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) the specific information considered by the Owner to be confidential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Architect in the Owner's promotional materials for the Project. (Paragraph deleted) § 10.9 Owner irrevocably assigns to Architects all rights to claim Section 179D federal tax credits under Energy Policy Act of 2005 as amplified and clarified in IRS Notice 2008-40. Owner shall cooperate with Architect to establish Architect's eligibility for these federal tax credits. Architect shall be responsible for the costs of the independent third party energy study and certification. ARTICLE 11 COMPENSATION § 11.1 For the Architect's Basic Services described under Article 3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of or basis for, compensation.) A. As delineated in the attached Exhibit A: Proposal Letter, dated December 14, 2016 B. Format for Fixed Fees Assigned to Specific Future Projects: *New Building: 6% x Construction Cost Estimate *Simple Additions: 7% x Construction Cost Estimate *Additions with Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate *Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate * "Gut" Job Renovations: 8.5% x Construction Cost Estimate C. Furnish and Equipment Services (if requested) Fixed Fee Based on 6% of the Furnishings Cost Documented by Architect § 11.2 For Additional Services designated in Section 4. 1, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of or basis for, compensation. If necessary, list specific services to which particular methods of compensation apply.) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.3 For Additional Services that may arise during the course of the Project, including those under Section 4.3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of, or basis for, compensation.) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.4 Compensation for Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in Section 11.2 or 11.3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect times 1.25. § 11.5 Where compensation for Basic Services is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of the Cost of the Work, the compensation for each phase of services shall be as follows: Schematic Design Phase fifteen percent ( 15 %) Design Development Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Construction Documents forty percent ( 40 %) Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase five percent ( 5 %) Construction Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Total Basic Compensation one hundred percent ( 100 %) AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 16 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) § 11.6 When compensation is based on a percentage of the Cost of the Work and any portions of the Project are deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for those portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are performed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 11.5 based on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent estimate of the Cost of the Work for such portions of the Project. The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not the Construction Phase is commenced. § 11.7 The hourly billing rates for services of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, if any, are set forth below. The rates shall be adjusted in accordance with the Architect's and Architect's consultants' normal review practices. (If applicable, attach an exhibit of hourly billing rates or insert them below.) Employee or Category Rate § 11.8 COMPENSATION FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES § 11.8.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: .1 mileage based on Federal rates in connection with the project and Owner requested out-of-state travel; .2 Dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web sites, and extranets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project, including government agency review and permit fees; .4 Printing, reproductions, plots, standard form documents; .5 Postage, handling and delivery; (Paragraphs deleted) .8 Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants; .9 All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses; .10 Site office expenses; and .11 Other similar Project -related expenditures. .12 Expense of computer aided design and drafting equipment time when used in connection with the Project. § 11.8.2 For Reimbursable Expenses, the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants and be billed at actual cost to Architect plus zero percent ( 0 %) of the expenses incurred. § 11.9 COMPENSATION FOR USE OF ARCHITECT'S INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE If the Owner terminates the Architect for its convenience under Section 9.5, or the Architect terminates this Agreement under Section 9.3, the Owner shall pay a licensing fee as compensation for the Owner's continued use of the Architect's Instruments of Service solely for purposes of completing, using and maintaining the Project as follows: § 11.10 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT § 11.10.1 An initial payment of zero ($ 0.00 ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice. § 11.10.2 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid sixty AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init, reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 7 of this AIA0 Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) 60 ) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Insert rate of monthly or annual interest agreed upon.) Local rate of interest as set by Minnesota Statute Section 549.09. § 11.10.3 The Owner shall not withhold amounts from the Architect's compensation to impose a penalty or liquidated damages on the Architect, or to offset sums requested by or paid to contractors for the cost of changes in the Work unless the Architect agrees or has been found liable for the amounts in a binding dispute resolution proceeding. § 11.10.4 Records of Reimbursable Expenses, expenses pertaining to Additional Services, and services performed on the basis of hourly rates shall be available to the Owner at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows: ARTICLE 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT § 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. § 13.2 This Agreement is comprised of the following documents listed below: .1 AIA Document B101TM-2007, Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Architect .2 AIA Document E201TM-2007, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit, if completed, or the following: .3 Other documents: (List other documents, if any, including Exhibit A, Initial Information, and additional scopes of service, if any, forming part of the Agreement.) This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNEE 1 �,Oti v ' (Signature) Kirk McDonald City Manager, City of New Hope (Printed name and title) ATF 1 n (Signeflui•e) Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED ip Partner (Printed name and title) AIA Document 8101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 18 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Additions and Deletions Report for AIA® Document B 101 TM —2007 This Additions and Deletions Report, as defined on page 1 of the associated document, reproduces below all text the author has added to the standard form AIA document in order to complete it, as well as any text the author may have added to or deleted from the original AIA text. Added text is shown underlined. Deleted text is indicated with a horizontal line through the original AIA text. Note: This Additions and Deletions Report is provided for information purposes only and is not incorporated into or constitute any part of the associated AIA document. This Additions and Deletions Report and its associated document were generated simultaneously by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017. PAGE City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, M imesota 5542$ Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone Number: 651-227-7773 Fax Number: 651-223-5646 Basic Contract Agreement for current and future projects agreed upon in w itnng by both parties. PAGE 2 N/A To be determined To be determined PAGE 3 § 2.3 The Architect shall identify a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. Joel Dunnine $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate $ 1,000,000 per occurrence Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 13101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA" Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Statutory .4 Professional Liability 1.000,000 per claiml$2,�000,000 aggregate 5. Umbrella Policy $4.000,000 Per occurrence and aggreggtc § 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Article 3 and include usual and customary architectural design, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineeringeng.ineering services cost estimating -food service theater, and acoustical with consultants to be hired by Architect as services are required as Rart of Basic Services with the exception of the civil engineer and landscape architect who will contract directly with Owner... Services not set forth in this Article 3 are Additional Services. § 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Work as set forth in the Initial Information. The schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of the Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, ifrieeessar-�; necessary as the Project proceeds until the commencement of construction. PAGE 4 § 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design 9ppFea*Ko.--au2roaches .. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project. § 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider, environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain other environmentally responsible design services under Article 4. PAGE 5 § 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development Deetiments documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action required under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval. The Architect shall after consultation with the Owner be primarily responsible for the preRaration of the necessary bidding information and bidding forms. The Architect shall also assist the Owner in the preyanationofthe General Conditions of the Contract for Construction and form of a Bement between the Owner and Contractor. All Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 T" —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA'Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. 2 Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) bidding documents and contractual agreements shall be in compliance with the re uirelnents of Minnesota's public bidding and contracting law as those laws apply to public entities. § 3.4.6 Tlie Architect shall work with the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the appEoval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. The Architect shall have the primary responsibility to complete the required documents and ensure that they are properly fled on behalf of the Owner. The Architect shall observe those applicable laws statutes ordinances codes rules and regulations itt force and publically announced as of the date of this Agreement or as of the date of subsequent compensation amendments whichever is the latter. § 3.43 Owner understands that guidelines are available with respect to compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Architect is aware of developments in this field, including ADA guidelines that are incorporated in the building code and legal decisions but cannot g2arantee or warrant that Architect's ol2inion of appropriate compliance measures will be found valid. PAGE 6 organizing and conducting a pre-bid conference for prospective bid bidders, if requested by Owner; § 3.5.3.4 In the event the lowest -bid (or bids) exceeds the budget for the Proiect the Architect in consultation with and at the direction of the Owner, shall provide such modifications in the Contract Documents as necessary to brine the cost of the Project within the budget, unless Owner directs the Architect to bid a proiect estimated over budget. PAGE 7 § 3.6.1.3 Subject to Section 4.3, the Architect's responsibility to provide Construction Phase Services commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates an the date the Ar-ehiteet the final "'-'hent Fr; -at the end of the one year contractor's coush-uction warranty period. § 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. Hewever, the A&ehiteet Shall be requit:ed to make exhaustive or- eantimaeus e Architect shall make regular on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work as it deems necessary in its professional o inion. On the basis of the regular site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (1) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. § 3,6.3.2 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be -a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work 2 reviewed construction means methods techniques, sequences or procedures, (3)reviewed copies of re uisitions received from Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B701 TM — 2007 (formerly 6151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data rccluested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how orfor what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum.. PAGE 8 § 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Architect -approved submittal schedule, the Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a getup nellt.t. PAGE 4.1.1 Programming Basic Services 4.1.2 Multiple preliminary designs N/P 4.1.3 Measured drawings Owner 4.1.4 ExistinE facilities surveys Owner 4.1.5 Site Evaluation and Planning (B203TM-2007) Basic Services § 4.1.6 Building (E R—TA �008)t' liformation modelin N/P 4.1.7 Civil engineering Owner 4.1.8 Landscape design Owner 4.1.9 Architectural Interior Desi B252TM-2007) Basic Services 4.1.10 Value Analysis (B204TM-2007) N/P 4.1.11 Detailed cost estimating Basic Services § 4.1.12 On-site (B207 -1.M 2w,,K4_ Co�ect re rC:5+EI1tatlUll N/P 4.1.13 Conformed construction documents N/P 4.1.14 As -Desi ned Record drawings N/P 4.1.15 As -Constructed Record drawings N/P 4.1.16 Post occupancy evaluation N/P 4.1.17 Facility Support Services (B210TM-2007) N/P j 4.1.18 Tenant -related services N/P 4.1.19 Coordination of Owner's consultants Basic Services 4.1.20 Telecommunications/data desip Basic Services § 4.1.21 Security Evaluation and Planning (B206TM-2007) N/P 4.1.22 Commissioning B211TM-2007) N/P 4.1.23 Extensive environmentally responsible design N/P § 4.1.24 (R21-4T"'—�'�-'�(B214Tm-2007) LEEDS' Certification N/P 4.1.25 Fast-track design services N/P 4.1.26 Historic Preservation (B205TM-2007) N/P § 4.1.27 Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Design B253TM-2007) Basic Services PAGE 10 .7 Pr-epamtian for-, and ailleadatiee , Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 13101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. 4 Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) .11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect. .12 Additional Services shall specifically include Services and Reimbursable regarding Architect responses or actions related to requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"). Owner's obligation to ogy Architect for Additional Services retarding die MGDPA shall survive the termination or completion of Services under this Agreement PAGE 11 ,Preduet Data ilem, .2 visits to the s4e by the Ar-ehiteet over the duration of the PF8je8t during eeffSwaekan s4 f ) : eet4eaq femy per -tion of the 11 edE to decd,-. iiae final a ..t..s:e i § 4.3.4 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within sixty (60 ) months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as Additional Services. § 5.6 . Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants maintain professional liability insurance as appropriate to the services provided. PAGE 12 § 6.3 In preparing estimates of the Cost of Work, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the program and scope of the Project; and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work. The Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work shall be based on current area, volume or similar conceptual estimating techniques. if the Ovi% r-eqtiestq detailed eas! estimating sem4ees, the Afehiteet shall pfevide stieh seniees as an Additional Sepyiee ttftde PAGE 14 § 8.2.1 Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. § 8.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of the Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of a complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 13101 TM — 2007 (formerly 13151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA, Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No,3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. if an ar-b4atien , [ X 1 Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction § 8.3.4.1 r.thepamy. iattiro di etiet. .No mediation or legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include by consolidation or ioinder or in any other manner, an additional person or entity nota party to this A eement except by written consent containin a specific reference to this AgEcemeni and sigged by the Owner Architect and any other person or entity sought to be 'oined. Consent to mediation or le al action involving an additional erson or entity sliall not constitute consent to mediation or leggl action of any claim dispute or other matter in guestion not described in the written consent or with a person or entity not named or described therein. T11e foregoing a r -eement to mediate and other a eements to mediate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having, jurisdiction thereof. .. ' at As .. ,per -sons . .. , Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document 13101 TM — 2007 (formerly 13151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIADocument, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) PAGE 15 the-tefmia itten notice to Architect in its sole discretion. The Architect may terminate this A regiment only in the event of substantial non-performance by the Owner. In the event the Architect proposes to terminate this Agreement, the Architect shall notify the Owner in writing statin = with specificity the alleged non-performance and further stating that the proposed termination shall be effective if the non-performance remains uncorrected for a period not less than 15 days following said notice § 9.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then tkie anid A Tej--mijiatien Expel �. defirted in Seeti n 9.7. due. Y PAGE 16 § 10.9 Owner irrevocably assigns to Architects all rig hts to claim Section 179D federal tax credits under Energy Policy Act of 2005 as amplified and clarified in IRS Notice 2008-40. Owner shall cooperate with Architect to establish Architect's eligibility for these federal tax credits. Architect shall be responsible for the costs of the independent third party energy study and certification. A. As delineated in the attached Exhibit A: Proposal Letter, dated December 14. 2016 B. Format for Fixed Fees Assiened to Specific Future Proiects: *New Building: 6% x Construction Cost Estimate *Simple Additions: 7% x Construction Cost Estimate *Additions with Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate *Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate * "Gut" Job Renovations: 8.5% x Construction Cost Estimate C. Fumish and Equipment Services if Leguestedl Fixed Fee Based on 6% of the Furnishings Cost Documented by Architect I.25 x -(salary plus overhead) Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B701 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM — 1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.4 Compensation for Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in Section 11.2 or 11.3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect :times 1.25. Schematic Design Phase fifteen percent ( 15 %) Design Development Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Construction Documents forty percent ( 40 %) Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase five percent ( 5 %) Construction Phase twen percent ( 20 %) PAGE 17 1 : mileage based on Federal rates in connection wi(h the proiect and Owner requested out-of-state travel, .2 Leri. di9tanee . erviee deli . ,a Dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web sites, and extranets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Projeet_;Project. includin government agency review and permit fees: ; tips, , .ted by. Q the TIIP'7P12Cr .11 Other similar Project -related expenditures. .12 Expense of computer aided design and drafting equipment time when used in connection with the Project. § 11.8.2 For Reimbursable Expenses, the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants and be billed at actual cost to Architect Mus zero percent ( 0_%) of the expenses incurred. § 11.10.1 An initial payment of zero ($ 9.00—) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice. § 11.10.2 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid Sixty 60 ) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. PAGE 18 Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. 8 Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA ' Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) —Local rate of interest as set by Minnesota Statute Section 549.09. Kirk McDonald Joel L. Dunning,) AIA, LEED AP City Manaeer. City ofUew Hobe Partner Additions and Deletions Report for AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright ©1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of It, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Certification of Document's Authenticity AIA® Document D401 TM —2003 I, , hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, that I created the attached final document simultaneously with its associated Additions and Deletions Report and this certification at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No. 3604317011_1 from AIA Contract Documents software and that in preparing the attached final document I made no changes to the original text of AIA® Document B 101TM — 2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, as published by the AIA in its software, other than those additions and deletions shown in the associated Additions and Deletions Report. (Signed) (Title) (Dated) AIA Document D401 TM — 2003. Copyright ©1992 and 2003 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 13:58:39 on 01/05/2017 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1146435425) Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Parks & Recreation By: Susan Rader, Director of Parks & Recreation Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.4 Agenda Title Resolution approving proposal for engineering and planning services with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving the proposal for engineering services with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The proposal from Stantec to provide engineering and planning services for the park and pool projects was discussed in conjunction with the Wold Architects contract for the police station/city hall project at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the item on a regular council agenda for consideration. The city engineer will be in attendance at the meeting and available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice Stantec engineering has been annually appointed as the city engineer for several years and is familiar with the city's infrastructure. The firm performs special projects for the city on a council -approved basis. Background In conjunction with the police station/city hall project, it is necessary to have master planning completed for the Civic Center Park and pool projects. Two committees, with 8-10 members each, will be formed to assist and guide the planning process, including a Pool Committee and a Park Committee. The Pool Committee will have two meetings to develop pool concept plans. Following the pool concept development, the Park Committee will have two meetings to develop overall park concepts. An Open House will then be held in the spring for the public to review the pool and park concepts and provide feedback. Based upon the feedback from the Open House, final Master Park and Pool Plan concepts will then be reviewed at a City Council Work Session with both committees. The final Master Park and Pool Plan will then be presented at a City Council meeting during the summer of 2017. In follow-up to discussion at the December 19, 2016 work session regarding pool operational costs, staff is in the process of compiling the requested information and will present it at the January 17, 2017 work session. The scope of services will include: Master Pool Planning o Kickoff Meeting ■ Review scope and schedule with New Hope staff, review current preliminary concepts, review area surveys, complete a site walk through, discuss desired bather load capacity and comprehensive site needs, establish preliminary development options. I:\RFA\P&R\PARKS\2017\Q-Engineering Proposal for Master Civic Center Park and Pool Planning.docx Request for Action, Page 2 o Program Development ■ Prepare comprehensive site analysis of the pool site and surrounding area, including functions of site buildings, park amenity and parking needs, access points, and preliminary storm water detention/treatment. o Pool Committee Meeting #1 ■ Review program development findings, current facility features, other pools in the area, budget, and desires and needs of a new facility. o Program Development ■ Further refine concept plans based upon feedback from Pool Committee Meeting #1, including preliminary cost estimates, phasing and schedule possibilities. o Pool Committee Meeting #2 Review further refined concept options and cost estimates, discuss most desired options of each concept plan. Master Park Planning o Kickoff Meeting ■ Review scope and schedule with New Hope staff, review preliminary pool concept plans, review surveys, establish preliminary development options. o Program Development ■ Prepare comprehensive site analysis of the park site including the developed pool concepts, functions of site buildings, park amenity and parking needs, access points, and preliminary storm water detention/treatment. o Park Committee Meeting #1 ■ Review current amenities, desires and needs of amenities, and review preliminary concepts produced from Pool Committee meetings. o Program Development ■ Further refine concept plans based upon feedback from Park Committee Meeting #1, including preliminary cost estimates, phasing and schedule possibilities. o Park Committee Meeting #2 Review further refined concept options and cost estimates, discuss most desired options of each concept plan. Combined Master Park and Pool Planning o Open House Meeting ■ Present 2-3 master park and pool plan options and receive feedback. o Program Development ■ Refine concept plans into final plan concepts based upon feedback from Open House, including preliminary cost estimates, phasing and schedule possibilities. o Work Session Meeting ■ Review revised final concepts based upon Open House feedback with City Staff, Council, Pool and Park Committees. ■ Obtain feedback to make any final adjustments to the Final Master Park and Pool Plan. o Council Meeting 0 Present Final Master Park and Pool Plan to City Council. Request for Action, Page 3 Funding The total estimated fees for the master park and pool planning services are $65,000. The funding for the Stantec planning proposal will be funded from the Park Infrastructure Fund and will be covered with bond proceeds. Attachments • Resolution • Stantec 1/4/17 Proposal RESOLUTION NO, 17-11 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR CIVIC CENTER PARK MASTER PARK AND POOL PLANNING WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, in coordination with the design and construction of the new City Hall and Police Station ("City Hall Project"), the City has requested the City Engineer, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec"), to develop a Civic Center Park Master Park and fool Planning Proposal; WHEREAS, Stantec has submitted to the City the Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning Proposal dated January 4, 2017, for engineering and planning services at Civic Center Park ("Services") at the City's request; WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to formally select Stantec as the engineer and to enter into a contract with Stantec for the purpose of performing the Services; and WHEREAS, City staff is hereby seeking approval from the City of the selection of Stantec as the duly qualified engineer to perform the Services and approval of the proposal which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Proposal"); WHEREAS, City staff and City Attorney have reviewed the Proposal and are agreeable with the terms, believing them to be in the best interest of the City for Stantec to provide the Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the Proposal attached as Exhibit A, it being in the best interest of the City to engage the Services of Stantec. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That Stantec Consulting Services Inc. is hereby selected as the engineer who will provide the engineering and planning services for a Master Park and Pool Plan at Civic Center Park. 4. The Mayor, City Manager and New Hope City staff are authorized and directed to sign the Proposal and all other appropriate documents, and to take whatever additional actions are necessary or desirable, to complete the transactions set forth in the Proposal and engage the services of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Dated the 9th day of January, 2017. Kathi Hemken, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk R\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-11412 City Hall Construction\Resolution approving proposal from Stantec re master park and pool planning.docx J -K; �. e .. January 4, 2017 File: 193803464 Stontec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Fax: (651) 636-1311 Attention: Susan Rader Director of Parks & Recreation City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Reference: Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning Proposal Dear Susan, As requested, this letter provides the scope of work and estimated ,cost to provide engineering and planning services for a Master Park and Pool Plan at Civic Center Park, Project Understanding The City of New Hope is planning for a new city hal) and police department building to be located at the existing Milton C, Honsey Pool site. In coordination with the new building, a Master Park and Pool Plan has been requested to be developed, The Master Park and Pool Plan will provide a unifying vision for all park amenities, buildings, and civic events. Two committees will be formed to assist and guide the planning process, including a Pool Committee and a Park Committee. The Pool Committee will have two meetings to develop pool concept plans. Following the pool concept development, the Park Committee will have two meetings to develop overall park concepts. An Open House will then be held for public to review the pool and park concepts and provide feedback. Based upon the feedback from the Open House, final Master Park and Pool Pian concepts can be then be reviewed at a City Council Work Session with both committees. The final Master Park and Pool Plan can then be presented at a City Council meeting during the summer of 2017. Scope of Services We will provide the engineering and planning services for the Master Park and Pool Plan at Civic Center Park. These services generally include the following: Master Pool Plannina o Kickoff Meeting Review scope and schedule with New Hope staff, review current preliminary concepts, review area surveys, complete a site walk through, discuss U January 4, 2017 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 2 of 4 Reference: Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning Proposal desired bather load capacity and comprehensive site needs, establish preliminary development options. o Program Development Prepare comprehensive site analysis of the pool site and surrounding area, including functions of site buildings, park amenity and parking needs, access points, and preliminary storm water detention/treatment. Develop bubble diagrams for master site plan as well as new pool development. ■ Develop preliminary concept options and test construction budget. o Pool Committee Meeting #1 Review program development findings, current facility features, other pools in the area, budget, and desires and needs of a new facility. Obtain feedback to revise pool bubble diagram options into further developed concept plans. o Program Development Further refine concept plans based upon feedback from Pool Committee Meeting #1. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for all development options. Review phasing and schedule possibilities. o Pool Committee Meeting #2 ■ Review further refined concept options and cost estimates. Discuss most desired options of each concept plan. ■ Discuss and establish direction of most desired amenities for final concept plan. • Master Park Planning o Kickoff Meeting ■ Review scope and schedule with New Hope staff, review preliminary pool concept plans, review surveys, establish preliminary development options. Program Development ■ Prepare comprehensive site analysis of the park site including the developed pool concepts, functions of site buildings, park amenity and parking needs, access points, and preliminary storm water detention/treatment. Develop bubble diagrams for master park plan. Develop preliminary concept options and test construction budget. January 4, 2017 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 3 of 4 Reference: Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning Proposal o Park Committee Meeting #1 • Review current amenities, and desires and needs of amenities. • Review preliminary concepts produced from Pool Committee meetings. Obtain feedback to revise park bubble diagram or concept options into further developed concept plans. o Program Development u Further refine concept plans based upon feedback from Park Committee Meeting #1. F Prepare preliminary cost estimates for all development options. Review phasing and schedule possibilities. o Park Committee Meeting #2 Review further refined concept options and cost estimates. Discuss most desired options of each concept plan. a Discuss and establish direction of most desired amenities for final concept plan. • Combined Master Park and Pool Planning o Open House Meeting n Present 2-3 master park and pool plan options and receive feedback. o Program Development • Refine concept plans into final plan concepts based upon feedback from Open House. • Prepare preliminary cost estimates for all plan options. Review phasing and schedule possibilities. o Work Session Meeting Review revised final concepts based upon Open House feedback with City Staff, Council, Pool and Park Committees. Obtain feedback to make any final adjustments to the Final Master Park and Pool Plan. o Council Meeting 10 Present Final Master Park and Pool Plan to City Council. Deliverables: Meeting minutes, cost estimates, electronic pdf's of all concept plans, final large size color prints and boards, and PowerPoint presentations for public meetings. h:4Slfj'-1 -41. ("ol'i:! i;l it it' °i; r; 1!1!ti 7' January 4, 2017 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 4 of 4 Reference: Civic Center Park Master Park and Pool Planning Proposal Stantec Engineering Fees The total estimated fees for our services is $65,000. This fee is based upon completing all planning work by September of 2017. The table below provides a breakdown of the estimated fees. Stantec En vneering Service Estimated Cost Master Pool Planning $35,000 Master Park Planning 30,000 Total $65,000 If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (651)604-4808. Sincerely, STANTEC Christopher W. Long, P.E. The undersigned hereby consents to the Contract as noted above and attached to Stantec Consulting Services Inc. City o(NN:e Hope Cc: Joel Dunning, Ben Beery - Wold Architects & Engineers; Kirk McDonald, Jeff Sargent, Susan Rader, Bernie Weber- New Hope; Stacy Woods -City Attorney; Adam Martinson, Kellie Schlegel, Jacob Burgstahler, Todd Wichman, Jim Maland - Stantec. P':1fSi(,I V-'Ith r0!CiM1Xiij j Ill filifl.-:! Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.3 Agenda Title Resolution approving proposal for engineering services with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving proposal for engineering services for new police station and city hall with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The proposal from Stantec to provide civil engineering services for the city hall project was discussed in conjunction with the Wold Architects contract at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the item on a regular council agenda for consideration. The city engineer will be in attendance at the meeting and available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice Stantec engineering has been annually appointed as the city engineer for several years and is familiar with the city's infrastructure. The firm performs special projects for the city on a council -approved basis. Stantec has worked in conjunction with Wold Architects throughout the police station/city hall planning process for the past several years. Background In conjunction with the architectural services contract, it is necessary to have civil engineering work completed for the police station/city hall project. Stantec has previously coordinated survey and soil boring data for the project. This proposal is for civil engineering and landscape services for the following elements related to the construction: • Site Development (Police Parking) • Parking Lot Rebuild (between exiting pool and city hall) • Storm Water Management • Soil Remediation • Driveways to City Hall • Sanitary Sewer and Water Services • Landscaping • Existing Pool Demolition This scope of work does not include work to complete the future master park and pool planning, design, and construction, that proposal will be considered as a separate agenda item. The scope of services will include: • Preliminary Survey/Field Investigation I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Engineering Proposal for City Hall and PD Station w Stantec 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 o Additional survey and field investigation is required adjacent to the existing pool and fire station. Most of the city hall site area to the north of the existing pool was preliminarily surveyed in the spring of 2016. Design o Prepare plan sheets and technical specifications for the site work outside of the new city hall building limits. • Existing Conditions Plan • Site Demolition/Removals Plan ■ Temporary Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Site Plan • Grading Plan • Utility Plan • Storm Water Management Plan • Site Details • Landscaping Plan • Survey o Assist the building contractor with stakeout files and control. • Construction Inspection/Management o Provide onsite inspection and management during construction to ensure contractor is constructing the site improvement in accordance with the design plans, specifications and city standards. Record Plan/Base Map and Infraseek Update o Provide final as -built or record plan drawings of the site work and utilities. The city base map within CAD will be updated as well as the city's asset management program, Infraseek. Funding The total estimated fees for the services are $117,370, which is approximately 11% of the city hall site work- related construction costs. The table on the last page of the proposal shows a breakdown of the anticipated services. The funding for the Stantec police station/city hall civil engineering proposal will be funded from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. Attachments • Resolution • Stantec 12/14/16 Proposal • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes RESOLUTION NO. 17-10 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR NEW POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, as a part of the design and construction of the new Police Station and City Hall which will replace the existing City facilities ("City Hall Project"), Stantec Consulting Services Inc., the engineer being considered by the City for the City Hall Project, has submitted a City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal dated December 14, 2016, for civil site engineering and landscape architecture services ("Services") at the City's direction; WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to formally select Stantec Consulting Services Inc. as the civil engineer and landscape architect for the City Hall Project and to enter into a contract with Stantec Consulting Services Inc. for the purpose of performing the Services; and WHEREAS, City staff is hereby seeking approval from the City of the selection of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. as the duly qualified engineer to perform the Services and approval of the proposal which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Proposal"); WHEREAS, City staff and City Attorney have reviewed the Proposal and are agreeable with the terms, believing them to be in the best interest of the City for Stantec Consulting Services Inc. to provide the Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the Proposal attached as Exhibit A, it being in the best interest of the City to engage the Services of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That Stantec Consulting Services Inc. is hereby selected as the engineer who will provide the civil engineering and landscape architectural services relating to the City Hall Project. 3. That the Proposal with Stantec Consulting Services Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved, is approved subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney of the final language and exhibits. 4. The Mayor, City Manager and New Hope City staff are authorized and directed to sign the Proposal and all other appropriate documents, and to take whatever additional actions are necessary or desirable, to complete the transactions set forth in the Proposal and engage the services of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Dated the 91h day of January, 2017. Kathi e-mken, Mayor Attest: ilt . Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-11412 City Hall Construction\Resolution approving proposal from Stantec.docx Stantec Engineering Proposal ' ti n ec December 14, 2016 File: 193803464 Attention: Kirk McDonald City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Fax: (651) 636-1311 Reference: City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal Dear Kirk, This letter provides the scope of work and estimated cost to provide civil engineering and landscape architecture services for the site work related to a new city hall building being constructed at the existing city pool site. Project Understanding The City of New Hope is planning for a new city hall and police department building to be located at the existing Milton C. Honsey Pool site. Wold Architects and Engineers are proposing to provide the architectural services for the building design and construction. Stantec can provide the site civil engineering and landscape architecture services for the following elements related to the city hall construction: • Site Development (Police Parking) • Parking Lot Rebuild (between existing pool and city hall) • Storm Water Management Soil Remediation • Driveways to City Hall • Sanitary Sewer and Water Services • Landscaping • Existing Pool Demolition This scope of work does not include work to complete the future master park and pool planning, design, and construction. Design with community in mind i December 14, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 2 of 3 Reference: City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal Stantec Engineering Scope of Services We will provide site civil engineering services for the design and construction phases of the project. These services include the following: Preliminary Survey/Field Investigation o Additional survey and field investigation is required adjacent to the existing pool and fire station. Most of the city hall site area to the north of the existing pool was preliminary surveyed in the spring of 2016. Design o Prepare plan sheets and technical specifications for the site work outside of the new city hall building limits. Generally, the plan sheets prepared for the site work outside of the new city hall building limits will include the following: Existing Conditions Plan Site Demolition/Removals Plan Temporary Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Site Plan • Grading Plan ® Utility Plan F, Storm Water Management Plan Site Details 4 Landscaping Plan ® Survey o Assist the building contractor with stakeout files and control. Construction Inspection/Management o Provide onsite inspection and management during construction to ensure contractor is constructing the site improvement in accordance with the design plans, specifications, and city standards. Record Plan/Base Map and Infraseek Update o Provide final as -built or record plan drawings of the site work and utilities. The city base map within CAD will be updated as well as the city's asset management program, Infraseek. Stantec Engineering Fees The total estimated fees for our services is $117,370. This is approximately 11% of the city hall site work related construction costs. The table on the following page shows a breakdown of the anticipated services. Design with community In mind December 14, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 3 of 3 Reference: City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal #antec En ineerin Service Proposed % Construction Estimated Cost Prelim Survey/Feld Investigation 0.50% $5,335 Design 4.00% $42,680 Survey 0.50% $5,335 Construction Inspection/Management 4.00% $42,680 Record Plans/Base Ma & Infraseek Update 2.00% 21,340 Total 11.0070 $117,370 If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (651)604-4808. Sincerely, STANTEC Christopher W. Long, P.E. The undersigned hereby consents to the Contract as noted above and attached to Stantec Consulting Services Inc. City of New Hope P Cc: Joel Dunning, Ben Beery - Wold Architects & Engineers; Jeff Sargent, Susan Rader, Bernie Weber- New Hope; Adam Martinson, Kellie Schlegel, Tyler Johnson, Dave Ahrens - Stantec. Design with community In mind 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes levy is projected to increase from $9.7 million to $16.8 million. The levy increase will result in an increase in the projected tax rate growing from 58.6% to 75.2%, and the tax capacity is assumed to grow at a rate of 3.5% during the duration of the plan. A growth in tax rate in excess of the projections may result in lower tax rates in future years. The annual tax amount of a median home is projected to increase from $938 to $1,358 over the duration of the plan. Total debt outstanding is projected to increase from $10.7 million to $45.6 million which includes debt issued for various projects. The total cash position of the city is projected to decrease from $28 million to $19 million over the duration of the plan. She stated contributions for central garage are assumed to remain at 100% during the duration of the plan. Ms. Holthaus addressed enterprise funds. She commended staff for prioritizing projects. Regarding the street infrastructure fund, Ms. Holthaus stated the fund balance of $3,258,449 (2014) will be reduced to $860,746 (2021) and during the next ten years the objective is to not issue any bonds for street work. Council Member London cautioned that although the plan may appear fully funded it will change if expenses are greater than anticipated. Council was assured that annual reviews of the plan will address changes based on Council's direction. Mr. McDonald emphasized the need to continually re-examine projects. He used the public works expansion as an example and noted the project will be postponed a few years. He stated the building replacement fund receives $300,000 annually through the budget process. Ms. Holthaus illustrated the city's tax capacity rate and debt compared to other cities. Council Member Lammle inquired of how certain issues impact the city such as any expiring TIF districts, new development (Alatus), and water fund revenue with Metal Finishing moving into the city. Ms. Holthaus stated she will respond regarding Council Member's inquiry of the TIF districts at a later date. She indicated the tax capacity could outpace the 3.5% growth projection. She indicated the revenue from the new high water user will also help support the sewer fund, and a five-year history is maintained on cash flow trends of utility funds. Council Member London mentioned the need for property values to be properly valued as he believes lots are undervalued. He expressed concern regarding the city's projected tax rate of 75%. Council thanked Ms. Holthaus for the report. SPACE NEEDS Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion item 11.2, Review survey results and discuss STUDY next steps for police department/city hall facility space needs study (project no. 926). Item 11.2 City Council Work Session December 19, 2016 Page 2 Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, indicated the discussion will be comprised of four parts: 1) review of survey response, 2) proposal by Wold Architects, 3) proposal by Stantec, and 3) review of proposed planning process for park and pool improvements. Mr. Jeff Alger, community development assistant, reported an open house was held on November 2, 2016, to provide the community an opportunity to provide input regarding the proposed construction of a new police department/city hall. He stated there were 42 attendees and 15 surveys were completed. He stated an online survey was also offered through the city's website that resulted in 35 additional surveys (six of which were non-residents). He stated the majority of the responses were supportive of the task force's recommendation of constructing the new facility at the existing pool site and also supported a tax levy increase. He noted the responses were low in comparison to the 183 surveys that were received a year ago at the first open house. He explained the online survey responses revealed a need to clarify some components including the timeline of pool replacement, costs of the facility, costs of repairing the pool, the amount of required parking, size of the lobby, park amenities and costs, and tax impact (per month). Council Member Lammle noted the recent professional city-wide survey conducted by the Morris Leatherman Company was more broad and indicated support for a new facility and tax increase. He recommended the formation of additional committees. Mr. McDonald reported that Director Rader will address the planning process. Mr. Joel Dunning of Wold Architects was recognized. He explained the proposal dated December 14, 2016, to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed police station and city hall project based on 6% of the construction budget plus reimbursable expenses not to exceed $36,000. He stated his company can also provide full interior and audio/visual system designs. He stated a credit of $26,000 is included in the proposal to address previous work completed. He stated the maximum contract with Wold Architects is $915,200 which includes services to design, procure and administer implementation of furniture and AN equipment. He stated Stantec's civil engineering/landscape design fees are $117,370 which brings the total professional design and engineering services cost to $1,032,570. Mr. Dunning pointed out each phase would require approval prior to proceeding with the next phase. Mr. McDonald indicated the city attorney will work with Wold Architects to review the contract, and staff recommends the Council approve the contract at the January 9, 1° 2017, Council Meeting. Mr. Chris Long, city engineer, reviewed Stantec's proposal for $117,370 for preliminary r survey/field investigation, technical specifications for site work, survey work, onsite inspection and management, and providing final as -built or record plan drawings of the site work and utilities. He noted grants will be pursued through Shingle Creek Water Management Commission. Mr. McDonald pointed out the proposal by Stantec does not include any design or planning work for the pool or park. He commented these plans must commence immediately as they are integral components of the project. City Council Work Session December 19, 2016 Page 3 Ms. Susan Rader, director of parks and recreation, explained staff's recommendation to have separate committees for the pool and park amenities with an overlap of some committee members. She stated it is anticipated to have two to three meetings early in the year with an open house in April or May. She pointed out the pool footprint will impact the park configuration. She stated in addition to a decision regarding the size of pool (50 meter or 25 yard) the operational costs should also be considered. She indicated she will be meeting with the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Committee to explore the feasibility of obtaining grant funds for the improvements. Council Member Elder requested copies of the operational cost data. Council Member Lammle pointed out the need to be fiscally responsible when spending public funds. Staff was directed to place the proposals submitted by Wold Architects and Stantec Engineers on the January 9 Council Meeting agenda. CHURCHES IN Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion item 11.3, Discussion of allowing churches INDUSTRIAL in the Industrial Zoning District. ZONING DISTRICT Mr. Jeff Sargent, director of community development, explained the New Hope Zoning Item 11.3 Code currently does not specifically allow for churches to locate within the Industrial District. He stated on December 8, 2016, staff received an application for a church to locate within the new industrial building located at 9449 Science Center Drive, and staff informed the applicant that churches are not an allowable use. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, cited an appellate court ruling in St. Michael regarding the ability of cities to differentiate on assembly uses. He stated some cities permit churches in industrial zoning districts as a conditional use. Discussion ensued regarding whether to impose a moratorium during a research period. Staff explained a moratorium is not necessary as churches are currently not allowed to locate in the city's industrial zoning district. Mr. Sondrall stated the 60 -day period for the city's decision on the planning application has begun. It was noted the applicant may withdraw the application. Council determined no action is necessary at this time. Director Sargent indicated staff will address Council again in the future regarding the issue if the planning commission or staff recommend changes to city code. FEE SCHEDULE Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion item 11.4, Discussion regarding Item 11.4 implementation of a fee schedule to replace chapter 14 of the city code. Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, stated the city clerk has advocated for a fee schedule for many years. He explained fees are contained in chapter 14 of the city code, and an ordinance amendment is required every time there is any type of fee increase. City Council Work Session December 19, 2016 Page 4 Request for Action May 22, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.1 Agenda Title Motion approving police station/city hall schematic design phase plans and authorizing proceeding with the design development phase planning with Wold Architects (project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council approve a motion approving the police station/city hall schematic design phase plans and authorize proceeding with the design development phase planning with Wold Architects. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance to make a presentation of the schematic design phase plans. The City Council reviewed the plans at the May 15 work session and was supportive of moving to the next phase in the planning process. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background The city has been discussing the space needs issue for the past three years and a citizen task force was formed in 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Two public open houses have been held to gather community feedback. On January 9, 2017, Council approved the contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers. The phases include: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services City staff has met with the architects over the past four months to develop schematic design plans, and minutes/concepts from those meetings have been shared with the Council in the weekly memo. During the schematic design phase, staff's main focus was on interior layouts and parking lot configurations. It was agreed that after completion of each phase, the documents will be presented to Council for formal acceptance before proceeding to the next phase. The schematic designs were shared with the Space Needs Task Force on April 20 and the task force was supportive of the plans and recommended proceeding with the next step. The schematic design phase includes determining the project goals and requirements, illustrating concepts of design and spatial relationship, developing site and floor plans, and providing cost estimates. At the May 15 work session, Wold Architects presented the schematic design plans and reported that the project is on budget and schedule. The guiding principles for the building were also reviewed. The schematic design phase accounts for 15% of architectural services in the contract agreement. I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Space Needs Schematic Design Phase Approval 052217.docx Request for Action, Page 2 The design development phase takes the schematic design concepts one step further and lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural and architectural details. The drawings often specify design elements such as material types and locations of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized. Floor plans, sections and elevations with full dimensions, including door and window details, are provided, along with material specifications. The design development phase accounts for 20% of architectural services and the plans are presented to the Council for formal approval. The current schematic design plans will be displayed at the City Day event on June 3 and an open house for public input is scheduled for June 27 to review city hall plans, as well as the park and pool concepts plans. Attachments • Guiding Principles • Schematic Design plans • Request for Action of January 9, 2017 • Wold Architects correspondence/presentation of December 14, 2016 City of New Hope F Schematic Design Meeting February 2017 Guiding Principles 1. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for community pride. 2. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up-to-date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. a. Implement common sense, sustainable approaches. 3. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments onsite today with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. 4. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a safe and secure facility for the public, elected and appointed officials and staff. a. Public spaces should be designed so that they are accessible after hours. 5. Build a Public Safety/ City Hall facility which is a functional, adaptable and great place to work. a. The facility should encourage efficiency, interaction and collaboration among all departments. 6. Enhance Civic Center Park and the surrounding neighborhood. a. Plan for a facility that is cohesive and complimentary to the master space planned Civic Center Park and pool complex. b. The building's design and the park should work together to create a unified space. 7. The facility should strive to have a feel that is welcoming and familiar, open and accessible. a. Respect recent civic center redevelopment and streetscape. b. Respect the existing fire department. c. Architecture should be timeless MF/CI_New Hope/172007/rpts/Guiding Principles Commission No. 172007 Furniture & Equipment/ Technology Furniture Allowance $ 655,000 $ $ [OWNER] 10. $ $ Technology Allowance [PROJECT] - [PHASE] $ $ Furnishing Consultant Fees $ 39,300 [CURRENT DATE] COST ANALYSIS Schematic $ 9,900 Contingency Design Bid / Award Construction FUNDING SOURCE $ 1,084,200 [DATE] - $ - [DATE] Update [DATE] New _(net proceeds) $18,879,000 $ - $ - City - Stormwater Oversizing Credits City - Pond Infiltration Credits City- Watermain Oversizing Credits Utility - Energy Rebates TOTAL CITY HALL/POLICE STATION FUNDING $18,879,000 $ - $ - FUNDING ALLOCATION Construction Building Construction $14,870,000 $ $ - Construction Contingency $ 684,000 $ - $ - Subtotal (Construction) $15,554,000 $ - $ - Fees, Testing Architectural Fees S 830,000 $ $ Engineering Fees $ 117,370 $ $ Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriter's Discount $ 60,000 $ $ Stantec - Geotechnical/Surveying/Wetland Deliniation $ - $ $ Reimbursables . --Me----tro---------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 50,000 $ $ politan Council / City SAC ([#] SAC units) $ 80,000 $ $ Trunk Storm Drainage Fee $ $ $ Trunk Sanitary Fee $ $ $ - Water Access Charge Fee incl $ $ Trunk Water Fee incl $ $ Engineering/City Inspections $ 30,000 $ $ State or City Building Code Plan Review Fee $ - $ $ City Review/Inspection Fee $ - $ $ Health Dept. Plumbing Plan Review Fee $ 10,000 $ $ Health Dept. Food Service Plan Review Fee $ - $ $ City Roads and Services Fees $ - $ $ Utility Transformer Fees/Inspection $ 40,000 $ $ Bid Advertise ment/Printing $ 15,000 $ - $ Legal Allowance $ 25,000 $ $ Special Structural Inspections $ 50,000 $ $ Commissioning $ 60,000 $ $ - Moving Costs $ 25,000 $ $ Contingency $ 75,000 $ $ Subtotal (Fees, Testing) $ 1,467,370 $ $ Furniture & Equipment/ Technology Furniture Allowance $ 655,000 $ $ Equipment Allowance $ 165,000 $ $ Technology Allowance $ 165,000 $ $ Furnishing Consultant Fees $ 39,300 $ $ Technology Consultant Fees $ 9,900 Contingency $ 50,000 $ - $ Subtotal (FF&E) $ 1,084,200 $ - $ - TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $18,105,570 $ - $ WIDocs/projects/predesign/cost_analysis_master Commission No. [COMM #] I n APPROVAL TO BEGIN City Council Authorization 1/9/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 5/15/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 5/22/17 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3 mos Public Open House Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 8/21/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 8/28/17 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 11/20/1; City Council Meeting (Public Input) 11/27/1' BUILDING CONSTR. BID/AWARD 2 mos City Council Work Session 1/15/1E City Council Meeting (Public Input) 1/22/1f BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 mo! FURNITURE/EQUIP INSTALL 1 mos NEW POLICE/CITY HALL OCCUPANCY CITY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 6 mo! Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action nwo City of New Hope CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT la -- " .r • `1 I 1,--�,. ,: I I •� _ I'H''` _ ,L _ I I I I I I _= a--' + ` ,..�� �� ,�� 'r I ' L 1 �� ��r��� X -- �T–� i _–� a �\tt ` !r l j 1 t [t _ , ^v t I –_ �' e r _ t r I J . + – F: ZEALAND AVENUE 4 `! If ",.�.i �1 11 � •` 'a<f:� r 'fly r r \ I , cf1 ' l f , t co ti � � .', ' . 1 I I III I x 1 tll \ J X I m �,� � � _ 4 ~X tom+ /t •x ) + I I " n I 1 1 1 ----- r X I I 0 1 1 1 c0 w X 1 y 1 r 1 �`9 _— �� I I h I I I \ q Y Ir t1 10 � W I t �p 1 1 1 � `• r w co zu (1 v ti i 4P 1 I — _IJQ 1 1 I�r c,X it STING ROOMS o —J11 — MAIN ENTRY r8 00 2.783,500 -11 X !pPEI= \I � nr X'� ti , v \ I r –�1 \ __ d 1 �� ._ —I \ Y 1 1 i tl Y a O it l 1\wcaI t 1 I \ - 1 f c2 , _ {� 8 c ^ _ ` . , r�� tt I _ a -fir NORTH 5/92017 125:52 PM C Wsem\mrodgers\Documenls\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centrall_mrodgem@hortyelving.com M Mar-srv-mnwoldaeconn\SIPaul\Cl-NewHope\172007 New Polo City Hall Facilrty102_ARCMRevil\172007New Police City Hall Facility (Central)M SITE PLAN Comm No: 172007 Wol 1 4 I , I , I , , (DOOR #2) 'y�AFTER HOURS PD ACCESS WORD SESSION VEST q:IEI $F 1230 SF DELL 1NTOK VEST i w I- CD c� ELu Lucncy Mca u— L.L.Z C'+ o FITNESS DEF TACTICS w SERG. REI, JUV7RECS RI I ' CELLWRK ` OFFICE INT f-- --y- -1 L + {, STOR & +� HOLD I C(3AT " PR CD OFFICE SALLYPORT CELL I CO - c_ 1230 SF DELL 1NTOK VEST i w I- CD c� ELu Lucncy Mca u— L.L.Z C'+ o FITNESS DEF TACTICS I I 5/9/2017126:21 PM C:\Usem\rnrodgem\Documerds\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgem@hodyelving cam rvt \\Waesrvinn wcldae com\SIPauhC I-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility102_ARCH\RevM172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt MAIN ENTRY VEST w SERG. SMALL SMALL CMANGEE I ' C� t. *l OFFICE r -Y-- --I f-- --y- -1 L + ' SERG. +� +�1 L J PR ` OFFICE + ATRk + d c_ w I I PTE CSO �- + d " " ® �' ' �' LTJ LJ`J STAIR E : --T- RM, QUIET `) BREAK RM, '\ OUIET RM, MOMS RMID L } , BEV ST l I I I I I I I I } I I I I 5/9/2017126:21 PM C:\Usem\rnrodgem\Documerds\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgem@hodyelving cam rvt \\Waesrvinn wcldae com\SIPauhC I-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility102_ARCH\RevM172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt MAIN ENTRY VEST SERVER & IT IV a ABL! STORAGE CCN, STOR ARCHIVE ELECT & BALLOT c� 801 LER I z ELEC RM LuLu PC; WORK PY, SUPP r, ROOM WH( HM LAYOUT LL AREA w w SMALL SMALL CMANGEE I ' C� CONF CONF _ STOR N-- Lu- 0 0 Lu N i. JAN, L J U L —L. J .- J SERVER & IT IV a ABL! STORAGE CCN, STOR ARCHIVE ELECT & BALLOT c� 801 LER I z ELEC RM LuLu PC; WORK PY, SUPP r, ROOM WH( HM LAYOUT LL AREA PR SUPPLY w w �v i I ' C� v _ STOR LCL o Lu- 0 0 Lu N MALL a � � CONF PR Lu Lli , PR SUPPLY I } r y I I 73 CD i I ' I L I STOR I I � o � I I 1 ' I I } W PR Lu Lli , u� c, ; + + r,u :' w I I DIRECT. " " ® �' ' �' COATS; BREAK � CD RM, QUIET MOMS RMID L T T � I + E r ) � I I City of New Hope CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 7 I } r y I I 73 CD i I ' I L I I I � o � I I 1 ' I I } W I I } I } HR DIRECT. ; + + FIN. I I DIRECT, I I I I i I I I MAIN LEVEL PLAN Comm No: 172007 1-� co 0 W t SLAB ON GR ✓------ -- — --- r SLAB ON GRADE 3L City of New Hope CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT I � \4 X X I , I \ _ - f1— — — --" — — — — — — __--_---- i � I / / I N O NORTH 5/912 01 7 1:26:06 PM k%Wae mmmidae.cmmSiauhCI-7Neope\172 City Hall Facic,Cfty Hallty F_mmdgerARCHRNir\gcomM LOWER LEVEL PLAN Comm No: 172007 \\W ae�rv-mnwoldae.com\SlPau1lClNewHape\172007 New Polic,Clty Hall Facilily102_ARCMRevil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cerdral) M PRELIMINARY MASSING STUDY Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Resolution approving contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving contract for design and construction services for a new police station and city hall with Wold Architects and Engineers. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The contract with Wold Architects was discussed at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the contract on a regular council agenda for consideration. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance at the meeting and will make a presentation and be available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens task force to study the issue. The task force consisted of representatives from all the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The task force presented a recommendation to the Council in September 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November of 2015 to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the task force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the task force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the task force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the task force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The task force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June 2016. The task force met several times and studied a variety of options and cost estimates. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force unanimously recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at 1:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Design and Construction Contract for City Hall and Pl7 Station w Wold 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. The survey responses were presented to the council at the December 19 work session. The responses from the open house, online and Leatherman 2015 city-wide survey generally indicate public support for the task force recommendation. The Wold Architects proposal is divided into the following phases: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services After the completion of each phase, the documents are presented to the owner (City Council) for approval before proceeding to the next phase. The overall contract cost is based on a fixed fee of 6% of the new building construction cost and includes a credit for work that has already been completed to date. The maximum contract amount for Wold Architects contract, including reimbursable expenses and services for furniture and equipment, is $915,200. The Stantec civil engineering services proposal (a separate agenda item) is $117,370. A critical path schedule showing the phases for the police station/city hall/pool projects is attached and is compared to the projects in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The schedule can be modified as needed. Funding The funding for the Wold Architectural services agreement will be funded partially from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. The estimated cost to construct a new police station/city hall facility on the pool site is $18,879,000, which would require a bond issue of $19,355,000. The estimated tax impact to a New Hope resident with an estimated market value of $196,000 is $147.98 per year or $12.33 per month. The estimated cost to repair the pool in the current location is $6.5 million and an additional $2 million would be required to replace the pool in another location, for a total of $8.5 million. The cost estimate recommended an additional $100,000 to replace any displaced park amenities for a total cost of $8.6 million. The city would need a bond issue of $8,935,000 to net $8.6 million for construction. The estimated tax impact would be $74.73 per year or $6.23 per month for the pool project. When combining the tax impact for both the police station/city hall project and the pool replacement project, the estimated tax impact is $222.71 per year or $18.56 per month. Bonding for both the police station/city hall facility and the future pool improvements is included in the city's long range financial plan. Attachments • Resolution • 12/14/16 Wold Architects Proposal • 1/5/17 City Attorney Correspondence 0 Wold Architects Contract Request for Action, Page 3 • Tentative Timeline • September 2015 Task Force Recommendation • September 2016 Task Force Recommendation • City Engineer Memo — Pool Renovation • Soil Boring Data Ehlers Financial Impact • Facility Analysis/Building Deficiencies • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes • Project History Re: City of New Hope New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 Dear Kirk: December 14, 2016 Kirk McDonald, City Administrator New Hope City Hall 4401 XyloneAvenue North New Hopes Minnesota 55428 We are pleased to provide our proposal to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed New Police Station and City Hall project as approved by the City Council. As a culmination of many years of thoughtful study regarding the condition of your existing facility, the space needs of each of the departments housed in the facility, and the most effective siting of a potential new facility, Wold is excited by the prospect of participating in the realization of turning these concepts into actuality. As with the Space Needs Study and Site Master Planning we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. We propose to provide full service architectural and engineering services, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering for all project phases from Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Observation and Post Occupancy Close-out as outlined in the American Institute of Architects Document B101— Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. This letter is to serve as an amendment to that contract per Article 11.13. Phases of work are delineated as follows. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES During the first phase—Schematic Design—an Architect consults with the Owner to determine project goals and requirements. During Schematic Design, study drawings, documents, or other media are developed that illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form for the Owner to review. Schematic Design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. This phase produces a final Schematic Design, to which the Owner agrees after consultation and discussions with the Architect. Costs are estimated based on overall project volume. The design then moves forward to the Design Development phase. Schematic Design often produces a site plan, floor plans, sections, an elevation, and other illustrative materials; computer images, renderings, or models. Typically, the drawings include overall dimensions, and a construction cost is estimated. Schematic Design accounts for 15% of architectural services. Wold Architects and EngineersPLANNERS 332 Mhmesota So-cet, Suiw2000 ARCHITECTS Sainr Paul, MN 55101 wolda.c xom 1 651 2277773 ENGINEERS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 2 Design Development services use the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take them one step further. This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. Typically referred to as DD, this phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. The DD phase often ends with a formal presentation to, and approval by, the owner. Design Development often produces floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door and window details and outline material specifications. DD accounts for 20% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SERVICES The next phase is Construction Documents (CDs). Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once CDs are completed, the Architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. CDs accounts for 40% of architectural services. BID PHASE SERVICES The first step of this phase is preparation of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. The Architect and Owner may elect to have a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. The final step is to award the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. The final deliverable is a construction contract. Once this document is signed, project construction can begin. Bidding accounts for 5% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Contract Administration (CA) services are outlined in the Owner -Architect construction agreement. CA services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. The Architect's core responsibility during this phase is to help the Contractor to build the project as specified in the CDs as approved by the Owner. Questions may arise on site that require the Architect to develop architectural sketches: drawings issued after construction documents have been released that offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. Deliverables: A successfully built and contracted project. CA accounts for 20% of architectural services. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 3 For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction based on your approved construction cost. In addition, we believe that although much of our work to date was exploring concepts that have been abandoned, some of the work that we have already performed has value in the forthcoming design process. Therefore, we offer that half of all fees paid to date be credited towards the project. This results in the following calculation for the overall building design and construction phases: Building Construction Budget $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition Budget $ 250,000.00 Half of C't117 .traictiozl Continu icy $ 342.000.00 Total Building Construction Budget $14,272,000.00 Rill Service Fixed_l-e Rate x 6.0% Typical Full Service Fixed Fee $ 856,000.00 'r it for Prgyiotis Morts ($ 26.000.00) Full Service Fixed Fee. $ 830,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Supplemental Basic Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: o Transportation in connection with travel. • Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web Sites, and extranets. i Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Printing, reproductions (except sets of each phase for Owner review), plots, standard form documents. • Postage, handling and delivery. • Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner. O Renderings, models, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner. + Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants and, if authorized in advance by the Owner. All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses. • Other similar Project -related expenditures, if authorized in advance by the Owner. We have found that reimbursable expenses typically do not exceed $2,500.00 per million of construction cost on a project of this size. Therefore, we propose to invoice reimbursable expenses at actual cost with a maximum amount capped at $36,000.00 resulting in a total contract amount of $866,000.00. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 4 In addition to these phases for design and construction of the building, Wold Architects and Engineers has full Interior Design and Audio/Visual Systems Design capability and offers to provide the services needed to design, procure and administer implementation of these building elements. We offer a similar fixed fee approach, calculated by our offered 6% rate multiplied by the value of the furnishings or equipment that we are responsible for. Therefore, based upon the approved budget, typical fees would be calculated as follows: Furniture Budget $655,000.00 1:1P11 ' L -Vi -i e i Fee lZate X f Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Equipment Budget $165,000-00 Full Service Fixed Fee 1Zate x--6.01 Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 In summary, Wold Architects and Engineers offers the City of New Hope the following proposed fees. Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Typical Eq iipinent Axed Fee $ 9.900.0 Wold's Maximum Contract Amount $ 915,200.00 Stant 's C'�i4 irrr inecrin �. 'ct a D psi =iz Fa .� i'! 70.0.. Total Profession Design and Engineering Services $1,032,570.00 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, W d Architects and Engineers 1 r J � Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED A Partner cc: Ben Beery, Wold Matt Mooney, Wold City of New Hope i History r April 26, 2013 Space Needs Study Kickoff ----------------- ------------ -------------------------- January 21, 2014 T Council Update — Space Needs and Site Exploration May 13, 2014Council Update —Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project August 12, 2014--r Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues Spring 2015 —�— Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force May 15, 2015 —�— Task Force Kick Off September 21, 2015 --f— Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 171 2015 T Public Open -House on New Police/City Hall Spring 2016 —f— Site Analysis and Options Developed May 2016 "t— Citizen Task Force Reconvened September 19, 2016 --�— Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 2, 2016 —1 Public Open House Task Force Recommendation Task Force 2016 Recommendation: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. 4. A public open house should be scheduled for November 2nd. ;;a Option 3 Pool Site IL rx W— n;Flary� � � .���. � r _ ♦1 i .I I �.�.. �.� .. 4�� y� 4� .+_. «.1.. I .l I� - �+4 yser -c. v I � �i �•, Cost Worksheet — Option 3 Potential Park Improvements Option 3 Pool Site Police City Hall $0.00 Building Construction $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition 1250,000, no Site Development Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parkina Lot Rebuild $365,UUU.UU Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75000.00 Construction ContinQency $684,000.00 Subtotal Construction $15,554,000.00 Temp-Beluat Lasts-- 0.00 Temp Tenant Improvements Temp Technology Costs Furniture Allowance ----$0-00 _$0.00_ $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technoloov Allowance $165.000.00 Project Contingency $780,000.00 Fees, Testin , Printino $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $0.00 Skate Park Replacement Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parking Lot $0.00 BasketballNolleyball Replacement $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium $2,000,000.00 Total Park Improvements $2,100,000.00 Total 1 $20,979,000.00 Wol Next Steps Architectural/Engineering Design: Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Bidding Construction (Contract) Administration » Furniture Design » Equipment Design Wol Next Steps Schematic Design (15%): » Determine project goals and requirements. » Illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form. » Zoning / Code requirements are discovered. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » A site plan, floor plans, sections, elevations, computer images, renderings, or models. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » Council Reviews and Approves a Final Report. Next Steps Design Development (20%): » Takes the SD Concepts one step further. » Lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. » Results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. » Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. » Floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions including door and window details and outline material specifications. » Formal approval by the owner. Next Steps Construction Documents (40%): » Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. » A cost estimate is completed. » The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. » Approval by the Council is sought to proceed. Next Steps Bidding (5%): » Issuing of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. » The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. » Hold a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. » The Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. » The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. » Council awards the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. » The final deliverable is a construction contract. Next Steps Construction Administration (20%): Contract Administration (CA) services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. » Architect's core responsibility is to help the Contractor to build the project as designed » Architect to offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. » Deliverable: A successfully built and contracted project. Next Steps Furniture and Equipment Design: » Evaluating the condition of existing assets » Developing a plan for reuse and new purchases » New Furniture and Equipment selection » Develop installation plan » Procurement » Submittal Review » Installation coordination and oversight » Punch Lists » Warranty walkthrough Next Steps Wold's Calculated Fixed Fees: Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Tvaical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 $ 915,200.00 Wol APPROVAL TO BEGIN New Hope SCHEMATIC DESIGN 5 mo. lie* 10 ; 2 mos DESIGN DEVELCNAAENT New Hope 3 mos CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Rxh6�c � mos New Hope 3 mos EARLY POOL DEMO. BIDJAWARD New Hope 2 mos BURRING CONSTR.BIDJAWARD New Hope '_ mos POOL DEMOLITION New Hope 3 mos BUILDING CONSTRUCTION :5 mas New Hope 15 mos RIRNITUREJEQUIP INSTALL flrchfieid : mo[. New Hope 1 mos POUCE/CRY HALL OCCUPANCY CRY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 8 mos Potential Schedule Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action Request for Action May 15, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Review schematic design phase plans with Wold Architects (project no. 926) Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.3 Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council review the schematic design phase plans prepared by Wold Architects for the police station and city hall. If Council supports the plans, staff recommends placing the item on the May 22 council meeting agenda for a motion to approve the plans and authorization to proceed with the design development phase. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background The city has been discussing the space needs issue for the past three years and a citizen task force was formed in 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Two public open houses have been held to gather community feedback. On January 9, 2017, Council approved the contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers. The phases include: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services City staff has met with the architects over the past four months to develop schematic design plans, and minutes/concepts from those meetings have been shared with the Council in the weekly memo. During the schematic design phase, staff's main focus was on interior layouts and parking lot configurations. It was agreed that after completion of each phase, the documents will be presented to Council for formal acceptance before proceeding to the next phase. The schematic designs were shared with the Space Needs Task Force on April 20 and the Task Force was supportive of the plans and recommended proceeding with the next step. Representatives of Wold Architects and Engineers will attend the work session to review the schematic design plans. An open house for public input is scheduled for June 27 to review city hall plans as well as the park and pool concepts plans. I: \ RFA \City Manager \ 2017 \ W S - Space Needs Study 051517. docx Request for Action, Page 2 Attachments • Guiding Principles • Schematic Design plans • Request for Action of January 9, 2017 • Wold Architects correspondence/presentation of December 14, 2016 nwol Guiding Principles City of New Hope Schematic Design Meeting February 2017 1. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for community pride. 2. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up-to-date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. a. Implement common sense, sustainable approaches. 3. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments onsite today with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. 4. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a safe and secure facility for the public, elected and appointed officials and staff. a. Public spaces should be designed so that they are accessible after hours. 5. Build a Public Safety/ City Hall facility which is a functional, adaptable and great place to work. a. The facility should encourage efficiency, interaction and collaboration among all departments. 6. Enhance Civic Center Park and the surrounding neighborhood. a. Plan for a facility that is cohesive and complimentary to the master space planned Civic Center Park and pool complex. b. The building's design and the park should work together to create a unified space. 7. The facility should strive to have a feel that is welcoming and familiar, open and accessible. a. Respect recent civic center redevelopment and streetscape. b. Respect the existing fire department. c. Architecture should be timeless MF/CI_New Hope/172007/rpts/Guiding Principles Commission No. 172007 IT ■` COST ANALYSIS FUNDING SOURCE New (net proceeds) City - Stormwater Oversizing Credits City - Pond Infiltration Credits City - Watermain Oversizing Credits Utility - Energy Rebates TOTAL CITY HALL/POLICE STATION FUNDING FUNDING ALLOCATION Construction Building Construction Construction Contingency Subtotal (Construction) Fees, Testing Architectural Fees Engineering Fees Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriter's Discount Stantec - Geotechnical/Surveying/Wetland Deliniation Reimbursables --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Council /City SAC ([#] SAC units) Trunk Storm Drainage Fee Trunk Sanitary Fee Water Access Charge Fee Trunk Water Fee Engineering/City Inspections State or City Building Code Plan Review Fee City Review/Inspection Fee Health Dept. Plumbing Plan Review Fee Health Dept. Food Service Plan Review Fee City Roads and Services Fees Utility Transformer Fees/Inspection Bid Advertisement/Printing Legal Allowance Special Structural Inspections Commissioning Moving Costs Contingency Subtotal (Fees, Testing) Furniture & Equipment / Technology Furniture Allowance Equipment Allowance Technology Allowance Furnishing Consultant Fees Technology Consultant Fees Contingency Subtotal (FF&E) [CURRENT DATE] Schematic Design Bid / Award Construction [DATE] [DATE] Update [DATE] $18,879,000 $ - $ - 18,879,000 $ - $ - $14,870,000 $ - $ - $ 684,000 $ $ - $15,554,000 $ - $ - $ 830,000 $ - $ - $ 117,370 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ 39,300 $ $ $ 50,000 $ _ $ - $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 1,084,200 $ - $ - incl $ - $ - incl $ $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ $ - $ 15,000 $ $ - $ 25,000 $ $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 1,467,370 $ - $ - $ 655,000 $ $ - $ 165,000 $ $ - $ 165,000 $ - $ - $ 39,300 $ $ $ 9,900 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 1,084,200 $ - $ - TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $18,105,570 $ - $ nwo, APPROVAL TO BEGIN City Council Authorization 1/9/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 5/15/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 5/22/17 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3 mos Public Open House Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 8/21/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 8/28/17 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 11/20/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 11/27/17 BUILDING CONSTR. BID/AWARD 2 mos City Council Work Session 1/15/18 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 1/22/18 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 mos FURNITURE/EQUIP INSTALL 1 mos NEW POLICE/CITY HALL OCCUPANCY CITY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 6 mos 2017 2018 2019 _ J F M A M J I J I A S O N D J F M A M J I J A S O N D J F M A M J I 1 A S O N D I Pool Open I I I Pool Closed Pool Closed * Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action City of New Hope CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Lf WK,� �— L.� � �_ fw• ca .'i`�� — ca I x; �' fFr r. ! _ _ F j I -J, � � _I_-= = ✓� ' ' rr 3 3 yr% r ` .. ''` 4.i I I ! fk , ' -_ ikt— r- L.� r,d Irl L� h r ♦ 4 `7' f I r _ r Ja • J 4 � f x V 1 4 fF ` �r'F 0 rr}/ ✓ 0 IPL` rr! t1 VENUE ' �ALAN�J —- _ — j1, J �.. �. V , � �w I r rr % ���Y`' r rr. ✓r --^ y y r / I �A i4 L L (S) �y EXISTING I FIRE DEPT (1 PARKING _ r XYLON (29) SECURE PARKING 4�L3- PD LL 4Oq — -f' RAMP DOWN CHAM w BERS I AVENUE J0 l 3,DDLL ----__-_--- `\� �llll hlli I I r I� 1' h r I •l x /� Iff � � I'�� �„- U�`"�—x��f•h � � j I I V � I i ly 1 o ---------- x ('DOQR #2)do -+ I I I ,• L L �_ ME�TbNGROOM5 al I r�a��i io 4---- ca :f MAIM ENTRY(,I ' Pv .2,73.9,60{1 x Ix l 1 l I — 11 -��r �_�, ( �T7,b k..r e `v,.J ` �[ Ry 1, `� - _ ,!r!' �PI +'} r�.. I ------ - ._- ---'-- 1 �i6 r l PLP m c. o0 I% <,c . • ®A, nwo, l l i i 1 l 1 l 1 1 O ca GO 2C H F I I I I I I I I a a� �' Lu DIPR RECT = BALLOT COATS, BREAK ' REL. JUV ACT. REC' CELL INT ARCHWE HOLD PECS COAT o - SALLYPORTCELL M ° 1230 SF SOFT STOR T CELL INTOX - VEST MENS ,_ w � (LOCKERS, RIESTROOMS) SEE a� WOMENS -� (LOCKERS, RESTROOMS) � Lu ROLL CALL C17 u - o C) "_o SERG. 1 OFFICE r -T- SERG. lr (- OFFICE + 4TRk - �- L_LJ LJ`J VEST (DOOR #2) AFTER HOURS PD ACCESS FITNESS DEF TACTICS L J STAIR VEST 1T BREAK Rl%t QUIET RM, ( BEV ST L7 to y 1 I � i y � V I II I i 1 I I I 1 I I 1 4 i I k 519Y2017 126:21 PM C:\U.se \mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility(CenvrdLnnrGdgeesl'{',i�artyeFnrg.com.M \\Wae_mn wo1dae.com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic.City14.1 72007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)M SERVER & IT STORAGE ARCHIVE City of New slope CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAIN ENTRY - -------------- / I ` > L - VEST. I ti I I I � f SMALL SMALL I II CONF CONT ` I _ I 11 I } N, LJ LJ L_LJ HR N ,7 DIRECT. y WORK[ PY. SUPPL', � = I I I ROOM WRK RM `u' ° ~ u- u- FIN. ! 0 r o o DIRECT. ' t- ; �, LAYOUT � w o' Q MALL �- cr- L LL AREA o o z CONF + SUPPLY o o v STOR _ ELECT & 8u E"® �' Lu DIPR RECT = BALLOT COATS, BREAK ' RM, QL41E'f MOMS RM L. CD BOIL -AH ELEC RM c; T T W D z W Q MAIN LEVEL PLAN Comm No: 172007 LOOZL� :ON WW00 NV -1d 13n31 b3MOl --------- — --- ---_ ----- \ X 1N3VWJVd34 30110d 4Md 1TdH kilO edOH MON 10 A4i3 W(IaAuao)LYl!aej llaH4..0 ao!IodmaN L00ZMV.A- 0UV ZOYG!Iload PH NIO 3110d MON LOOZLLkadoWsN-IoUOedIS\woos Piwuwyus- W yuwaa Buy�a/.yo4®wa6po�w—(IeAua�)Fl!Iload IIBH Fl!�aollod maN L00ZLNsNQw00(A i8Bpojmw--nvo Wd 90:9Z:L LOV6/9 30VH9 NO OVIS T 2C 2 PIS C2 C IoM IN I IN Medip INIIIIIII imiu, Wi JMML m I lm j ■ 1 1 W !L.% oilr� DTII � ■ � � ■T� � ■ ✓r �1 � "■ 1 - I ^• � 1 Y — F _ — 1 1 r MIN MIN Request for Action Agenda Section August 21, 2017 Work Session Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Item Number Originating Department: City Manager 11.2 By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Space Needs Study Update: Review Survey Results, Review Desi Financing Options (Project No. 926) gn Development Phase Plans and Discuss Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council review the new police station/city hall survey results and review the design development phase plans prepared by Wold Architects. If, the Council is su recommends placing the item on the August 28 council meeting agenda for a motion to p of the plans, staff authorization to proceed with the construction documents phase. Wold will also be disc construction administration. Staff also recommends that thescuss = approve the plans and ussing their role during representatives from Ehlers and take the ro riate action at upcoming d council meetinfinancing options with PP project. P gs to finance the Policy/Past Practice The city has entered into contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold rti ec so by state statue. study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cotta e ts G to complete the other metro area and out-of-state communities. age Grove and several Background 1• Review Surve Results Attached is a summary of the survey results from the June 27 open house and conducted from June 28 hall facility and the pool and park July 21 regarding the new police station/citythe online survey that was concept Plans. All of the individual survey responses were provided to the Council in advance session. The responses on the proposed building location are intended to b of this work d item and Director Rader will be reviewing the pool and park responses under the u o under this agenda P001/o1/park agenda item. In response to the building location question, taking into consideration soil conditions, surrounding neighborhood and the ability for city staff to remain in the existing buildin w dltions, impact vim the building is being constructed, almost 80% of the respondents who were residents g hile the new with approximately 9% opposed and 11% neutral or insufficient information F parted the location, included "reasonable location," "properly situated" and "like police, fire and avorable comments Unfavorable comments included "waste of money and resources, rather it be built city hall together." and concern about Zealand Avenue traffic. In response to the question regarding initial ' m current location" design of the building, 66% of New Dope residents responded favorably, approximately int impression of the 23% were neutral or had insufficient information. Favorable comments included "like PP ely 11%_opposed-and upper windows for light," "security features for police department, much needed" and •fes e level," "like Practical." Unfavorable comments included "could be more distinctive" and "waste of money.- h, looks question was in regards to a hallmark element and the responses are listed on page 3 of the summaryThe final memo. 1: \RFA \ City Manager\2017\ WS -Space Needs Study 082117.docx Request for Action, Page 2 Probably the most notable comment was to continue the streetscape design elements through to building, the curved tops of the pergolas, etc. g the new 2. Review Desi Develo ment Plans with Wold Architects The city has been discussing the space needs issue since 2013 and a citizen task force was forme m 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Three public open houses have been held to gather o feedback. On January 9, 2017, Council approved a five -phase contract for design and construction nu witty with Wold Architects and Engineers. The phases are: n services • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services It was agreed that after the completion of each phase, the documents would be presented to the Council for formal acceptance before proceeding to the next phase. The schematic design plans were shared with the space needs task force on April 20, were reviewed with the Council at the May 15 work session and the plans were approved with authorization to proceed with the design development phase at the council meeting. P May 22 Over the last three months, staff have worked with Wold Architects on the design development 1 minutes from those meetings have been shared with the Council in the weekly update metro Thedes and development phase uses the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take theta design further. This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural and architectural details. one step results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material es and locationThis phase doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. DesigndeveIo mens and often Produces floor plans, sections and elevations with full dimensions These drastypicallyinclude t also door and window details and outline material specifications. The design development g aaccounts 2.0% of architectural services. During this phase, several individual department meetingsp is for were held with all employees for the department to solicit their feedback and input on their respective work all employees are involved in the process. Special technical meetings were also held regarding technologythat through the building, including the council chambers and conference rooms, which hGIS, Solution Builders and Northwest Community Television. The design development plans were ha d wi the space needs task force on August 10 and the task force was supportive of the wtth proceeding with the next step, plans and recommended Representatives from Wold Architects will be present at the work session to review the designdevelopment plans with the Council and the task force chair will. also be in attendance. If the Council is supportive f the plans it is recommended that this item be placed on the August 28 council agenda forapprovalf the authorization to proceed with the construction document phase. It is anticipated those documents would be reviewed with the Council at the October 16 work session and that bidding would proceed in Nove d Wold will also be discussing their role during the construction process and with the general c tuber. This is the same process that was used in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The Council may want tdiscuss if a separate third party "owners representative" or project manager is needed; staff does not feel it is necessary, as it would be an additional cost and was not necessary in Richfield or Cottage Grove. Request for Action, Page 3 3. Discuss Financin O tions with Ehlers Ehlers has prepared the attached memorandum regarding financing options for the new police station/city hall building and representatives will be present to discuss the memo. Three options are outlined: A. Two separate $10 million bond issues in 2017 and 2018, 20 -year terms B. One $20 million bond issue in 2017,20 -year term C. One $20 million bond issue in 2017,15 -year term Wold estimates that the construction bids for the majority - e work will range from $14-$15 million. Staff feels it would be prudent to have sufficient funds onad .. pay for the contract before it is award therefore favors option B. The annual tax impact is slightly higher than the first option, but all of the funds would be available at the time the construction contract is awarded and it frees up capacity to issue other bonds for the pool and park improvements. AEM has also reviewed the Ehlers document and feels there is some merit to the 15 -year option due to the savings achieved in interest costs, if the amount on the tax levy could be structured differently. They will be discussing this further with Ehlers prior to the work session. Staff is also recommending that the first tax levy for the bonds be implemented in 2019. The proposed 2018 tax levy does not currently include the bonds for the city hall. The would be similar to past practice where the bonds issued at the end of 2016 for the Northwood North infrastructure project have the first levy impact in 2018. Ehlers will also be reviewing the steps/schedule to issue the bonds. Attachments • Survey Responses • Wold Architects' Design Development Report • Ehlers' Financing Memo • Wold Architects' 1/19/17 Proposal Survey Responses rrR Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager From: Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant Date: August 16, 2017 Subject: Proposed Police Station & City Hall Survey Results On May 22, 2017, a majority of the New Hope City Council approved schematic designhase plans from Wold Architects and Engineers for a proposed nc!w police station and city hall and authorized Wold to proceed to the next phase of the design process — the design nt phase. The city held an open house on June 27 2017, to provide the communitywithcan opportunity to view and provide feedback on the schematic design plans and preliminary concepts for a new pool and park improvements. Open house attendees were asked to complete a survey, which was also offered at New Hope City Hall and on the city's website from juste 28, 2017, though July 21, 2017. The cost analysis, design and construction timeline, site plan, building schematic design, financial details, and guiding principles presented at the open house were posted on the city's website along with a video of the presentation. The displa boards rem on display at City Hall while the paper surveys were offered. y ained Approximately 50 people attended the open house, four of which completed surveys at the time of the open house. In total, the paper survey was completed by 18 individuals, including 10 non- residents. The online survey was completed by 43 individuals, including three non-residents. The majority of the non-resident respondents only answered the pool concept question. The surveys indicated strong support for how the proposed building would be situated on the Civic Center site, with 72% of respondents and 79.5% of residents responding favorably to the question. Support for the design of the proposed police station and city hall was slightly lower, with 64% of respondents and 615.9% of residents responding favorably to the question. This most likely can be attributed to the lack detailed information available at the time, as 24% of respondents and 22.7% of residents were neutral or did not have enough information to respond. As for the preferred pool concept, 67.2% of respondents and 84.1% of residents favored "Concept #1." Several non-residents submitted paper surveys in support of "Concept 2," titin the importance of having a 50 -meter pool in the area, even though the pool in "Concept 2" isg 25 - meter pool. Results from the park concept question were more divided, with 51.1% of respondents and 51.4% of residents preferring "Concept I.- 1 It should be noted that this survey was not scientific and it is possible that some residents responded more than once. Staff reviewed IP addresses for surveys submitted online to ensure that three or more surveys were not submitted from the same computer. There was one instance where three surveys were submitted from the same IP address, however, the responses varied for each question, therefore none of the responses were excluded. The following summary includes two tables detailing survey responses. The first table includes all survey responses, separated by paper and web responses. The second table excludes all survey responses from any respondents that indicated they were not a resident of New Hope, separate by paper and web responses. I. The police station and city hall location was chosen because of soil conditions on the Civic Center site, to limit the impact of the new building on the surrounding neighborhood, and to enable city staff to remain in place while the new building is being constructed. What isour impression of how the proposed building is situated on the Civic Center site? y Results — resident Res onses Supported 7 aper 28 web 35 total Disliked/ a Deed 0 paper 4 web 4 total Neutral 0 paper 3 web 3 total Insufficient Information 0 paper 2 web 2 total 79.5% 9.1% 6.8%4.5% results — All Aesp�nses Supported 7 a er 29 web 36 total ------------- Disliked/ Q Deed 0 paper 8 web 8 total Neutral 0 paper 4 web 4 total Insufficient Information 0 paper 2 web 2 total 72% 16% —8%4% 2 2. Taking into account that this is the basic design phase and that design details like building materials, window placement, etc. have not yet been defined, what is your initial impression of the design for the proposed police station and city hall? Results Resident Res onses Supported Disliked/ Neutral Insufficient 6 paper Op osed Information 2 3 web 0 paper 1 paper 0 paper 29 total 5 web 5 total 5 web 4 web 6 total 6 total 4 total .90 0 11.4% 13.6% 9.1% Results — AD .Responses Supported Disliked/ Neutral Insufficient 6 paper d osed Information 26 web 0 paper 1 paper 0 paper 32 total 6 web 7 web 4 web 6 total 8 total 4 total 0 64 0 12% 16% 8% 3. Many city halls .have a hallmark design element — Prior Lake has nautical designs and Champlin has a clock. Is there a similar design element that is representative of New Hope, that you would like to see included as part of the city's new police station and city hall? Results — Resident responses • "No specific design in mind but I'd like to see something consistent between all city ty • "diverse community... working together... with police and community members holding hands or linked arms." • "Maybe: 'God bless the city of New Hope.' Have a dove or eagle standing on the top of clock. Or some design of farmers working - representing the people who were here before us." • "My only thought is to carry the streetscape design elements through to the new building - the curved tops of the pergolas and color schemes are done so well, it would be great to incorporate those things into the design." • "Something related to nature and park - maybe a tree design." "Maybe a rubber ducky (you know - Duk Duk Daze...)" 3 • "We don't really have an identifiable "brand" other than neighborly New Hope. That is a marketable slogan - therefore capitalize on that. Now more than ever we can use more unity in our lives." • "Rubber Duk Duk." • "Yes." • "A big $ sign." • "Pride colors or something similar to that, showing that New Hope is a place embracing diversity.,, • "'Not sure of other design possibilities, but I like Champlin's idea as a Clock can be both decorative and functional." • "Sure." • "Nothing would be good on a new building." • "No theme - themes can get dated easily." • "I'm unsure at this time." • "No theme." • "Something symbolizing unity." • "Love this idea!" • "No preference, although I don't believe adding design elements should be a major budget item." • "Maybe a sun? That evokes hope!" • "It would be fun if there was a design concept contest for residents, perhaps advertised in the paper, and people could submit ideas/sketches that could then be narrowed down and voted on. It would be a fun way to get people involved and invested." • "Anything that promotes greenspace and nature. We have enough industrialized looking buildings that we don't need any more. Trees, grass, plants, ponds and water, natural stone and boulders are what I would prefer to look at Since I live on the park along with my neighbors will be looking at the buildings more than other residents of New Hope." Results—Non-resident resonses • "Leave as is. Save taxpayer money." • "A bell tower, a clock and temp display." 4 4. Which pool concept do you prefer? results —resident responses Pool Concept #1 Pool Concept #2 6 paper 1 paper 31 web 6 web 37 total 7 total 84.1% 15.9% ;Results — AiI Res oases Pool Concept #1 Pool Concent #2 7 paper 11 paper 34 web 9 web 41 total 20 total 67.2% J 32.8% When asked which pool amenities were most important, a large number of respondents who favored "Concept #1" highlighted the lazy river, diving well, and lap swimming area. A smaller number of respondents favored water slides, the zero -depth pool, and toddler/kid-friendly play areas. The majority of those who preferred Concept #2 cited the importance of a 50 -meter pool, even though the pool in "Concept 2" is a 25 -meter pool. Feedback on the climbing wall was mixed, with some respondents favoring the amenity while others expressed concerns related to safety. Neighbors disputed parking on Zealand Avenue North and there were requests for extended pool hours. Several respondents stated that both concepts included too many amenities. They argued that a simpler concept would cost less and require less maintenance. They encouraged organized special activities or leaving the pool as -is. 5. Which park concept do you prefer? Results -.Resident responses Park Concej 3 paper 15 web 18 total 51.4% Results - Lil Responses #1 Park Concept #1 4 paper 18 web 22 total 51.1% Park Concel 3 paper 14 web 17 total #2 48.6% Park Concept #2 4 paper 17 web 21 total 48.9% When asked which park amenities were most important, a large number of respondents felt it was vital to incorporate an ice rink and open space. A smaller number of respondents prioritized a theater, restrooms, and a permanent dog park. Many respondents expressed concerned about additional parking at the expense of greenspace. Several also opposed additional parking and traffic on Zealand Avenue North. In regards to the theater, respondents felt that it should be situated in a manner that considers sunlight and visibility. Survey comments have been separated by residents and non-residents and are attached. Attachments • Proposed building layout ■ Park & pool concepts • Bar graphs depicting survey results V Em o .o a d �E tw () H O CL u C .t., ®� Q' .Q t #n M �+ # O d C +d O t C C O u ti m C C ,O O GJ O v v UM ba•� u w .0 C C OD ' U M OJ .0 C = 3 u 3 = 0 -O O �' 3 W U c 0) v g s o M c c C O V w c 00 0 M C .c .3 u Mn d0 C C M 'a O M V qJ u:al� y' (i .O Jl i8�[� {�L,7d iv`riY 's rt ECL �. � 3 3 o -o a C H 3 CL CL M L E m C _C dD � Vl Y C IA O = C dJ Vl N C � oa a •d •E m C � c u C 3 c M 0M C 4AA O t m m CL t 3 a, .y u G7 d •O M C C. u .M 'a •O c 0 � G1 Zf J2 1A �+ H C M Z c t C u d u , m *+ O O C E •C _m H � r+. L L CL 0 13 CL a, u c 0 u 0 0 CL s v t A� L 4- d L Q. 7 0 M CL a, u c 0 u Y L m a r u W-� t � O a a City of New Hope 04 CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT �w �r I IIZ`t— rL I—q r{ -T -_tea _ —f-----r,I M1-- , Y # p IY• Y fl _s ,� f -fir ►r a I~. ► r y Y e r� ' r f" ��' Y�I ��S � � I I`.� s �>.^� � �r� I �yY ,Y C1�`��.+��Y-__ E''# ,'�``# ' `t V f I # Y IFS ���'•_- �(" y � q _+�' � Y- �`� ,._ I �- A a 1 !�-�. f r y ~[I ~1 —rI "�1 O1 X0— AVENUE Ir ,ZEALAND I xr _"'�-�.._, _ ��� � •� `,,` \y � ___o.��� �0C��� __ -_ y N. ytiti -- _`_ -_-_�_ ------------- IN" --r --------_ --- _ � $�,D1Jl 2;793.,•9010~ _--•--- l -___-- 1 q ! OD + f 1 Y y J r W /� 1 I I '«+ I l' " [il \ •� ! 1 4 1 1 Y 1 1 1 tk !C OD � �� f r f � +• r �' c r Ej r r -- }• r 1 x# [n # r f Y I U 'V[ 1 9, r�0 ` s� 1 YYI4 y j x I7 FR � M1 I ij / YYi •� I xt I I M1 I �` y,t 1 Ji f} +I _ -�-{�� J 1E V i 1 £�? \� y`, _ I j (30) SECURE PARKING �— . Y S ' I — `` — _ -Ut' '� e I I I ' 11 i rr [', I`M1 + \ \\\ . a� y + ITTI III -n rrl [[\ \I \ nN,I e���o., A, {{ I D M X r l 1 ° I l -PI V[[ \y 1 0I�c�- RAMP DOWN ry CD u r - i( Si7FA + r n C3 I I t11 71 3 00 2.783.500 EXISTING PLAN 1_ w XYLC]N M1 AVENUE7" AVENUE -� °- - 4.,-----------�� � 7 I � 1' �` � -_J _ r, i#/•`ti 1f #� � r � ___--______----_-•__--___-______-- x rf -,1 � i � y --C`'`�. -t__ �—��l�ir �,,, M1� I�--�-�-�~-' NORTH _ Ta - 5/17/2017 1:57:37 PM C:\llsemVnrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cenlral)_mrudge @hortyeMrg com rvt SITE - TASK FORCE Comm No: 172007 \\Waesry mn woldae.com\SIPaUNCI-Ne%Hope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facil'dy\02_ARC HRavd\172007 New Police City Hall Facil'Ay (Certral). rvt Lazy River I Tube & Body Slides - i I Tots Ground Jets L ° —-—_----- _.1_ 25 -Yard 6 -Lane Pool Tots Play Area fU r —1 I — -- 1 r) _ i'Q�* ►-- TOTS PLAY CONCESSIONS DECK(I �. I F h; GROUP RENTAL LAZY RIVER 10 1—TUBE SLIDE ) (FUTURE IMPROVEMENT) I� BODY SLIDES (2) SLOW AND FAST CLIMBING WALL CHAISE LOUNGE-- SEATING, OUNGESSEATING, TYPICAL, DEEP WATER DIVING WELL WITH 1 & 3 METER DIVING BOARDS POOL MECHANICAL—/ Chaise Lounge Seating Zero Depth Edge New Hope, MN Civic Center Park Master Plan - Pool Concept 1 Water Play Feature SHALLOW WATER RECREATION POOL ZERO DEPTH EDGE W SUN TURF CHAISE LOUNGE SEATING — TYPICAL SHALLOW WATER PLAY FEATURE Tots Slide Pool Concept 1 Pool Capacity: 1,200 Bather Load 4� Y, T j4_1 Water Play Feature Intertube Corral Climbing Wall Concessions Deck Diving Boards June 27, 2017 �' i, tantec Current Channel Slow & Fast Body Slides Tots Ground Jets 25 -Yard 6 -Lane Pool BODY SLIDES (2) SLOW AND FAST, . } GROUP RENTAL r.J SHALLOW WATER `'%' 4. RECREATION POOL , a BASKETBALL HOOPS •_ CURRENT CHANNEL - "C E. SHALLOW WATER PLAY FEATURES CHAISE LOUNGE ZERO DEPTH SEATING, TYPICAL EDGE SUN TURF POOL MECHANICAL ,i CONCESSIONS DECK 0 CLIMBING WALL SUN TURF FLOATABLE WATER PLAY yy \—'25' YARD 6 -LANE COMPETITION POOL' DEEP- WATER DIVING WELL WITH 1 & 3 METER DIVING ROARr)C .__.... __- -4 XTEW AVENUE Tots Play Area Chaise Lounge Seating Zero Depth Edge Floatable Water Play New Hope, MN Civic Center Bark Master Plan - Pool Concept 2 Tots Slide Pool Concept 2 Pool Capacity: 900 Bather Load Water Play Feature Basketball Hoops Climbing Wall Concessions Deck Diving Boards June 27, 2017 tanteC C> _ z� H19 FZ dz i ,N3 10 i Oa¢Y > l uzo ma Iia �z Uu� z::.�Q I m tYh ij O y I � ILLd�I w3 I�OU3 > i 1 Q Z, J O r J J J � + F w Z w y Q d Z � l,J lL�ll - > l 0� U ¢ ` 7� w I I y e I r _ f5 N CL 3� b H196 �ud � 0 V {' 0 Ii w Fy nnom`` � W u c 0 N 0 O ¢ R + t Q I JU I Lu PO O 4 K�KF y Q y c9� ywUzJ x0� �oxU >U �a I UO z ao�~-c�x xa wZd3° �= I 1 I I I a r l I 1 r i I I W 3 1 I d O 1;: 1 t I m 3 • � t Y~ Q � V1 � 3y � I�JY� I LL O Q N I,� d f5 N CL 3� b H196 W C 0 V {' 0 Ii 1' nnom`` � W u c 0 N 0 IV ¢ z z 1 } X 1 Q ¢ M O N Z Z Z a w r y <<N W N CL W C N V O r � nnom`` � W u c 0 N 0 CL z a 9z cul U 1 O UI - _ I O15,1N{" 15 SS Alts ¢ 3 I / I � 1 0 s r a u C U °o CL 1 N CLa c U lie CLs ww 3AV H19V w - I Rgg< �z ! 00 1 r Z N I I I I Z N [� 1 N 1 0 I I+wn�x 1 1 ��1 1 �U dZ 1 N w �Z Ow d' F.� l l�wz�p p �o=d � I�uo w �zz I px��� Q�LL�o 1�wL } r LL0p [ ,wa��l , w3 IwcJ3 , "m33_ Wti U a 9z cul U 1 O UI - _ I O15,1N{" 15 SS Alts ¢ 3 I / I � 1 0 s r a u C U °o CL 1 N CLa c U lie CLs 1 I I I 1 1 r� a ww -]AV H197 w �Q I I z OD 1 r Z N I I << N J I 1 O x ?�'O��_ OI" zo: F.� W Z Aa W zX03 Q�LL�o C U ! m333i d� ; 1 I I I 1 1 r� a ww w Q > I a N W Z Aa W w >� C U 20 a Z O ¢°O ..0 CL Z Z O 1 O ii U N Q V C U I1 CL Design Development Report Wold Architects Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, MN 55101 woldae.com 1 651 227 7773 Design Development Submittal CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEIN HOPE NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA Comm No: 172007 nwo, INTRODUCTION CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wold architectcts and Engineers is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council the Design Development submittal for the New Police City Hall facility. We wish thank the City Council, Project Team, City Staff and multiple sub -committees for their comprehensive efforts in providing the Design Team the information necessary to advance to this stage of developement in a timely fashion. The Design Team will commence the next phase of this project upon approval by thr City Council. Thank You for your consideration of this Design Development presentation. Joel Dunning, AIA Partner WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 8/15/2017 10:33:39 AM Introduction C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (CentraQ_mrodgers@hurtyelving com. rvt 1\Wawtrv-mn,woldea,oam\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facllity\02_ARCH\RevM172007 New Police Page 1 Comm No: 172007 City Hell;r-fty ICefflnd).M CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Guiding Principles 2 Site Plan 3 Building Program Summery 4 - 9 Floor Plan - Main Level 10 Floor Plan - Lower Level 11 Interior Views 12-19 Elevations 20-21 Exterior Views 22-29 Projected Schedule 30 Projected Budget 31 6/16/2017 10:20:40 AM C:\Ucemmrodgers0ocuments\172007 New Pollce City Hall Facility (Cenlrel)_mrodgerc@horlyelving com.rvt \1='N.— woldee.Com\SlPaul\CI-NavMope\172007 New Pollc.Cily Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Contents Comm No: 172007 City 1460 Feclbty (Central).M +— nwo, GUIDING PRINCIPLES CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for COMMUNITY PRIDE. 2. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up-to-date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. a. Implement common sense, sustainable approaches. 3. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments onsite today with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. 4. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a SAFE & SECURE facility for the public, elected and appointed officials and staff. a. Public spaces should be designed so that they are accessible after hours. 5. Build a Public Safety/ City Hall facility that is a functional, adaptable and great place to work. a. The facility should ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY INTERACTION. & COLLABORATION among all departments. 6. Enhance Civic Center Park and the surrounding neighborhood. a. Plan for a facility that is cohesive and complimentary to the master space planned Civic Center Park and pool complex. b. The building's design and the park should work together to create A UNIFIED SPACE. 7. The facility should strive to have a feel that is WELCOMING & FAMILIAR, open and accessible. a. Respect recent civic center redevelopment and streetscape. b. Respect the existing fire department. C. Architecture should be TIMELESS 8115/201710:33:39AM Guiding Principles C:\Users\mradgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgersti%thortyelving com.M page 2 11Woa•aN�Inn.woldaa.wmlfiPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Comm No: 172007 Cily Hap Facguy (ranlrall M CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT ILI- I r,ilti 0D I' 'A /LLA1 Aril) AVENUE 77 930- ------------ 82XBLL.- -2.79j,006 L0 ull (29) SECURE PARKING V, FIRE DEPT EXISTING PARKING --(DOOR#2) 4�, q23 RAMP DOWN krl METING ROOMS -� ~ _ _ _ - r_ ^ Yv'Y (D MAIN ENTRY ' ' , �' ~�; ,; - - ; r - s ` 5 - ; _ Z.7&3.600 T E '0 C; OZ 6 NOR I H 8/16/201710' 23 57 AM Site Plan C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cnlral)_mrodgers@horty,lvingcom,,A \\Wa�s�mmw,lda�mkS1Paul\CI-NewHope\172007 New PolinCity Hall F-ili(y\02_ARCH\Ravit\172007 New Police CiLy Hall Facility (Central) M Page 3 Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Space Program Summary 01710:20:50AM Q%U%PROGRAM SUMMARY C:11Jaa1aLn1ad11dra1r7tiCunHMa117p007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cent(al)_mrodgvalQhHlytdvingwn .tl,M flWaa Wry .wald„t, o IMPauRCI-NmHope\172007 ty (CNew Polic.CityHall FacilityW_ARC"4ViR170007New Police Page 4 Comm No: 172007 City H.N Fae a,dlall,M Predesign Schematic Design Program Design Development Departmental Summary - Police 1.100 Public Spaces Net Area Total: 1.200 Administration Net Area Total: 560 s.f. 1,869 s.f. 520 s.f. 1,885 s.f. 564 s.f. 2,109 s.f. 1.300 Patrol Net Area Total: 1.400 Investigations Net Area Total: 1.500 Holding Net Area Total: 1.600 Evidence Net Area Total: 1.700 Support Spaces Net Area Total: 1.800 Garage Support Net Area Total: 2,748 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 4,188 s.f. 400 s.f. 2,922 s.f. 1,040 s.f, 1,560 s.f. 2,380 s.f, 3,948 s.f. 400 s.f, 2,396 s.f. 964 s.f. 1,711 s.f, 2,079 s.f. 4,480 s.f. 480 s.f., Total Police Office NSF 14,745 s.f. 14,655 s.f. 14,783 s.f. Total Police Office GSF x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 20,696 s.f. Departmental Summary - City Hall 2.100 Public Space Net Area Total: 4,860 s.f. 4,460 s.f. 4,330 s.f. 2.200 City Manager Net Area Total: 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,275 s.f. 2.300 Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 2.400 Comm. Development Net Area Total: 1,808 s.f. 1,356 s.f. 1,958 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,804 s.f. 1,639 s.f, 2.500 Parks and Rec Net Area Total: 2.600 Shared Space Net Area Total: 1,651 s,f. 1,091 s.f. 1,801 s.f, 1,711 s.f. 1,700 s.f. 1,704 s.f. Total City Hall Office USF 12,105 s.f. 12,964 s.f. 12,452 s.f. Total City Hall Office GSF x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 17,433 s.f. Garage Summary 3.100 Total Police Garage GSF 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 18,425 s.f. 3.200 Total City Hall Garage GSF 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 880 s.f. Total Garage GSF 12,080 s.f. 12,380 s.f. 19,305 s.f. TOTAL Total Gross Square Footage - Police Total Gross Square Footage - City Hall Total Gross Square Footage - Garage Sub Total 20,643 s.f. 16,947 s.f. 12,080 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 12,380 s.f. 20,696 s.f. 17,433 s.f. 19,305 s.f. 49,670 s.f. 51,047 s.f. 57,434 s.f. x 1.15 x 1,15 x 1.15 56,889 s.f. 58,704 s.f. 66,049 s.f. 01710:20:50AM Q%U%PROGRAM SUMMARY C:11Jaa1aLn1ad11dra1r7tiCunHMa117p007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cent(al)_mrodgvalQhHlytdvingwn .tl,M flWaa Wry .wald„t, o IMPauRCI-NmHope\172007 ty (CNew Polic.CityHall FacilityW_ARC"4ViR170007New Police Page 4 Comm No: 172007 City H.N Fae a,dlall,M nwo, Space Program Summary 1.000 Police 1.100 Public Spaces 1.101 Public Waiting 1.102 Lobby Interview Room 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 1.104 Community Room Storage Public Spaces Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Public Spaces USF Needed 1.200 Administration 1.201 Chief Office 1.202 Captain Office 1.203 Admin. Assistant Office/Crime Analyst 1.204 Office Supervisor Office 1.205 Clerical Workstation 1.206 Future IT Coordinator - Workstation 1.207 Active Records Storage 1.208 Archive Records Room 1.209 Copy/Supply/Workroom 1.210 Conference Room 1.211 Admin Storage CSO/Reserve Storage Administration Net Area Total: Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev ) Net to Usable SF Factor Patrol Net Area Total Administration Bldg USF Needed 1.300 Patrol 1.401 1.301 Sergeants Paired Offices 1.302 Shared Patrol Workstations 1.303 Patrol File Storage 1.304 Community Service Officer Wkstn 1.305 Animal Control Officer Wkstn 1.306 Crime Prevention Specialist Office 1.307 PTE CSO/Reserve Officer Wkstn 1.308 School Resource Officer Hotel Wkstn 1.309 Copy/Workarea 1.310 Roll Call Area /Radio Charging 1.311 CSO/Reserve Storage 1.312 Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev ) Patrol Net Area Total Net to Usable SF Factor Patrol USF Needed 1.400 Investigations 1.401 Investigator's Office 1.402 Investigator's Office - Part Time 1.403 Computer Forensics / DTF Office 1.404 Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 1.405 Soft Interview Room 1.406 Invest. Storage/ Elect. Equip- quf .Investigations 728 s.f InvestigationsNet Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Investigations USF Needed CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Predesign Schematic Design Program I I Design Development 400 s.f 400 s.f. 120 s.f 120 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 40 s.f, 0 s.f. 560 s.f. 520 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 784 s,f. 728 s.f QTY Unit Size 2 130 s.f, 64 0. 67st 130 s,r 200 s.f. 300 s.f. 110 s.f. 135 s.f. 240 s.f. 64 s.f. 160 s.f. 200 s.f. 140 s.f. 240 s.f. 80 s.f. 1,869 s.f. x 1.40 2,617 s.f 480 s.f. 640 s.f. incl 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 192 s.f. 64 s.f, See 1.209 900 s.f. 80 s.f. 200 0. 2,748 s.f. x 1.40 3,847 s.f 450 s.f. incl 150 s.f. 240 s.f. 120 s.f. 80 s.f. 1,040 s.f. x 1.40 1,456 s.f 200 s.f. 300 s.f. 110 s.f, 135 s.f 256 s.f. 64 s.f. 160 s.f. 200 s.f. 140 s.f, 240 s.f. 80 s.f. 1,885 s.f. x 1.40 2,639 s.f 480 s.f. 896 s.f. incl 0 s.f. 64 s.f. 110 s.f. 128 s.f. 64 s.f. See 1.209 900 s.f. 80 s.f. 200 0. 2,922 s.f. x 1.40 4,091 s.f 450 s.f. incl 150 s.f. 240 s.f. 120 s.f. 80 s.f. 1,040 s.f. x 1.40 1,456 s.f 443 s.f. 121 s.f 564 s.f. x 1.40 790 s,f. 203 s.f. 296s,[. 116 s.f. 116 s.f_ 256 s.f. 64 s.f. 172 s.f. 391 s.f. 303 s.f. 192 s.f. 2,109 s.f. x 1.40 2,953 s.f 566 s.f. 900 s.f. incl 0 s.f. 144 s.f. 137 s.f. 167 s.f. 844 s.f. 204 s.f. 2,396 s.f. x 1.40 3,354 s.f. 445 s.f. incl 148 s.f. 237 s.f. 81 s.f. 53 s.f. 964 s.f. x 1,40 1,350 s.f 8/16/201710:20:51AM PROGRAM SUMMARY E:11hv�4nrodg►ra�Llaeum+nl451i2007 New Police City Hell Facility(Cenlralp_mrodOnrs�Aoafy,rlringcom.M I%W- I-n.mid:,.,-$Stp, "I-N-HopaN72007NewPolic.City HallFaNkty\"ckM1Ra n1 r207 Page 5 Comm No: 172007 INV Hill Facility (Clllralf.M rwJ0, Space Program Summary 1.500 Holding 1.501 Holding Cell (2@67 s.f 1 502 Holding Cell Juvenile 1.503 Booking/lntox. 1.504 Sallyport 1.505 Hard Interview Holding Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Holding USF Needed , 1@105s.f.) 3 60Sf 1.600 Evidence 1.601 Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 1.602 Evidence Storage 1.603 Large Property Storage 1.604 Vault Storage/ Drugs/ Weapons/ Drying Room 1.605 Evidence Garage 1,711 s.f. Evidence Net Area Total: x 1.40 Net to Usable SF Factor 2,395 s.f. Evidence USF Needed 1.700 Support Spaces 1.701 Armory/Weapon Cleaning/Ammo Storage 1.702 Ammunition Room 1.703 Fitness Center 1.704 City Staff Changing Room 1.705 Defensive Tactics Training Room 1.706 Defensive Tactics Training Storage 1.707 Breakroom wl Kitchenette (6-8 people) 1.708 Quiet/Mothers Room 1.709 Beverage Station 1.710 Staff Toilet 2 1.711 Men's Locker Room 30 1.712 Men's Toilet/ Shower 1.713 Men's Vestibule 1.714 Women's Locker Room 10 1.715 Women's Toilet/ Shower 1,716 Women's Vestibule Support Spaces Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Support Spaces USF Needed 1.800 Police Garage Support 1.801 Swat Gear Storage 1 Lockers for 6 1.802 Gear bag storage 1.803 Squad Supply Storage (helmets, shields, etc) Garage Support Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Garage Support USF Needed 25 s.f CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Predesign Schematic Design Program Design I Developmenl 140 s.f. 140 0. 280 s.f. 900 s.f. 100 s.f. 1,560 s.f. x 1.40 2,184 s.f 300 s.f. 1,200 s.f. incl 80 s.f. 800 s.f. 2,380 s.f. x 1.40 3,332 s.f 120 s.f. 80 s.f. 900 s.f. 160 s.f. 800 s.f. 40 s.f. 640 s.f. 80 s.f. 72 s.f. 128 s.f. 600 s,f. 120 0. 44 s,f. 240 s.f. 120 s.f. 44 s.f. 4,188 s.f. x 1.35 5,654 s.f 180 s,f. 120 s.f. 100 s.f. 400 s.f. x 1.30 520 s.f. 140 s.f. 239 s.f. 140 s.f. 65 s.f. 280 s.f. 279 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,038 s.f. 100 s.f. 90 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,711 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 2,184 s.f, 2,395 s.f. 300 s.f. 297 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1,040 s.f. incl 165 s.f. 80 s,f. 800 s.f. 577 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2,079 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 3,332 s.f. 2,911 s.f. 200 s.f. 112 s.f. 0 s,f. 133 s.f.. 900 s.f. 871 s.f. 160 s.f. 380 s.f. 800 s.f. 808 s.f. 40 s.f. 400 s.f. 457 s.f. 80 s.f. 96 s.f. 72 s.f. 97 s.f. 128 s.f. 360 s.f. 551 s.f. 360 s.f. 361 s.f, 44 s.f. 120 s.f. 236 s.f. 240 s,f. 378 s.f. 44 s.f. 3,948 s.f. 4,480 s.f. x 1.35 x 1.35 5,330 s.f. 6,048 s.f. 180 s.f. 155 s.f. 120 s.f. 325 s.f. 100 s.f. 0 s.f. 400 s.f. 480 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 520 s.f. 624 s.f. 8'161201710.20:53 AM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mradgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility, (Cenlral)_mrodgers@hortyelving. com M 1lWOWMmn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 6 Comm No: 172007 Ctty Hall FOeAily, (Cantral).M nwo, Space Program Summary 2.000 City Hall 2.100 Public Spaces 2.101 Public Lobby 2.102 Council Chambers 2.103 Council Chambers Table Storage 2.104 TV Control Room 2.105 Council Work Session Room 2.106 Public After Hours Conference /Training 2.107 Kitchenette 2.108 Conference Room 2.109 Public Toilets Public Space Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Public Space USF Needed 2.200 City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Predesign Schematic Design Program Design Development 600 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 120 s f. 120 s.f. 900 s.f. 800 s.f, 120 s.f. 400 s.f. 300 s.f. 4,860 s.f. x 1.40 6,804 s.f. 600 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 900 s.f. 800 s.f. 120 s.f. 0 s.f. 300 s.f. 4,460 s.f. x 1.40 6,244 s.f. 600 s.f. 1,367 s.f. 110 s.f. 168 s.f. 820 s.f. 774 s.f. 123 s.f. 0 s.f. 368 s.f. 4,330 s.f. x 1.40 6,062 s.f. 2.201 City Manager Office 200 s.f. 250 s.f. 249 s.f. 2.202 City Clerk Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 2.203 Admin. Assistant 110 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.204 Assessor Hoteling Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.205 Mayor/Council Workspace/Conference Room 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 2.206 Public Counter incl 100 s.f. 114 s.f. 2.207 Ballot Storage 40 s.f. 40 s.f. incl 2.208 Elections Storage 600 s.f. 500 s.f. 439 s.f, 2.209 Public Record Viewing Kiosk 25 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 2.210 Counter Workstations (2@54) 2 54 s f. 0 s.f, 0 s,f. 0 0. 2.211 City Engineer Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. City Manager Net Area Total: 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,275 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 City Manager USF Needed 1,875 s.f. 1,935 s.f, 1,785 s.f, 2.300 Finance / IT / HR I Communications 2.301 HR/Admin Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 195 s.f. 2.302 HR Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 2.303 Wellness Workstation See 1.703 See 1.703 64 s.f. 2.304 Finance Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 196 s.f. 2.305 Finance Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 123 s.f. 2.306 Storage 28 s.f. 28 s.f. 58 s.f. 2.307 Finance Workstation (1@80 1@110) 192 s.f. 192 s.f. s.f 128 s.f. 2.308 Cash Handling/Safe Room 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.309 I.T. Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 146 s.f, 2.310 I.T. Support Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f, 2.311 I.T. Set Up Workstation 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 107 s.f 2.312 I.T. Storage 80 s.f, 80 s.f. 2.313 Server Room 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 243 s.f. 2.314 Communications Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 134 s.f. 2.315 Communications Intern Work Area/Storage Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f, 64 s.f. 2.316 Small Conference Room 150 s.f. 143 s.f, Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 1,808 s.f. 1,958 s.f. 1,804 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 Finance/IT/HR USF Needed 2,531 s.f. 2,741 s.f. 2,526 s.f 8M612017 10:20:54 AM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police Cily Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@horlyelving rycom.rA page 7 \\Wae-s-mn.woldaecom\SlPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Palic_City Hall Facllity\02ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) M rwJ0, Space Program Summary CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office Predesign Schematic Design 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office Program Design Development 2.400 Community Development Rec. Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 2.401 CD Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 185 s.f. 2.402 CD Specialist Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. s r. 278 s.f 2.403 Building Official Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 2.404 Housing Inspector Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 141 s.f. 2.405 General Inspector Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 144 s.f. 2.406 CD Assistant Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.407 Intern Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.408 Office Support Specialist 2 48 s f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 2.409 Work Area incl incl 64 s.f. 2.410 Plan Storage / Layout Area 150 s.f. 200 s.f. 193 s.f. 2.411 Public Counter 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 97 s.f. 2.412 Small Conference Room 300 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 2.413 Address File Storage incl 96 s.f. 0 s.f. 2.603 Comm. Development Net Area Total: 1,356 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,639 s.f. 2.604 Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 2.605 Comm. Development Bldg USF Needed 1,898 s.f. 2,313 s.f. 2,295 s.f. 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 184 s.f. 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 155 s.f. 2.503 Rec. Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 155 s.f. 2.504 Office Support Spec. Workstation 2 48 s.t. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. is f. 128 s.f, 2.505 Seasonal Supervisor 108 s.f. 108 s.f. 128 s.f. 2.506 Work Area 120 s.f. 120 s.f. incl 2.507 Work Room 190 s.f. 190 s.f. 315 s.f. 2.508 Supply Storage 505 s.f 505 s.f. 492 s.f. 2.509 Park and Rec Counter 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 2.510 Small Conference Room 150 s.f. 143 s.f. Parks and Rec Net Area Total 1,651 s.f. 1,801 s.f. 1,700 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 Parks and Rec USF Needed 2,311 0 2,521 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2.600 Shared Spaces 2.601 Copy/Supplies/Work Room 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 176 s.f. 2.602 Mail/Work Area incl incl 77 s.f. 2.603 Quiet/Mother's Room 63 s.f. 63 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.604 Break Room 0 s.f. 600 s.f. 688 s.f. 2.605 Coats 20 s.f. 20 s.f. 2.606 Archive Storage 200 s.f 200 s f. 257 s.f. 2.607 Receiving 250 s.f. 250 s.f. 180 s.f, 2.608 Janitorial 150 s.f 150 s.f. 116 s.f. 2.609 Staff Toilets 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 130 s.f, Shared Space Net Area Total: 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,704 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 Shared Space USF Needed 1,527 s.f. 2,395 s.f. 2,386 s.f. 8116/2 01 7 10:20:56 AM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cenlral)_mrodgers@hortyelving com M Page 8 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-src-mn. woldae,com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Poli, Cirty Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police City Hell Facility (Central) M rw0j, Space Program Summary 3.100 Vehicle Garage 3.101 Parking Stalls 3.102 Swat Truck Vehicle Garage Net Area Total, Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage GSF Needed 3.200 Community Development Vehicle Garage 3.201 Parking Stalls - CD Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage GSF Needed CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Existing Predesign Schematic Building Program Design 2,160 s,f. 8,100 s.f. 8,100 s.f. 0 s.f. 500 s.f. 500 s.f, 2,160 s.f. 8,600 s.f, 8,600 s,f. X 1.30 x 1.30 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f, 900 s.r. 0 s.f. 900 s_f. x 1.30 1,170 s.f. 1,200 s,f 1,200 s.f. x 1.30 1,560 s.f. 811612 01 7 10:20:57 AM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mredgers@hartyelving com.M - \\Wee-sryn.woldee.com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Rauh\172007 New Police Page 9 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central). M 0 0 3 3 Z 0 N O 0 RAMP 23 n D r r >0 z 0 00 E: o TI mZ m M D C �p M Im Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 8/102017 10:27:32 AM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving com wt \\Wae-s, mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police City Hall Lobby Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Cemral).rvt Wol F r CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wol INTERIOR VIEW -Council 8/16/2017 10:26:08 AM Chamber C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving corn wt MWae-sry-mn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police Page 14 City Hall Facility (Central) wt Comm No: 172007 WOI POP. - -- Sol a _` -- — . �� ��► - � , t + ` aw, A 100000 � C1' I 1 ro n CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERIOR VIEW -PD Capt. 6/16/201710:26:11 AM Office Suite C:\Users\mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com. M \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae.com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 17 City Hall Facility (Central) rvt Comm No: 172007 nwo, - Y= INTERIOR VIEW -PD 8/16/201710:26:11 AM Coffee Area C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com-rvt Page 18 \\Wae-sry-mn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Comm No: 172007 Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT r BRICK 1 STONE ALUM, FRAME BRIGK 1 METAL 1 METAL 1 EAST ELEVATION PREGAST SILL BRIGK 1 NORTH ELEVATION BRIGK 1 SPANDREL GLASS ALUM. FRAME STONE KALWALL r METAL rl- METAL 2 H=111— .NORTH II_,I11-NORTH ELEVATION 811612017 10:21:29 AM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com.M \\Wae-sry-mn woldae com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facillly\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 20 City Hall FacilRy (Central) PA Comm No: 172007 nwo, BRICK METAL GLA55 CITY OF NEW HOPE 'CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Y4EST ELEVATION ALUM. FRAME METAL 2 SOUTH ELEVATION PQT/-,V 1 AAFTAI 1 AACTAI n — — sI 1111 vr, ...c --1-,- . ..�_..� SOUTH ELEVATION C:1Us01710:g,rs\DM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS C:\Users\mrotlgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centra Q_mredgers(dlhortyelving com M \\Wae swv n.woldae.com\SlPaul\CI.NewHope\172007 New Polo City Hall Facilily102_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 21 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central).M n 1 1 EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 8116/2 01 7 10-26 13 AM THE SOUTH C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Cental)_mrodgers@hortyelving corn rvt \\Wae-sry-mn woldae corn\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revi\172007 New Police Page 22 City Hall Facility (Central) rvt CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT _ Aw Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wol EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 816201710:26:13AM THE EAST C:lUsers\mrodgem0ocuments\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgem@hortyelAng com. M 1\Wae-srv-mn.woldae com1StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\R.vM172007 New Police Page 23 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) wt Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 8/16/2017 10:26:14 AM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving. com.rA \\Wae-sry mn.woldae,.com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) M EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM THE NORTH EAST Page 24 Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wol EXTERIOR VIEW -CITY HALL ENTRANCE & 8/16/2017 10:28:15 AM LOBBY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (CentralLmrodgers@hortyelving.cam rvt Page 25 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-sry-mn wo1dae.com\S[Paul\CI-N—Hope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central).rvt CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wol EXTERIOR VIEW -PD 8/162017 10:26:16 AM ENTRANCE C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgemQhortyelving com M NNWoe-ar -mn woldae com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Rauh\172007 New Police Page 26 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) wt CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wol EXTERIOR VIEW -PD 6116/2017 10:26:16 AM OUTDOOR BREAK AREA C:\Users\mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrudgers@hortyelving,com,rvt \\Wae-srv-mn woldae.com\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 27 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central),rvt CITY OF NEW HOPE . CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS 8/16/201710:33:31 AM EYE (SW) C:\Users\mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hartyelving.com wt \\Wae-srv-mn woldae.. com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Pulic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Rauh\172007 New Police Page 28 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) rvt Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS 811612017 10:39:23 AM EYE (SE) C:\Users\mmdgers\Documerds\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (CentMl)_mrodgers@hortyeNring.com rv[ \\Waa-srv-mn—ld" com\StPauPCI-NMHope1172007 New Polic..City Hall Facility\02_ARCHU2avit\172007 New Police Page 29 City Hall Facility (C -vol I.M Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE . CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL TO BEGIN J F M A I M 2017 I J Pool I J Open A S O N D 1 F M A M 2018 J Pool I J Closed - A 5 O N D 1 2019 F M A M J J 7 A S Pool Closed O N D City Council Authorization 1/9/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 5/15/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) S/22/17 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3 mos Public Open House 6/27/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 8/10/17 City Council Work Session 8/21/17 7" L City Council Meeting (Public Input) 8/28/17 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2 1/2 mos City Council Work Session 10/16/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 10/23/17 -Approval of CD's - Public Hearing on Bonds Issue Construction Documents 11/1/17 BUILDING CONSTR. BIDJAWARD 2 mos Advertise Bidding 11/9/17 Advertise Bidding 11/16/17 Receive and Open Bids 11/30/17 City Council Work Session 12/4/17 City Council Meeting 12/11/17 - Approval of Contracts for Construction - Sell Bonds BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 mos FURNITURE/EQUIP INSTALL 1 mos NEW POLICE/CITY HALL OCCUPANCY CITY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 6 mos Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action 8/16/207 7 1 0:28:34 AM C:tUsers4mrodgers\Documents\972007 New Police City Hall Faciiity {Centrall_mrod7ers@Rortyelving com M !\Wee-srv-mn woldae com151Pau1tC1-NewHope\172007 New Palk Cily Hall Fe dily\02_ARCH\i2evi"172007 New Pollca City Hall Facility (Centrsl) M PROJECTED SCHEDULE Page 30 Comm No: 172007 Ilee COST ANALYSIS FUNDING SOURCE New Police/City Hall (net proceeds) Utility - Energy Rebates TOTAL FUNDING CONSTRUCTION Bid Pack #1 City of New Hope Police & City Hall 8/11/2017 Schematic Design Design Development 5/22/2017 8/21/2017 $18,879,000 $18,879,000 $0 $0 $ 18,879,000 $ 18,879,000 Building Construction $ 14,870,000 $ 13,200,000 Construction Contingency $ 684,000 $ 684,000 Site Development incl $ 875,000 Subtotal $ 15,554,000 $ 14,759,000 Bid Pack #2 Parking Lot incl $ 900,000 Contingency incl $ 40,000 Subtotal $ - $ 940,000 SUBTOTAL $ 15,554,000 $ 15,699,000 FEES, "TESTI NG Architectural Fees $ 830,000 $ 830,000 Engineering Fees S 117,370 $ 117,370 Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriter's Discount $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Stantex - Geotechnical/Surveying/Wetland Deliniation $ - $ 20,000 Reimbursables $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Metro olitan Council / City SAC ([#] SAC units) $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Abatement - $ 100,000 Trunk Storm Drainage Fee $ $ Trunk Sanitary Fee $ $ Engineering/City Inspections (Watermain Plan Review and Inspection) $ $ Water Access Charge Fee incl incl Trunk Water Fee incl incl Engineering/City Inspections $ 30,000 $ 30,000 State or City Building Code Plan Review Fee $ - $ - State or City Review/Inspection Fee $ - $ Health Dept. Plumbing Plan Review Fee $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Health Dept. Food Service Plan Review Fee $ - $ City Roads and Services Fees $ - $ Utility Transformer Fees/Inspection $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Bid Advertisement/Printing $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Legal Allowance $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Special Structural Inspections $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Commissioning $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Moving Costs $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Contingency $ 75,000 $ 100,000 SUBTOTAL $ 1,467,370 $ 1,612,370 FURNITURE & EQUIPME,MT/ TECHNOLOGY Furniture Allowance $ 655,000 $ 700,000 Equipment Allowance $ 165,000 $ 165,000 Technology Allowance $ 165,000 $ 225,000 Furnishing/Consultant Fees $ 39,300 $ 39,300 Technology Consulting Fees $ 9,900 $ 9,900 Contingency $ 50,000 $ 60,000 SUBTOTAL (FF&E) $ 1,084,200 $ 1,199,200 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $ 18,105,570 $ 18,510,570 WIDocs/projects/predesign/cosl_analysis_master Commission No. [COMM #] Financing Ehlers Memo To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager From: Jason Aarsvold and Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers Date: August 21, 2017 Subject: Police/City Hall Facility and Pool Financing In anticipation of the upcoming bond issue(s) for the new Police / City Hall facility, this memorandum outlines some discussion items for consideration by the City Council. These discussion points include the City's authority to issue the bonds, the method of sale, payment schedule, and bank qualification considerations. Bonding Authority We are recommending that the City issue General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Bonds. The issuance of general obligation bonds is the most cost effective option for financing the Police/City Hall facility. In 2003, the Minnesota State Legislature adopted a statute that allows cities to issue municipal bonds under a capital improvement plan without a referendum requirement. The CIP statute applies to capital improvements consisting of city halls, public works, and public safety facilities. As part of the bond issue process, the City would adopt a 5 -year CIP for the bonds, separate from the City's existing CIP. This CIP would include the potential for the City to issue bonds over more than one year for the project to provide maximum flexibility. Method of Sale In order to obtain the lowest interest cost to the City, we recommend the City competitively bid the purchase of the Bonds from local and national underwriters/banks. Based on the City's strong credit rating and the size of the issue(s), we expect multiple bidders for the City's bonds which can help achieve the lowest possible cost. Payment Schedule The attached tax impact analysis and debt schedules assume the first interest payment the City will need to levy for will be due on August 1, 2019 and the first principal payment will be due on February 1, 2020. This requires the City to capitalize interest through the February 1, 2019 payment which is approximately $520,000 to $740,000 (dependent upon which option), which adds to the cost of the bonds. If the City wants to reduce or negate the costs of capitalized interest, it would need to levy in 2017 for collection in 2018. If the City is okay proceeding with the increased costs, they will need to levy in 2018 for collection in 2019 to make principal and E H LE RS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE mmehlers-inc.corn Minnesota phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois fax 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1122 toll free 800-552-1171 Kirk McDonald Police / City Hall Financing August 21, 2017 Page 2 interest payments starting on August 1, 2019. The City will continue to make interest payments each August 1 and principal and interest payments on February 1 thereafter. Below is a chart that shows average annual levy, overall costs of the bonds, amount of capitalized interest, if any and increased costs due: Bank Qualification (BQ) Difference $ 691,600 $ 933,481 $ 817,748 If the City issues no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt debt during the calendar year, the bonds can be designated BQ. This designation broadens the market for the bonds, which can result in lower interest rates. To date, the debt issuance scenarios discussed with the City and residents have assumed the financing would include two (2) series of bonds - one $10,000,000 issue in late 2017 and another $10,000,000 issue in 2018 (the next calendar year). This means both issues would be BQ. The savings projected from the reduced interest rate of the BQ bonds off -sets the increased cost of issuing two series of bonds. The chart below from January 2016 shows the spread between BQ (bottom line) and non-BQ rates (upper line) at that time. In the short term, the spread between BQ and non BQ was small but still added approximately 0.1%. However, in the longer term, the spread between BQ and no BQ rates was more significant at approximately .50% to .75%. 4.00 3.50 9.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 r 0.50 o,00 ........1I'lII11 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 E- Spread —Non•dQ j — SQ II Kirk McDonald Police / City Hall Financing August 21, 2017 Page 3 As of the date of this memorandum, the spread in the market between BQ and non-BQ bonds has narrowed. The chart below depicts the current spread. In the first seven years, the rates are basically the same. The longer end of the chart, continues to show a spread between the rates, but it is just under 0.5%. 1 50 100 z 050 ^_018 2017 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 202E 2027 2028 202' 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 a We®d —N on-bQ •--BQ Based upon this, we have updated our analysis of bond scenarios to include three approaches in which the City issues $20 million in bonds, using current market rates, plus .50% cushion: 1. Option #1 involves two (2) separate $10 million issues to maintain the BQ status of the bonds. Each has a 20 -year term and one is issued at year end 2017 and another in 2018. 2. Option #2 assumes one (1) bond issue in 2017 that would be sufficient to pay for the entire project. The bond would be issued for a 20 -year term and since it would be over $10 million, it would not be BQ. 3. Option #3 is a modification of Option #2 in that the bonds are still issued in 2017, but for a 15 -year period. Kirk McDonald Police / City Hall Financing August 21, 2017 Page 4 The following two tables below summarizes the results and compares [mations #2 and #3 to Option #1. As the tables indicate, if rates come in where anticipated in 2018 we project that it will be most cost effective (less interest) to plan a single, 15 -year non-BQ issue in 2017. Because the projected difference in interest rates between BQ and non-BQ is not as significant today as it has been in the recent past, the Council should consider the pros and cons of each option before making a definitive decision on which way to proceed. Below is a chart summarizing the pros and cons of each (please note the list may not include everything the City Council deems important and those items can be discussed at the work session): Option Lowest monthly/annual tax impact 2ruf hlyhest bond costs over life of bonds 1 2nd lowest bonds costs over life of bonds Not all funding evadable at time of award of construciton contract Interest rate risk for 2nd bond Issue Debt outstanding for 20 years Montly/annual tax impact only $.51 more than option 1 Highesl bond costs over life of bonds 2 All funds are available at time of award of construction contract Debt outstanding for 20 years No interest rate risk Spread between Bo and non BQ may change by time of issuance Frees up capacity to issue bonds for other projects, including pool in 2018 No interest rate risk Highasl, monthly/annual tax impact ($3.09 more than Option 1) 3 Lowest bond costs over life of bonds ($1.745M in savings) Spread between BQ and non BQ may change by time of issuance Debt repaid in 15 years Frees up capacity to issue bords for other projects, including pool in 2018 As noted, Options #2 and #3 provide an opportunity for the City to bond in 2018 for the pool if they choose, thus eliminating further rate risk and increased costs for the project. Overall, all alternatives represent cost-effective options to finance the planned City Hall/Police facility. The chosen alternative will depend on the City's comfort level and objectives as it relates to the project. We will be present at the City Council's work session on August 21, 2017 to discuss the options in greater detail. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us at 651-697-8500 with questions. Debt Issuance Services F --O-E]-- City of New Hope, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact August 16, 2017 2017 and 2018 Combined BQ Bonds - 20 Years Option #1 BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION Bond Issue Amount $20,000,000 Number of Years 20 Average Interest Rate 3.17%I Estimated Bond Rating S&P Market Value AA� PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION Capacity Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2017 $16,370,302 Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 1,426,645 Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: $ 28,240 Payable - 2017 Without Proposed Bonds 58.878% Payable - 2017 With Proposed Bonds 67.593% Estimated Tax Rate Increase 8.715% TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current Proposed Proposed Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity City Tax Tax Increase* City Tax $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 718 $ 422.51 $ 62.54 $ 485.05 150,000 23,740 126,260 1,263 743.39 110.03 853.43 Residential 196,000 19,600 176,400 1,764 1,038.61 153.73 1,192.34 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 2,898 1,706.05 252.52 1,958.57 400,000 1,240 398,760 3,988 2,347.82 347.51 2,695.33 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 992 $ 584.10 $ 86.46 $ 670.56 200,000 - 200,000 2,149 1,265.56 187.32 1,452.88 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 3,472 2,044.37 302.60 2,346.96 400,000 - 400,000 4,795 2,823.17 417.87 3,241.05 500,000 - 500,000 6,118 3,601.98 533.15 4,135.13 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,731 7,496.01 1,109.52 8,605.53 *The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. Prepared by Ehlers 8/16/2017 40 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE New Hope, Minnesota $20,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2017 and Series 2018 Issue Summary Assumes Current Market BQ AA Rates plus 50bps Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 12/01/2017 1 Delivered 12/01/2017 Series 2017 Series 2018 Su Issue Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $10,000ool.00 SII1,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 Total Sources $10,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 84,000.00 80,000.00 160.000.00 Costs of Issuance 78,040.00 78,000.00 156,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized interest (CIF) Fund 334,973.33 183,561.67 518,535.00 Deposit to Project Fund 9,507,026.67 9,658,438.33 19,165,465.00 Total Uses $10,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 Series 2017 8 2017 GO CIP I Issue Summary 1 8/16/2017 1 8:25 AM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE New Hope, Minnesota $20,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2017 and Series 2018 Issue Summary Assumes Current Market BQ AA Rates plus 50bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2018 - - _ _ 02/01/2019 - - 518,535.00 518,535.00 (518,535.00) - 02/01/2020 795,000.00 1.575% 562,462.50 1,357,462.50 - 1,357,462.50 1,425,335.63 02/01/2021 805,000.00 1.700% 549,945.00 1,354,945.00 1,354,945.00 1,422,692.25 02/01/2022 825,000.00 1.800% 536,262.50 1,361,262.50 1,361,262,50 1,429,325.63 02/01/2023 835,000.00 1.925% 521,415.00 1,356,415.00 - 1,356,415.00 1,424,235.75 02/01/2024 855,000.00 2.050% 505,345.00 1,360,345.00 - 1,360,345.00 1,428,362.25 02/01/2025 870,000.00 2.175% 487,820.00 1,357,820.00 - 1,357,820.00 1,425,711.00 02/01/2026 890,000.00 2.325% 468,897.50 1,358,897.50 - 1,358,897.50 1,426,842.38 02/01/2027 910,000.00 2.450% 448,205.00 1,358,205.00 - 1,358,205.00 1,426,115.25 02/01/2028 930,000.00 2.550% 425,910.00 1,355,910.00 - 1,355,910.00 1,423,705.50 02/01/2029 960,000.00 2.675% 402,195.00 1,362,195.00 - 1,362,195.00 1,430,304.75 02/01/2030 980,000.00 2.825% 376,515.00 1,356,515.00 - 1,356,515.00 1,424,340.75 02/01/2031 1,010,000.00 2.950% 348,830.00 1,358,830.00 1,358,830.00 1,426,771.50 02/01/2032 1,040,000.00 3.050% 319,035.00 1,359,035.00 - 1,359,035.00 1,426,986.75 02/01/2033 1,070,000.00 3.150% 287,315.00 1,357,315.00 - 1,357,315.00 1,425,180.75 02/01/2034 1,105,000.00 3.250% 253,610.00 1,358,610.00 1,358,610.00 1,426,540.50 02/01/2035 1,140,000.00 3.350% 217,695.00 1,357,695.00 - 1,357,695.00 1,425,579.75 02/01/2036 1,180,000.00 3.450% 179,505.00 1,359,505.00 1,359,505.00 1,427,480.25 02/01/2037 1,225,000.00 3.550% 138,795.00 1,363,795.00 1,363,795.00 1,431,984.75 02/01/2038 1,265,000.00 3.650% 95,305.00 1,360,305.00 1,360,305.00 1,428,320.25 02/01/2039 1,310,000.00 3.750% 49,130.00 1,359,130.00 1,359,130.00 1,427,086.50 Total $20,000,000.00 - $7,692,727.50 $27,692,727.50 (518,535.00) $27,174,192.50 $28,532,902.13 ificant Dates Dated 12/01/2017 First Coupon Date 8/01/2018 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $246,088.33 Average Life 12.304 Years Average Coupon 3.1260025% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 3.1910198% True Interest Cost (TIC) 3.1688225% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0878551% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 3.2486,435% Series 2017 8 2017 GO CIP I Issue Summary 1 8/16/2017 1 8:32 AM EHLERS► LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION Bond Issue Amount Number of Years Average Interest Rate Estimated Bond Rating ctual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2017 ebt Levy @ 105% - Average City of New Hope, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact August 16, 2017 2017 Non-BQ Bonds - 20 Years 00,000 20 3.58% S&P $16,370,302 1,483,136 Option #2 Debt Issuance Services Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: Payable - 2017 Without Proposed Bonds 58.87811 Payable - 2017 With Proposed Bonds 67.938;, Estimated Tax Rate Increase 9.060 TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current City Tax Proposed Tax Increase* Proposed City Tax Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity 718 $ 422.51 $ 65.01 $ 487.52 $ 100,000 150,000 $ 28,240 23,740 $ 71,760 126,260 $ 1,263 743.39 114.39 857.78 Residential 196,000 19,600 176,400 1,764 1,038.61 159.82 262.52 1,198.42 1,968.57 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 398,760 2,898 3,988 1,706.05 2,347.82 361.27 2,709.09 $ 400,000 100,000 1,240 $ - $ 100,000 $ 992 $ 584.10 $ 89.88 $ 673.98 200,000 - 200,000 2,149 1,265.56 194.74 1,460.30 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 1 - 300,000 3,472 2,044.37 314.58 434.42 2,358.95 3,257.59 400,000 - 400,000 4,795 2,823.17 500,000 - 500,000 6,118 3,601.98 554.26 4,156.24 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,731 7,496.01 1,153.46 1 8,649.47 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. Prepared by Ehlers 40EHLER 8/16/2017 LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Debt Issuance Services City of New Hope, Minnesota Estimated Tax Impact August 16, 2017 2017 Non-BQ Bonds - 15 Years BOND ISSUANCE INFORMATION Bond Issue Amount $20,000,000 Number of Years 15 Average Interest Rate 3.15% Estimated Bond Rating S&P Market Value AA PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION Capacity Actual Net Tax Capacity - Payable 2017 $16,370,302 Debt Levy @ 105% - Average 1,771,145 Estimated Tax Capacity Rate: $ 28,240 Payable - 2017 Without Proposed Bonds 58.878% Payable - 2017 With Proposed Bonds 69.697% Estimated Tax Rate Increase 10.819% TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Estimated Market Value Taxable Net Tax Current Proposed Proposed Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Capacity City Tax Tax Increase* City Tax $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 718 $ 422.51 $ 77.64 $ 500.15 150,000 23,740 126,260 1,263 743.39 136.60 880.00 Residential 196,000 19,600 176,400 1,764 1,038.61 190.85 1,229.46 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 2,898 1,706.05 313.50 2,019.55 400,000 1,240 398,760 3,988 2,347.82 431.43 2,779.25 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 992 $ 584.10 $ 107.33 $ 691.44 200,000 - 200,000 2,149 1,265.56 232.56 1,498.12 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 3,472 2,044.37 375.67 2,420.03 400,000 - 400,000 4,795 2,823.17 518.78 3,341.95 500,000 - 500,000 6,118 3,601.98 661.89 4,263.87 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 12,731 7,496.01 1,377.45 8,873.46 *The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. Prepared by Ehlers 8/16/2017 EHLER LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE New Hope, Minnesota $20,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2017 SINGLE PURPOSE Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AA Rates plus 50bps Sources & Uses Dated 12/01/2017 1 Delivered 12/01/2017 Sources Of Funds Par Arnount of Bonds Total Sources Uses Of Funds $20,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 160,000.00 Costs of Issuance 90,000.00 Deposit t4 Capitalized interest (CIF) Fund 645,2_83.33 Deposit to Project Fund 19,104,716.67 Total Uses $20,000,1100.0#I Series 2017 GO CIP Bonds I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 8/16/2017 1 8:34 AM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE New Hope, Minnesota $20,000,000 General Obligation CIP Bonds, Series 2017 SINGLE PURPOSE Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AA Rates plus 50bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total 02/01/2018 - Bond Year Dollars - Average Life - 02/01/2019 3.0812388% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 645,283.33 645,283.33 (645,283.33) - Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 02/01/2020 1,135,000.00 1.650% 553,100.00 1,688,100.00 - 1,688,100.00 1,772,505.00 02/01/2021 1,150,000.00 1.750% 534,372.50 1,684,372.50 - 1,684,372.50 1,768,591.13 02/01/2022 1,170,000.00 1.850% 514,247.50 1,684,247.50 - 1,684,247.50 176845988 02/0112023 1,195,000.00 2.000% 492,602.50 1,687,602.50 - 1,687,602.50 1,771,982.63 02/01/2024 1,220,000.00 2.150% 468,702.50 1,688,702.50 - 1,688,702.50 1,773,137.63 02/01/2025 1,245,000.00 2.300% 442,472.50 1,687,472.50 - 1,687,472.50 1,771,846.13 02/01/2026 1,270,000.00 2.500% 413,837.50 1,683,837.50 - 1,683,837.50 1,768,029.38 02/01/2027 1,305,000.00 2.650% 382,087.50 1,687,087.50 - 1,687,087.50 1,771,441.88 02/01/2028 1,340,000.00 2.750% 347,505.00 1,687,505.00 - 1,687,505.00 1,771,880.25 02/01/2029 1,375,000.00 3.050% 310,655.00 1,685,655.00 - 1,685,655.00 1,769,937.75 02/01/2030 1,420,000.00 3.250% 268,717.50 1,688,717.50 - 1,688,717.50 1,773,153.38 02/01/2031 1,465,000.00 3.450% 222,567.50 1,687,567.50 - 1,687,567.50 1,771,945.88 02/01/2032 1,515,000.00 _ 3.550% 172,025.00 1,687,025.00 1,687,025.00 1,771,376.25 02/01/2033 1,570,000.00 3.650% 118,242.50 1,688,242.50 - 1,688,242.50 1,772,654.63 02/01/2034 1,625,000,00 3.750% 60,937.50 1,685,937.50 - 1,685,937.50 1,770,234.38 Total $20,000,000.00 - $5,947,355.83 $25,947,355.83 (645,283.33) $25,302,072.50 $26,567,176.13 Significant Dates Dated 12/01/2017 First Coupon Date 8/01/2018 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $193,01$.33 Average Life 9A51 Years Average Coupon 3.0812388% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 3.1641325% True Interest Cost (TIC) 3,1459001% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0475762% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 3.2016788% Series 2017 GO CIP Bonds I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 8/16/2017 1 8:34 AM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Pre -Sale Schedule dated July 25, 2017 5- Year City Capital Improvement Plan Bond Issuance City of New Hope, Minnesota The City Council must take the following actions before Bonds can be issued: • City Council directs preparation of a 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan. • City Council conducts a Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan. • City Council approves Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan by at least a 3/5ths vote of the governing body membership. The table below lists the steps in the issuing process: 08/21/2017 City Council work session - Ehlers provides overview of financing plan and alternatives for Police / City Hall Building. 08/28/2017 City Council adopts Resolution calling for Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan. 08/31/2017 Close date to get Notice of Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan to official newspaper for publication. 9/07/2017 Publish Notice of Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan (publication no more than 28 days and no less than 14 days prior to hearing date). Additionally, notice may be posted on the City's official web site, if any. 9/25/2017 7:00 p.m. - City Council holds Public Hearing on Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan and adopts Resolution giving preliminary approval for their issuance and approving Capital Improvement Plan by at least a 3/5ths vote of the governing body membership. 10/25/2017 Reverse referendum period ends (within 30 days of the public hearing). 11/13/2017 Tentative presale date - City Council provides for sale of Bonds. 12/11/2017 Tentative bond sale date - City Council accepts offer for Bonds and adopts Resolution -Approving sale of Bonds. 12/28/2017 Tentative closing/receipt of funds. Police/City Hall Facility Construction and Financial Schedule Date Description 08/10/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 5:30 pm 08/21/17 Work Session: review design development and financing 08/28/17 Council Mtg: 1) approve design development 2) adopt resolution calling for public hearing on issuance of bonds and capital im rovement plan 09/07/17 Advertise public hearing on bonds 09/25/17 Council Mtg - public hearing on bonds; adopt resolution giving preliminary approval for issuance and approving capital improvement plan (requires 3/5ths vote) 10/16/17 Work Session - review construction documents 10/23/17 Council Mt - approve construction documents 10/25/17 Reverse referendum period ends (within 30 days of public hearing) 11/09/17 and 11/16/17 Advertisements for bids 11/13/17 Council Mt - provide for sale of bonds (tentative re -sale date) 11/30/17 Bid opening 12/04/17 Work Session - review bids 12/11/17 Council Mtg: 1) Bond sale - adopt res approving sale of bonds 2) Award construction contract 12/28/17 Tentative closin /recei t of funds. I:\Space Needs Study\ Schedules \Construction and Financial Schedule.docx Wold Architects Approved Proposal 1/9/17 Council Meeting Rues:9,20) ction Janua Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Resolution approving contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving contract for design and construction services for a new police station and city hall with Wold Architects and Engineers. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The contract with Wold Architects was discussed at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the contract on a regular council agenda for consideration. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance at the meeting and will make a presentation and be available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens task force to study the issue. The task force consisted of representatives from all the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The task force presented a recommendation to the Council in September 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November of 2015 to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the task force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the task force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the task force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the task force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The task force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June 2016. The task force met several times and studied a variety of options and cost estimates. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force unanimously recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Design and Construction Contract for City Hall and PD Station w Wold 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. The survey responses were presented to the council at the December 19 work session. The responses from the open house, online and Leatherman 2015 city-wide survey generally indicate public support for the task force recommendation. The Wold Architects proposal is divided into the following phases: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services After the completion of each phase, the documents are presented to the owner (City Council) for approval before proceeding to the next phase. The overall contract cost is based on a fixed fee of 6% of the new building construction cost and includes a credit for work that has already been completed to date. The maximum contract amount for Wold Architects contract, including reimbursable expenses and services for furniture and equipment, is $915,200. The Stantec civil engineering services proposal (a separate agenda item) is $117,370. A critical path schedule showing the phases for the police station/city hall/pool projects is attached and is compared to the projects in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The schedule can be modified as needed. Funding The funding for the Wold Architectural services agreement will be funded partially from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. The estimated cost to construct a new police station/city hall facility on the pool site is $18,879,000, which would require a bond issue of $19,355,000. The estimated tax impact to a New Hope resident with an estimated market value of $196,000 is $147.98 per year or $12.33 per month. The estimated cost to repair the pool in the current location is $6.5 million and an additional $2 million would be required to replace the pool in another location, for a total of $8.5 million. The cost estimate recommended an additional $100,000 to replace any displaced park amenities for a total cost of $8.6 million. The city would need a bond issue of $8,935,000 to net $8.6 million for construction. The estimated tax impact would be $74.73 per year or $6.23 per month for the pool project. When combining the tax impact for both the police station/city hall project and the pool replacement project, the estimated tax impact is $222.71 per year or $18.56 per month. Bonding for both the police station/city hall facility and the future pool improvements is included in the city's long range financial plan. Attachments • Resolution • 12/14/16 Wold Architects Proposal • 1/5/17 City Attorney Correspondence 0 Wold Architects Contract Request for Action, Page 3 • Tentative Timeline ■ September 2015 Task Force Recommendation • September 2016 Task Force Recommendation • City Engineer Memo — Pool Renovation • Soil Boring Data • Ehlers Financial Impact • Facility Analysis/Building Deficiencies • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes • Project History Re: City of New Hope New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 Dear Kirk: December 14, 2016 Kirk McDonald, City Administrator New Hope City Hall 4401 XylodAvenue North New HopR� Minnesota 55428 We are pleased to provide our proposal to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed New Police Station and City Hall project as approved by the City Council. As a culmination of many years of thoughtful study regarding the condition of your existing facility, the space needs of each of the departments housed in the facility, and the most effective siting of a potential new facility, Wold is excited by the prospect of participating in the realization of turning these concepts into actuality. As with the Space Needs Study and Site Master Planning we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. We propose to provide full service architectural and engineering services, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering for all project phases from Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Observation and Post Occupancy Close-out as outlined in the American Institute of Architects Document B101— Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. This letter is to serve as an amendment to that contract per Article 11.1.B. Phases of work are delineated as follows. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES During the first phase—Schematic Design—an Architect consults with the Owner to determine project goals and requirements. During Schematic Design, study drawings, documents, or other media are developed that illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form for the Owner to review. Schematic Design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. This phase produces a final Schematic Design, to which the Owner agrees after consultation and discussions with the Architect. Costs are estimated based on overall project volume. The design then moves forward to the Design Development phase. Schematic Design often produces a site plan, floor plans, sections, an elevation, and other illustrative materials; computer images, renderings, or models. Typically, the drawings include overall dimensions, and a construction cost is estimated. Schematic Design accounts for 15% of architectural services. Wald Architects and Engineers PLANNERS 3132 Minnesota Stcect—Sid 4C W��}�;o ARCHITECTS Saint Nul, MN 551W i wnldai..coni 1 691 227 7773 ENGINEERS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 2 Design Development services use the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take them one step further, This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. Typically referred to as DD, this phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. The DD phase often ends with a formal presentation to, and approval by, the owner. Design Development often produces floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door and window details and outline material specifications. DD accounts for 200 of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SERVICES The next phase is Construction Documents (CDs). Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once CDs are completed, the Architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. CDs accounts for 40% of architectural services. BID PHASE SERVICES The first step of this phase is preparation of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. The Architect and Owner may elect to have a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. The final step is to award the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. The final deliverable is a construction contract, Once this document is signed, project construction can begin. Bidding accounts for 5% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION PHASE -SERVICES Contract Administration (CA) services are outlined in the Owner -Architect construction agreement. CA services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. The Architect's core responsibility during this phase is to help the Contractor to build the project as specified in the CDs as approved by the Owner. Questions may arise on site that require the Architect to develop architectural sketches: drawings issued after construction documents have been released that offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. Deliverables: A successfully built and contracted project. CA accounts for 20% of architectural services. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 3 For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction based on your approved construction cost. In addition, we believe that although much of our work to date was exploring concepts that have been abandoned, some of the work that we have already performed has value in the forthcoming design process. Therefore, we offer that half of all fees paid to date be credited towards the project. This results in the following calculation for the overall building design and construction phases: Building Construction Budget $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition Budget $ 250,000.00 Half , i i $ 342,000.00 Total Building Construction Budget $14,272,000.00 Full Service Nixed FeeRate x 6.0% Typical Full Service Fixed Fee $ 856,000.00 Cre'i�it Qr i r—IIV- —UI; l.fQY15 ($ 26.000.00) Full Service Fixed Fee. $ 830,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Supplemental Basic Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: • Transportation in connection with travel. R Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web Sites, and extranets. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. O Printing, reproductions (except sets of each phase for Owner review), plots, standard form documents. ® Postage, handling and delivery. i Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner. o Renderings, models, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner. t Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants and, if authorized in advance by the Owner. i All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses. a Other similar Project -related expenditures, if authorized in advance by the Owner. We have found that reimbursable expenses typically do not exceed $2,500.00 per million of construction cost on a project of this size. Therefore, we propose to invoice reimbursable expenses at actual cost with a maximum amount capped at $36,000.00 resulting in a total contract amount of $866,000.00. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 4 In addition to these phases for design and construction of the building, Wold Architects and Engineers has full Interior Design and Audio/Visual Systems Design capability and offers to provide the services needed to design, procure and administer implementation of these building elements. We offer a similar fixed fee approach, calculated by our offered 6% rate multiplied by the value of the furnishings or equipment that we are responsible for. Therefore, based upon the approved budget, typical fees would be calculated as follows: Furniture Budget $655,000.00 full. Service Fixed Fee -Rate A 6.0°In Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Equipment Budget $165,000.00 Full & o bad Fee Rate x_ --6,0.% Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 In summary, Wold Architects and Engineers offers the City of New Hope the following proposed fees. Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts' ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Wold's Maximum Contract Amount $ 915,200.00 Stantec''s_Civiling� cerdns an Ipe Design Fog S 117,2100 Total Profession Design and Engineering Services $1,032,570.00 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Wg1d Architects and Engineers d Joel L. Dunning I ZLEED A Partner cc: Ben Beery, Wold Matt Mooney, Wold Wol City of New Hope April 26, 2013 -T- Space Needs Study Kickoff History ---------------- - - - - -i-------------------------------------------- - - - - - - January 21, 2014 --I- Council Update -Space Needs and Site Exploration May 13, 2014Council Update -Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project August 12, 2014 "'t` Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - Spring 2015 mmr" Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force May 15, 2015 --f- Task Force Kick Off September 21, 2015 '-'f° Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 17, 2015 --�- Public Open House on New Police/City Hall -------------------------#--------------------------------------- ------ - - - - - - Spring 2016 -r Site Analysis and Options Developed May 2016 ' Citizen Task Force Reconvened September 19, 2016 Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 2, 2016 Public Open House Wol Task Force Recommendation Task Force 2016 Recommendation: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. 4. A public open house should be scheduled for November 2nd. Wol - r - Option 3 Pool Site rw7oll Cost Worksheet — Option 3 Potential Park Improvements Option 3 Pool Site i Hali 0. -Police Building Construction $13,6M.000.0 Buildina Demolition $0.00 Site Development (Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75,000.00 Construction Contingency $684,000.00 Subtotal Construction $15,554,000.00 0.00 Temp Tenant Improvements Temp Technology Costs Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technology Allowance $165,000.00 Project QQaingency $780,000.00 Fees, Testing, Printing $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement 0. Skate Park Replacement Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parking Lot $0.00 BasketballNolleyball Replacement $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium $2,000,000.00 Total Park Improvements $2,100,000.00 Total $20,979,000.00 Wol Next Steps Arch itectu ra I/Engi neeri ng Design » Schematic Design » Design Development » Construction Documents » Bidding Construction (Contract) Administration Furniture Design Equipment Design Wol Next Steps Schematic Design (15%): » Determine project goals and requirements. » Illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form. » Zoning / Code requirements are discovered. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » A site plan, floor plans, sections, elevations, computer images, renderings, or models. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » Council Reviews and Approves a Final Report. Wol Next Steps Design Development (20%): » Takes the SD Concepts one step further. » Lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. » Results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. » Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. » Floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions including door and window details and outline material specifications. » Formal approval by the owner. Wol Next Steps Construction Documents (40%): » Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. » A cost estimate is completed. » The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. » Approval by the Council is sought to proceed. Wol Next Steps Bidding (5%): » Issuing of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. » The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. » Hold a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. » The Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. » The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. » Council awards the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. » The final deliverable is a construction contract. Wol Next Steps Construction Administration (20%): Contract Administration (CA) services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. » Architect's core responsibility is to help the Contractor -to build the project as designed » Architect to offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. » Deliverable: A successfully built and contracted project. Next Steps Furniture and Equipment Design: » Evaluating the condition of existing assets » Developing a plan for reuse and new purchases » New Furniture and Equipment selection » Develop installation plan » Procurement » Submittal Review » Installation coordination and oversight » Punch Lists » Warranty walkthrough Wol Wold's Calculated Fixed Fees: Schematic Design (15%) Design Development (20%) Construction Documents (40%) Bidding (5%) Construction Administration (20%) Credit for Previous Efforts Maximum Reimbursable Expenses Typical Furniture Fixed Fee Next Steps $ 128,400.00 $ 171,200.00 $ 342,400.00 $ 42,800.00 $ 171, 200.00 ($ 26,000.00) $ 36,000.00 $ 39,300.00 Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 $ 915,200.00 Request for Action August 28, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.1 Agenda Title Motion approving police station/city hall design development phase plans and authorizing proceeding with the construction documents phase with Wold Architects (project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council approve a motion approving the police station/city hall design development phase plans and authorize proceeding with the construction documents phase with Wold Architects. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance to make a presentation of the design development phase plans. The City Council reviewed the plans at the August 21 work session and the majority were supportive of moving to the next phase in the planning process. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013,'the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background The city has been discussing the space needs issue since 2013 and a citizen task force was formed in 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Three public open houses have been held to gather community feedback. On January 9, 2017, Council approved a five -phase contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers. The phases are: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services It was agreed that after the completion of each phase, the documents would be presented to the Council for formal acceptance before proceeding to the next phase. The schematic design plans were shared with the space needs task force on April 20, were reviewed with the Council at the May 15 work session and the plans were approved with authorization to proceed with the design development phase at the May 22 council meeting. Over the last three months, staff have worked with Wold Architects on the design development plans and minutes from those meetings have been shared with the Council in the weekly update memo. The design development phase uses the initial design documents from the schematic phase and takes them one step further. This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural and architectural details. This phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. Design development also often produces floor plans, sections and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q - Space Needs Design Development Phase Approval082817.docx Request for Action, Page 2 and window details and outline material specifications. The design development phase accounts for 20% of architectural services. During this phase, several individual department meetings were held with all employees for the department to solicit their feedback and input on their respective work areas, so that all employees are involved in the process. Special technical meetings were also held regarding technology through the building, including the council chambers and conference rooms, which involved LOGIS, Solution Builders and Northwest Community Television. The design development plans were shared with the space needs task force on August 10 and the task force was supportive of the plans and recommended proceeding with the next step. During the construction document phase, the architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. The drawing and specifications include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. The construction documents phase accounts for 40% of architectural services. It is anticipated that the construction documents will be completed and presented to the City Council at the October 16 council work session. Attachments Wold Architects' Design Development Report • Wold Architects' 1/19/17 Proposal Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Sweet, Suite W2000 Saint Paul, MN 55101 wolclaexom 1 651 227 7773 Design Development Submittal NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA Comm No: 172007 Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Guiding Principles 2 Site Plan 3 Building Program Summary 4-9 Floor Plan - Main Level 10 Floor Plan - Lower Level 11 Interior Views 12-19 Elevations 20-21 Exterior Views 22-29 Projected Schedule 30 Projected Budget 31 8/16/2017 1:17:08 PM C:1UuvGNmrodparal6om"nls\172007 NmY P011ga Coy Hell Fecllily(C-Usi)_mropg... Qhoayolving.covo.A 4NNge•ervann.+wide•.wm10FPauM1CI-Nenblopell' A07 New Polic.Cily Hall Feahly=_ARCIi4Revk\112007 New Pollee Contents Comm No: 172007 CBy Hell Faclltty (Central). rvt INTRODUCTION CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Wold Architects and Engineers is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council the Design Development submittal for the New Police & City Hall facility. We wish thank the City Council, Core Planning Group, Citizen's Task Force and multiple sub -committees for their comprehensive efforts in providing the Design Team the information necessary to advance to this stage of development in a timely fashion. The Design Team will commence the next phase of this project upon approval by the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of this Design Development submittal. ko04 Dunn"AIA Partner WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 6/16/20171:36:46 PM Introduction C?Uyernnu epl{,rr.Warvm6Nr1972407 New Pok. C..ly Hell Facility (Centrell_mmdg#r6Qhortyrlving eom.rA rtWee-uv.rn."IdNo.[omlSlPftMI-NewHope\rn0g3 New Polic.Clty Hall F6aMyW_AACFWvvg1172007 New Police Page 1 City H.g FaclUly ICanlrall.M Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Wol GUIDING PRINCIPLES (1.) New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for COMMUNITY PRIDE. (2.) New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up-to-date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. a. Implement common sense, sustainable approaches. (3.) New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments onsite today with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. (4.) New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a SAFE & SECURE facility for the public, elected and appointed officials and staff. a. Public spaces should be designed so that they are accessible after hours. (6.) Build a Public Safety/ City Hall facility that is a functional, adaptable and great place to work. a. The facility should ENCOURAGE EFFICIENCY. INTERACTION. & COLLABORATION among all departments. (6.) Enhance Civic Center Park and the surrounding neighborhood. a. Plan for a facility that is cohesive and complimentary to the master space planned Civic Center Park and pool complex. b. The building's design and the park should work together to create A UNIFIED SPACE. (7.) The facility should strive to have a feel that is WELCOMING & FAMILIAR, open and accessible. a. Respect recent civic center redevelopment and streetscape. b. Respect the existing fire department. c. Architecture should be TIMELESS SIM20171:17:08 PM Guiding Principles C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police Cily Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving com M Mae-srv-mn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 2 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) M rwJ0, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL j 7 +. v{ I f r� - 7,0- r . � i •.� I A • C! A N IlF� A z V A � CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 6 h �1 r ' r , I B/16/20171:1709PM Site Plan C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police.Clly Hall Facility (Central)_mr9dgers@hortyelving,comM \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae,cam\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Faclllty\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 3 City Hall Facility (Centragm i Comm No: 172007 j 7 +. v{ I f r� ,L . � �A •fir • s`( s lif REPLAGMENT PAPKIN6 LOT z d+ � 6 h �1 r ' r , I B/16/20171:1709PM Site Plan C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police.Clly Hall Facility (Central)_mr9dgers@hortyelving,comM \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae,cam\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Faclllty\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 3 City Hall Facility (Centragm i Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE el NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Space Program Summary S/16/20171:17:10PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Padldy[GnGdJ rcrtaOyuQhatlytilvnpcwn.M Mae-srv-mn.woldae.com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facilily\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 4 City Hall Facility (Central) A Comm No: 172007 F'reesign Schematic Design Program Design Development Departmental Summary - Police 1.100 Public Spaces Net Area Total: 560 s.f. 520 s.f. 564 s,f. 1.200 Administration Net Area Total: 1,869 s.f. 1,885 s.f. 2,109 s.f. 1.300 Patrol Net Area Total: 2,748 s.f. 2,922 s.f. 2,396 s.f. 1.400 Investigations Net Area Total: 1,040 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 964 s.f, 1.500 Holding Net Area Total: 1,560 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,711 s.f, 1.600 Evidence Net Area Total: 2,380 s.f. 2,380 s.f, 2,079 s.f. 1.700 Support Spaces Net Area Total: 4,188 s.f. 3,948 s.f. 4,480 s.f. 1.800 Garage Support Net Area Total: 400 s,f. 400 s.f. 480 s,f. Total Police Office NSF 14,745 s.f. 14,655 s.f. 14,783 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 Total Police Office GSF 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f.' 20,696 s.f. Departmental Summary - City Hall 2.100 Public Space Net Area Total: 4,860 s.f. 4,460 s.f. 4,330 s.f. 2.200 City Manager Net Area Total: 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f, 1,275 s.f. 2.300 Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 1,808 s,f. 1,958 s.f. 1,804 s.f, 2.400 Comm. Development Net Area Total: 1,356 s,f. 1,652 s.f., 1,639 s,f. 2,500 Parks and Rec Net Area Total: 1,651 s.f, 1,801 s.f. 1,700 s.f. 2.600 Shared Space Net Area Total: 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,704 s.f. Total City Hall Office USF 12,105 s.f. 12,964 s.f. 12,452 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1,40 Total City Hall Office GSF 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 17,433 s.f. Garage Summary 3.100 Total Police Garage GSF 11,180 s.f. 117180 s.f. 18,425 s.f, 3.200 Total City Hall Garage GSF 900 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 880 s.f. Total Garage GSF 12,080 s.f. 12,380 s.f. 19,305 s.f. TOTAL Total Gross Square Footage - Police 20,643 s.f. 20,517 s.f. 20,696 s.f. Total Gross Square Footage - City Hall 16,947 s.f. 18,150 s.f. 17,433 s.f. Total Gross Square Footage - Garage 12,080 s.f. 12,380 s.f. 19,305 s.f. 49,670 s.f. 51,047 s.f. 57,434 s.f. Sub Total x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1,15 56,889 s.f. 58,704 s.f. 66,049 s.f. S/16/20171:17:10PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Padldy[GnGdJ rcrtaOyuQhatlytilvnpcwn.M Mae-srv-mn.woldae.com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic,City Hall Facilily\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 4 City Hall Facility (Central) A Comm No: 172007 Wol Space Program Summary 1.000 Police 1.100 Public Spaces 1.101 Public Waiting 1.102 Lobby Interview Room 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 1.104 Community Room Storage Public Spaces Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Public Spaces USF Needed 1.200 Administration 1.201 Chief Office 1.202 Captain Office 1.203 Admin. Assistant Office/Crime Analyst 1.204 Office Supervisor Office 1.205 Clerical Workstation 1.206 Future IT Coordinator - Workstation 1.207 Active Records Storage 1.208 Archive Records Room 1.209 Copy/Supply/Workroom 1.210 Conference Room 1.211 Admin Storage 1,456 s.f. Administration Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Administration Bldg USF Needed 1.300 Patrol 1.301 Sergeants Paired Offices 1.302 Shared Patrol Workstations 1.303 Patrol File Storage 1.304 Community Service Officer Wkstn 1.305 Animal Control Officer Wkstn 1.306 Crime Prevention Specialist Office 1.307 PTE CSO/Reserve Officer Wkstn 1.308 School Resource Officer Hotel Wkstn 1.309 Copy/Workarea 1.310 Roll Call Area /Radio Charging 1.311 CSO/Reserve Storage 1.312 Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev,) Patrol Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Patrol USF Needed 1.400 Investigations 1.401 Investigator's Office 1.402 Investigator's Office - Part Time 1.403 Computer Forensics 1 DTF Office 1.404 Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 1.405 Soft Interview Room 1.406 Invest. Storage/ Elect. Equip. Investigations Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Investigations USF Needed CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL redesign Schematic Design Program Design Development 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 120 s.f, 120 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 40 s.f. 0 s.f. 560 s.f. 520 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 784 s.f. 728 s.f. QTY Unit Size 2 130 s f. 645x 67 s f_ 2 130 s.f 200 s.f. 300 s.f. 110 s.f. 135 s.f. 240 s.f. 64 s,f. 160 s.f. 200 s.f. 140 s.f. 240 s.f, 80 s.f, 1,869 s.f. x 1.40 2,617 s.f. 480 s.f. 640 s.f. incl 64 s.f. 64 s.f, 64 s.f. 192 s.f. 64 s.f. See 1.209 900 s.f. 80 s.f. 200 s.f. 2,748 s.f. x 1.40 3,847 s.f 450 s.f. incl 150 s.f. 240 s.f, 120 s.f. 80 s.f. 1,040 s.f. x 1,40 1,456 s.f, 0/16/20171:17:11 PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com. wt Mae-sry-mn woldae com\StPau1\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 5 City Hall Facility (Central) M 200 s.f. 300 s.f. 110 s.f. 135 s.f. 256 s.f. 64 s.f. 160 s.f. 200 s.f. 140 s.f. 240 s.f, 80 s.f. 1,885 s.f. x 1.40 2,639 s.f 480 s.f. 896 s.f. incl 0 s.f. 64 s.f. 110 s.f. 128 s.f. 64 s.f. See 1.209 900 s,f. 80 s.f. 200 s.f. 443 s.f. 121 s.f. 564 s.f. x 1.40 790 s.f. 203 s.f. 296 s.f. 116 s.f. 116 s.f. 256 s.f. 64 s.f. 172 s.f. 391 s.f. 303 s.f. 192 s.f, 2,109 s.f. x 1.40 2,953 s.f 566 s.f. 900 s.f. incl 0 s.f. 144 s.f. 137 s.f. 167 s.f. 844 s.f. 204 s.f. 2,9"22 s.t. 2,396 S.T. x 1.40 x 1.40 4,091 s.f. 3,354 s.f 450 s.f. 445 s.f. incl incl 150 s.f, 148 s.f. 240 s.f. 237s,(. 120 s.f. 81 s.f. 80 s,f, 53 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 964 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 1,456 s.f. 1,350 s.f. Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE el NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Space Program Summary Predesign Schematic es(gn Program Design I Devetopment 1.500 Holding Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 300 s.f. 300 s.f, 1.501 Holding Cell (2@67 s.f. , 1@105 s.f.) 3 60 sl 140 s.f, 140 s.f. 239 s.f. 1.502 Holding Cell Juvenile 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 65 s.f, 1.503 Booking/Intox. 280 s.f. 280 s,f. 279 s.f. 1.504 Sallyport 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 1,038 s.f. 1.505 Hard Interview 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 90 s.f. 2,079 s.f. Holding Net Area Total: 1,560 s.f. 1,560 s.f. 1,711 s.f. x 1.40 Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 2,911 s.f. Holding USF Needed 2,184 s.f. 2,184 s.f, 2,395 s.f. 1.600 Evidence 1.601 Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 300 s.f. 300 s.f, 297 s.f. 1.602 Evidence Storage 1,200 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 1.603 Large Property Storage incl incl 165 s.f. 1.604 Vault Storage/ Drugs/ Weapons/ Drying Room 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 380 s.f. 1.605 Evidence Garage 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 577 s.f. 1.706 Evidence Net Area Total: 2,380 s.f. 2,380 s.f. 2,079 s.f. 1.707 Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 1.708 Evidence USF Needed 3,332 s.f. 3,332 s.f. 2,911 s.f. 1.700 Support Spaces 1.701 Armory/Weapon CleaninglAmmo Storage 120 s.f. 200 s.f. 112 s.f. 1.702 Ammunition Room 80 s.f. 0 s.f. 133 s.f. 1.703 Fitness Center 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 871 s.f. 1.704 City Staff Changing Room 160 s.f. 160 &L 380 s.f. 1.705 Defensive Tactics Training Room 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 808 s.f. 1.706 Defensive Tactics Training Storage 40 s.f. 40 s.f. 1.707 Breakroom wl Kitchenette (6-8 people) 640 s.f. 400 s.f. 457 s.f. 1.708 Quiet/Mothers Room 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 96 s.f. 1.709 Beverage Station 72 s.f. 72 s.f. 97 s.f. 1,710 Staff Toilet 2 25 M 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 1.711 Men's Locker Room 30 600 s.t. 360 s.f. 551 s.f. 1.712 Men's Toilet/ Shower 120 s.f. 360 s.f. 361 s.f. 1.713 Men's Vestibule 44 s.f. 44 s.f, 1.714 Women's Locker Room 10 240 s.f. 120 s.f, 236 s.f. 1.715 Women's Toilet/ Shower 120 s.f. 240 s.f. 378 s.f. 1.716 Women's Vestibule 44 s.f. 44 s.f. Support Spaces Net Area Total: 4,188 s.f. 3,948 s.f. 4,480 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.35 x 1.35 x 1.35 Support Spaces USF Needed 5,654 sT 5,330 sS 6,048 s.f. 1.800 Police Garage Support 1.801 Swat Gear Storage / Lockers for 6 180 s.f. 180 s.f. 155 s.f. 1.802 Gear bag storage 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 325 s.f. 1.803 Squad Supply Storage (helmets, shields, etc) 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 0 s.f. Garage Support Net Area Total: 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 480 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.30 Garage Support USF Needed 520 s.f. 520 sT 624 s.f. 8/16/20171:17:11 PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mmdg,rs\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving com wt \\Wee-sm-mn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NawHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 6 City Hall Facility (Central) rvt Comm No: 172007 rw0j, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Space Program Summary Predesign thematic Design Program Design Development 2.000 City Hall 2.100 Public Spaces 2.101 Public Lobby 600 s.f. 600 s.f. 600 s.f. 2.102 Council Chambers 1,500 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 1,367 s.f. 2.103 Council Chambers Table Storage 120 s.f. 120 s.f, 110 s.f, 2.104 TV Control Room 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 168 s.f. 2.105 Council Work Session Room 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 820 s.f. 2.106 Public After Hours Conference /Training 800 s,f, 800 s.f. 774 s.f. 2.107 Kitchenette 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 123 s.f. 2.108 Conference Room 400 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 S.f. 2.109 Public Toilets 300 s.f, 300 s.f. 368 s.f, Public Space Net Area Total: 4,860 0, 4,460 s.f. 4,330 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 Public Space USF Needed 6,804 s.f. 6,244 s f 6,062 s.f, 2.200 City Manager 2.201 City Manager Office 200 s.f, 250 s.f. 249 s.f. 2.202 City Clerk Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 2.203 Admin. Assistant 110 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.204 Assessor Hoteling Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.205 Mayor/Council Workspace/Conference Room 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 2.206 Public Counter incl 100 s.f. 114 s.f. 2.207 Ballot Storage 40 s.f. 40 s.f. incl 2.208 Elections Storage 600 s.f. 500 S.f. 439 s.f, 2.209 Public Record Viewing Kiosk 25 s.f. 0 S.f. 0 S.f. 2.210 Counter Workstations (2@54) 2 54 s r 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 S.f. 2.211 City Engineer Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. City Manager Net Area Total: 1,339 s.f. 1,382 s.f. 1,275 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 City Manager USF Needed 1,875 s.f. 1,935 s.f. 1,785 s.f. 2.300 Finance / IT / HR 1 Communications 2.301 HR/Admin Director Office 200 s.f, 200 s.f. 195 s.f, 2.302 HR Coordinator Office 150 S.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 2.303 Wellness Workstation See 1.703 See 1.703 64 s.f. 2.304 Finance Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 196 s.f. 2.305 Finance Storage 80 s.f, 80 s.f. 123 s.f. 2.306 Storage 28 s.f. 28 s.f. 58 s,f, 2.307 Finance Workstation (1@801@110) 192 s.f. 192 s.f. s.f 128 s.f. 2.308 Cash Handling/Safe Room 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.309 I.T. Coordinator Office 150 s,f. 150 s.f. 146 s.f. 2.310 I.T. Support Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.311 I.T. Set Up Workstation 150 S.f. 150 s.f. 107 s.f. 2.312 I.T. Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 2.313 Server Room 240 s,f. 240 s.f. 243 s.f. 2.314 Communications Office 150 s.f, 150 s.f. 134 s.f. 2.315 Communications Intern Work Area/Storage Wkstn 64 s.f, 64 sT 64 s.f, 2.316 Small Conference Room - 150 s.f. 143 s.f. Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 1,808 s.f, 1,958 s.f. 1,804 s.f, Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1,40 Finance/IT/HR USF Needed 2,531 s.f. 2,741 s.f. 2,526 s.f. 6/16/20171: 17:12 PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documenls\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@)hortyelving com M Mae-st'mn woldae com\SlPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police Page 7 City Hall Facility (Cen(ral) M Comm No: 172007 Wol 1 CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Space Program Summary redesign Schematic Designj Program Design Development 2.400 Community Development 2.401 CD Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 185 s.f. 2.402 CD Specialist Office 150 ST 150 STs f 278 s.f. 2.403 Building Official Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 139 s.f. 2.404 Housing Inspector Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 141 s.f. 2.405 General Inspector Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 144 s.f. 2.406 CD Assistant Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.407 Intern Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.408 Office Support Specialist 2 48 s f 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 2.409 Work Area incl incl 64 s.f. 2.410 Plan Storage I Layout Area 150 s.f. 200 s.f. 193 s.f. 2.411 Public Counter 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 97 s.f. 2.412 Small Conference Room 150 s.f. 142 s.f. 2.413 Address File Storage 96 s.f. 0 s.f. Comm. Development Net Area Total: 1,356 s.f. 1,652 s.f. 1,639 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 140 Comm. Development Bldg USF Needed 1,898 s.f. 2,313 s.f. 2,295 s.f. 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 184 s.f. 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 155 s.f. 2.503 Rec. Coordinator Office 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 155 s.f. 2.504 Office Support Spec. Workstation 2 48 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. l s f. 128 s.f, 2.505 Seasonal Supervisor 108 s.f. 108 s,f. 128 s.f. 2.506 Work Area 120 s.f. 120 s.f, incl 2.507 Work Room 190 s.f. 190 s,f. 315 s.f. 2.508 Supply Storage 505 s.f. 505 s.f. 492 s.f. 2.509 Park and Rec Counter 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 2.510 Small Conference Room 150 s.f. 143 s.f. Parks and Rec Net Area Total 1,651 s.f. 1,801 s.f. 1,700 s.f, Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1,40 Parks and Rec USF Needed 2,311 s,f. 2,521 s,f. 2,380 s.f. 2.600 Shared Spaces 2.601 Copy/Supplies/Work Room 300 s.f. 300 s,f. 176 s.f. 2.602 Mail/Work Area incl incl 77 s.f. 2.603 Quiet/Mother's Room 63 s.f. 63 s.f. 60 s.f, 2.604 Break Room 0 0. 600 s.f. 688 s.f. 2.605 Coats - 20 s.f. 20 s.f. 2.606 Archive Storage 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 257 s.f 2.607 Receiving 250 s.f. 250 s.f. 180 s.f, 2.608 Janitorial 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 116 s.f. 2.609 Staff Toilets 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 130 s.f. Shared Space Net Area Total: 1,091 s.f. 1,711 s.f. 1,704 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 x 1.40 Shared Space USF Needed 1,527 s.f. 2,395 s.f. 2,386 s.f. 811WO171:17:13 PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving corn vA ' Mae-src-mn woldae tom\StPaul\CI-NewHop,\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page 8 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) rvl n Space Program Summary 3.100 Vehicle Garage 3.101 Parking Stalls 3.102 Swat Truck Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage GSF Needed 3.200 Community Development Vehicle Garage 1201 Parking Stalls - CD Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage GSF Needed CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Existing Predesign Schematic Building Program Design 2,160 s.f. 8,100 s.f. 8,100 s.f. 0 s.f. 500 s.f. 500 s.f. 2,160 s,f. 8,600 s.f. 8,600 s.f, X 1.30 x 1_30 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 900 s.f. 0 s.f. 900 s.f, x 1.30 1,170 s.f. 8/16/20171:17:14 PM PROGRAM SUMMARY C:\Usem%mrodgers\Documenls\172007 New Police City Hall Facility(Central)_mrodgem@hodyelving.com M Page 9 Mae-srvann woldae. cam\StPaul\Cl-NewHope\172007 New Poli..City Hell FacIIM1y\02_HRCH\Revg\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) M 1,200 s.f, 1,200 s.f, X 1.30 1,560 s.f. Comm No: 172007 n PUBLIC SAFETY/ADMIN CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL PO ENTRY MEETING ROODS FAIN ENTRY LOBBYs i{ if wRRxsTss#flM aan anrxall � �� PUBLIC COMP. A it it It A iiI I) I 1 POW auxraa,-m �� EVIDENCE 6/16/2017 1:25:19 PM C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mMdpl40aQtwrtyalrin9.com.M \\Wae-sry_mn,woldae.com\S(Paul\CI-NmHope\172007 New PolicCily Hall FacilRrftk A9ChVUvfM172007 Naw Police City Hall Facility (Central}rvl PARKS i REB. COMM OEY. CITY MBMTAw Tr uImcm — bs . -7s 7, 1a—.� FINANCE I n. '.i, - n nfc. a,.lm trwoa PARKS & COMM. CITY REC. DEVELOP. MGMT I, FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL Page 10 HR Comm No: 172007 0 0 3 3 z 0 N O 0 I I Lil RAMP r- I al z m O E: 0 m 0 m 00 m0 Z -n i DZ Z 0� n D 0 �m B � RAMP r- I al z m O E: 0 m 0 m 00 m0 Z -n i DZ Z 0� n D 0 �m Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 6/10/2017 10:27:32 AM C:\UseWmrodgers\Document A172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Centralj_mrodgers@hortyelving com rvt \\Wae-sry-mn woldae com\SlPaul\Cl-NewHope\172007 New Poli, City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Lobby Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) t 1 Et, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL ell 8/16/20171:30:31 PM Council Chamber C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelvingcom rvt Mae-s'-mn.woldaecom\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic.CityHall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\772007New Police Page 14 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) wt Wol = volo /I00 a PAN n CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 8/16/2017 1:03:45 PM Police Lobby C:\Users\mradgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com.M \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae.cam\StPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic..City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 17 Comm No: 172007 Cily Hall Facility (Central).M of v CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL Wol 3\162017130: 31 PM Police Patrol Open Office C \User=\mrodq-0o,uments\172007 New Po I— City HalI Fanlity (Centraq_mmdge,s@hortyelving.ccm M Poli Fa Pol NPage 19 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-srv-mn.woldae,com\S[Paul\CI-NevuHope\172007 ew ic.City Hall cility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New ce City Hall Facility (Central).M MFFP, ,WJ01 BRICK 1 STONE EAST ELEVATION CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL ALUM. FRAME BRIGK 1 METAL 1 METAL 1 GLASS I PREGA5 SILL I I METAL 2 1 r- KALWALL PREGA5T SILL BRIGK 1 NORTH ELEVATION BRIGK 1 SPANDREL GLASS ALUM. FRAME STONE KAL WALL F ETAL 1 METAL 2 1 STONE 6LAIING —11 1 PREGA5T SILL I I F NORTH ELEVATION B/10/20171:20:32PM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS C:\Users\mrodgers\Documenls\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrudgers@hortyelving com rvl Page 20 Mae-sry-mn woldae com\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) t Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENTAND CITY HALL a BRIGK METAL GLA55 WEST ELEVATION BRIGK 1 ALUM. FRAME METAL 2 GLA55 I r— STONE METAL 1 j BRIGK 1 r— STONE SOUTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 6/16/20171:21: 05 PM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS C:\Users\mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving corn M Mae-sry-mn woldae. conn\StPaulkCl-NewHop,\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revd\172007 New Police Page 21 City Hall Facility (Central) M Comm No: 172007 rwJ0, CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 8116/20171:03:47PM THE SOUTH EAST C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com't 22 a 172007 Mae-sr,mn.woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewHcpe\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police Page Comm O. City Hall Facility (Central) wt CITY OF NEW HOPE es NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL wr G J�� EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 6/16120171: 03:46 PM THE EAST C:\Usem\rnrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (CentMl)_mrodgers@hortyelving. com M Mae-srv-mn.woldae com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 23 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) M rwo], CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL I - �I1J�I�M1 f�� EXTERIOR VIEW -FROM 8116/2017 1:03:48 PM THE NORTH EAST G:\Users\m rod gem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Gentral)_mrodgem@hortyelving.com.M \\Waasry mn.woldae om\StPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 N—Polic.City Hall Facility\02—ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police Page 24 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Centralyrvt Ei CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL ■ ■ EXTERIOR VIEW -CITY HALL ENTRANCE & 8/1612017 1:03:49 Plot LOBBY C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@hortyelving.com.wt Page 25 Comm No: 172007 \M—s' M -sry-m n,woldae, com\StPaul\CI-NewHope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police g City Hall Facility (Central).rvt rwo CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL ff. IV A - i EXTERIOR VIEW -POLICE 6/1620171:03:49 PM ENTRANCE C:\Users\mradgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgem@hortyeMng com.M Page 26 Comm No: 172007 \\Wae-sry-mn woldae.comGStPaul\CI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt n CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 6/16/2017 1:03:50 PM C:\Users\mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@;hortyelving.corn rvt IMae-sr,nnn.wolda com\StPauhCI-Ne Hope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revit\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central) rvt EXTERIOR VIEW -POLICE STAFF ENTRY AND BREAK ROOM Page 27 Comm No: 172007 CITY OF NEW HOPE - CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Wol EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS 6/16201710:33:31 AM EYE (SW) C:\Users\mrodgers\Documents\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgers@)hortyelving com.M \Wae-srv-mn-woldae com\SlPaul\CI-NmHope\172007 New Polic City Hall Facility\02_ARCHWe0t\172007 New Police Page 28 Comm No: 172007 City Hall Facility (Central) M Wol CITY OF NEW HOPE CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT EXTERIOR VIEW -BIRDS B/16/201710:39:23AM EYE (SE) C\Users\mrodgem\Documents\172007 New Police Cry Hall Facility (Central)_mrodgem@hortyelving-com.rvt Page 29 \Wyp-rrrv.mn,xv�tre.can5£ff+.sul'�CCFMwv7ta➢o\177A07 New Polic.City Hall Facility\02_ARCH\Revil\172007 New Police City Hall Facility (Central),M Comm No: 172007 rwJ0, APPROVAL TO BEGIN City Council Authorization 1/9/17 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 3 mos Citizen Task Force Meeting City Council Work Session 5/15/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) S/22/17 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3 mos Public Open House 6/27/17 Citizen Task Force Meeting 8/10/17 City Council Work Session 8/21/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 8/28/17 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2 1/2 mos City Council Work Session 10/16/17 City Council Meeting (Public Input) 10/23/17 - Approval of CD's 11/30/17 Issue Construction Documents 11/1/17 BUILDING CONSTR. BID/AWARD 2 mos Advertise Bidding 11/9/17 Advertise Bidding 11/16/17 Receive and Open Bids 11/30/17 City Council Work Session 12/4/17 City Council Meeting 12/11/17 - Approval of Contracts for Construction J I Pool Closed - Sell Bonds A BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 16 mos FURNITURE/EQUIP INSTALL 1 mos NEW POLICE/CITY HALL OCCUPANCY CITY HALL DEMO/POOL CONSTR. 6 mos CITY OF NEW HOPE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL 2017 2018 2019 J F M A M J 1 A S O N D J F M Pool Open A M J Pool Closed 1 A S 0 N D J F M A M J I Pool Closed J A S 0 N D Denotes major milestone or opportunity for City Council Action 9/16/2017 1:25:20 PM C:lUsers\rnrotlgerslDocumentsl172007 New Police City Hall Facility {Canb of _�„roagr a`-�r.cmrnl-,iso rem.M \\? tae-srv_mn wold.. c—%lPauliCl-N—H.p.,172007 New Polio City Hall+at•.cl t'�:t2_r.Rc:hrsje-,0+ 1 Y Toy=7 New Police City Hall facility (Cc+nbei) M PROJECTED SCHEDULE Page 30 Comm No: 172007 lee COST ANALYSIS FUNDING SOURCE New Police/City Hall (net proceeds) Utility - Energy Rebates TOTAL FUNDING CONSTRUCTION Bid Pack #1 City of New Hope Police & City Hall 8/11/2017 Schematic Design Design Development 5/22/2017 8/21/2017 $18,879,000 $18,879,000 $0 $0 $ 18,879,000 $ 18,879,000 Building Construction $ 14,870,000 $ 13,200,000 Construction Contingency $ 684,000 $ 684,000 Site Development incl $ 875,000 Subtotal $ 15,554,000 $ 14,759,000 Bid Pack #2 Parking Lot incl $ 900,000 Contingency incl $ 40,000 Subtotal $ . $ 940,000 SUBTOTAL $ 15,554,000 $ 15,699,000 FEES, TESTING Architectural Fees $ 830,000 $ 830,000 Engineering Fees $ 117,370 $ 117,370 Bond Issuance Fees and Underwriter's Discount $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Stantex - Geotechnical/Surveying/Wetland Deliniation $ . $ 20,000 Reimbursables $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Metropolitan Council / City SAC ([#] SAC units) - -- --W_�__�___........... .... ...., $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Abatement . $ 100,000 Trunk Storm Drainage Fee $ $ Trunk Sanitary Fee $ $ Engineering/City Inspections (Watermain Plan Review and Inspection) $ $ Water Access Charge Fee incl incl Trunk Water Fee incl incl Engineering/City Inspections $ 30,000 $ 30,000 State or City Building Code Plan Review Fee $ - $ - State or City Review/Inspection Fee $ - $ - Health Dept. Plumbing Plan Review Fee $ KOM $ 10,000 Health Dept. Food Service Plan Review Fee $ - $ - City Roads and Services Fees $ - $ - Utility Transformer Fees/Inspection $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Bid Advertisement/Printing $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Legal Allowance $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Special Structural Inspections $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Commissioning $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Moving Costs $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Contingency $ 75,000 $ 100,000 SUBTOTAL $ 1,467,370 $ 1,612,370 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT I TECHNOLOGY Furniture Allowance $ 655,000 $ 700,000 Equipment Allowance $ 165,000 $ 165,000 Technology Allowance $ 165,000 $ 225,000 Furnishing/Consultant Fees $ 39,300 $ 39,300 Technology Consulting Fees $ 9,900 $ 9,900 Contingency $ 50,000 $ 60,000 SUBTOTAL (FF&E) $ 1,084,200 $ 1,199,200 PROJECT BALANCE $ 773,430 $ 368,430 WlDocs/projects/predesign/cost_analysis_master Commission No. [COMM #] Wold Architects Approved Proposal 1/9/17 Council Meeting Request for Action January 9, 2017 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.2 Agenda Title Resolution approving contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for new police station and city hall Requested Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving contract for design and construction services for a new police station and city hall with Wold Architects and Engineers. The resolution was prepared by the city attorney. The contract with Wold Architects was discussed at the December 19 work session and staff was directed to place the contract on a regular council agenda for consideration. Joel Dunning from Wold Architects will be in attendance at the meeting and will make a presentation and be available to answer questions. Policy/Past Practice The city has entered in contracts for professional services in the past and is authorized to do so by state statute. In 2013, the city solicited proposals for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study. Wold Architects has completed similar projects for the cities of Richfield and Cottage Grove and several other metro area and out-of-state communities. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens task force to study the issue. The task force consisted of representatives from all the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The task force presented a recommendation to the Council in September 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November of 2015 to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the task force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the task force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the task force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the task force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The task force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June 2016. The task force met several times and studied a variety of options and cost estimates. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force unanimously recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at I:\RFA\City Manager\2017\Q-Design and Construction Contract for City Hall and PD Station w Wold 010917.docx Request for Action, Page 2 the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. The survey responses were presented to the council at the December 19 work session. The responses from the open house, online and Leatherman 2015 city-wide survey generally indicate public support for the task force recommendation. The Wold Architects proposal is divided into the following phases: • Schematic Design • Design Development • Construction Documents • Bids • Construction Services After the completion of each phase, the documents are presented to the owner (City Council) for approval before proceeding to the next phase. The overall contract cost is based on a fixed fee of 6% of the new building construction cost and includes a credit for work that has already been completed to date. The maximum contract amount for Wold Architects contract, including reimbursable expenses and services for furniture and equipment, is $915,200. The Stantec civil engineering services proposal (a separate agenda item) is $117,370. A critical path schedule showing the phases for the police station/city hall/pool projects is attached and is compared to the projects in Richfield and Cottage Grove. The schedule can be modified as needed. Funding The funding for the Wold Architectural services agreement will be funded partially from the city hall CIP fund and with bond proceeds. The estimated cost to construct a new police station/city hall facility on the pool site is $18,879,000, which would require a bond issue of $19,355,000. The estimated tax impact to a New Hope resident with an estimated market value of $196,000 is $147.98 per year or $12.33 per month. The estimated cost to repair the pool in the current location is $6.5 million and an additional $2 million would be required to replace the pool in another location, for a total of $8.5 million. The cost estimate recommended an additional $100,000 to replace any displaced park amenities for a total cost of $8.6 million. The city would need a bond issue of $8,935,000 to net $8.6 million for construction. The estimated tax impact would be $74.73 per year or $6.23 per month for the pool project. When combining the tax impact for both the police station/city hall project and the pool replacement project, the estimated tax impact is $222.71 per year or $18.56 per month. Bonding for both the police station/city hall facility and the future pool improvements is included in the city's long range financial plan. Attachments • Resolution • 12/14/16 Wold Architects Proposal • 1/5/17 City Attorney Correspondence 0 Wold Architects Contract Request for Action, Page 3 Tentative Timeline • September 2015 Task Force Recommendation • September 2016 Task Force Recommendation • City Engineer Memo — Pool Renovation • Soil Boring Data • Ehlers Financial Impact • Facility Analysis/Building Deficiencies • 12/19/16 Work Session Minutes • Project History December 14, 2016 Kirk McDonald, City Administrator New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon�Avenue North New Hopei Minnesota 55428 Re: City of New Hope New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 Dear Kirk: We are pleased to provide our proposal to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed New Police Station and City Hall project as approved by the City Council. As a culmination of many years of thoughtful study regarding the condition of your existing facility, the space needs of each of the departments housed in the facility, and the most effective siting of a potential new facility, Wold is excited by the prospect of participating in the realization of turning these concepts into actuality. As with the Space Needs Study and Site Master Planning we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. We propose to provide full service architectural and engineering services, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering for all project phases from Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Observation and Post Occupancy Close-out as outlined in the American Institute of Architects Document B101— Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. This letter is to serve as an amendment to that contract per Article 11.1.B. Phases of work are delineated as follows. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES During the first phase—Schematic Design—an Architect consults with the Owner to determine project goals and requirements. During Schematic Design, study drawings, documents, or other media are developed that illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and forin for the Owner to review. Schematic Design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. This phase produces a final Schematic Design, to which the Owner agrees after consultation and discussions with the Architect. Costs are estimated based on overall project volume. The design then moves forward to the Design Development phase. Schematic Design often produces a site plan, floor plans, sections, an elevation, and other illustrative materials; computer images, renderings, or models. Typically, the drawings include overall dimensions, and a construction cost is estimated. Schematic Design accounts for 15% of architectural services. Wold Architects and Engineers PLANNERS 3:32 Miuilesoui,Snrcet, Shite W2000 Sainr Paul, MN 55101 ARCHITECTS W01(lae.cont 1651 227 7773 ENGINEERS Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES Design Development services use the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take them one step further. This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. Typically referred to as DD, this phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. The DD phase often ends with a formal presentation to, and approval by, the owner. Design Development often produces floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door and window details and outline material specifications. DD accounts for 20% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SERVICES The next phase is Construction Documents (CDs). Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once CDs are completed, the Architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. CDs accounts for 40% of architectural services. BID PHASE SERVICES The first step of this phase is preparation of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. The Architect and Owner may elect to have a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. The final step is to award the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. The final deliverable is a construction contract. Once this document is signed, project construction can begin. Bidding accounts for 5% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Contract Administration (CA) services are outlined in the Owner -Architect construction agreement. CA services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. The Architect's core responsibility during this phase is to help the Contractor to build the project as specified in the CDs as approved by the Owner. Questions may arise on site that require the Architect to develop architectural sketches: drawings issued after construction documents have been released that offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. Deliverables: A successfully built and contracted project. CA accounts for 20% of architectural services. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 3 For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction based on your approved construction cost. In addition, we believe that although much of our work to date was exploring concepts that have been abandoned, some of the work that we have already performed has value in the forthcoming design process. Therefore, we offer that half of all fees paid to date be credited towards the project. This results in the following calculation for the overall building design and construction phases: Building Construction Budget $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition Budget $ 250,000.00 Half al of CotistillictiQu CQiitingcas:y $ 342,000.00 Total Building Construction Budget $14,272,000.00 FLJI Service Fixed Tee Rate x 6.0% Typical Full Service Fixed Fee $ 856,000.00 !Crc dit foPreyic�ces Ef ($ 26.000.00) Full Service Fixed Fee, $ 830,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Supplemental Basic Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: ® Transportation in connection with travel. • Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web Sites, and extranets. Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. m Printing, reproductions (except sets of each phase for Owner review), plots, standard form documents. • Postage, handling and delivery. • Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner. a Renderings, models, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner. • Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants and, if authorized in advance by the Owner. • All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses. o Other similar Project -related expenditures, if authorized in advance by the Owner. We have found that reimbursable expenses typically do not exceed $2,500.00 per million of construction cost on a project of this size. Therefore, we propose to invoice reimbursable expenses at actual cost with a maximum amount capped at $36,000.00 resulting in a total contract amount of $866,000.00. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 4 In addition to these phases for design and construction of the building, Wold Architects and Engineers has full Interior Design and Audio/Visual Systems Design capability and offers to provide the services needed to design, procure and administer implementation of these building elements. We offer a similar fixed fee approach, calculated by our offered 6% rate multiplied by the value of the furnishings or equipment that we are responsible for. Therefore, based upon the approved budget, typical fees would be calculated as follows: Furniture Budget $655,000.00 Full rv' , _ Fixed Fge Rate x 6.0 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Equipment Budget $165,000.00 F1111—service Fixedi Fee lZatc: x 6.0 Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 In summary, Wold Architects and Engineers offers the City of New Hope the following proposed fees. Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 ical E 612mci Fiad F:V&! q; 9g in .tin Wold's Maximum Contract Amount $ 915,200.00 Stl1rler's Civil Llncrin�; Llnciscapc} L7r�si}tls I s 11 370.(10 Total Profession Design and Engineering Services $1,032,570.00 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Architects and Engineers Ito "-4% Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED A Partner cc: Ben Beery, Wold Matt Mooney, Wold City of New Hope April 26, 2013 Space Needs Study Kickoff History ---------------------------- January 21, 2014 Council Update - Space Needs and Site Exploration May 13, 2014 -- Council Update -Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project August 12, 2014Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues Spring 2015 —�- Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force May 15, 2015 Task Force Kick Off September 21, 2015 --�- Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 17, 2015 T Public Open House on New Police/City Hall Spring 2016 -1— Site Analysis and Options Developed May 2016 --t Citizen Task Force Reconvened September 19, 2016 —�- Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council November 2, 2016 -J" Public Open House i Task Force Recommendation Task Force 2016 Recommendation: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. 4. A public open house should be scheduled for November 2nd. Wol Option 3 Pool Site k ' ya ii Y ' f 1--. tfisE �`. t ° � c I a it w .it7r°r �� SI-...— � .f. , } ` +• �+�� • . -� {+`L -. 19 ri ` fi-YTS ,fix. • %I. - I+ l` j k �' n ✓? \ i 1 k Cost Worksheet — Option 3 Potential Park Improvements Option 3 Pool Site Police Cit Hall $0.00 Building Construction $13,680,000-00 Buildina Demolition $0.00 Site Development (Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.UU Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75000.00 Construction ContinQency $684.000.00 Subtotal Construction $15,554,000.00 Reloc n RpnM sts Temp Tenant Improvements Temp Technology Costs Furniture Allowance $0.00 $0 -00 - _$0.00 $655,000.00 $165.000.00 Equipment Allowance Technology Allowance $165,000.00 ro'ect Contingency $780,000.00 Foes, Testing, Printing $1,560.000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $0.00 Skate Park Replacement 10-00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parking Lot $0.00 BasketballNolleyball Replacement $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium $2,000,000.00 Total Park Improvements $2,100,000.00 Total $20,979,000.00 Wol Next Steps Architectural/Engineering Design: Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Bidding Construction (Contract) Administration » Furniture Design » Equipment Design Wol Next Steps Schematic Design (15%): » Determine project goals and requirements. » Illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form. » Zoning / Code requirements are discovered. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » A site plan, floor plans, sections, elevations, computer images, renderings, or models. » Costs are estimated on overall project volume. » Council Reviews and Approves a Final Report. rW7011 Next Steps Design Development (20%): » Takes the SD Concepts one step further. » Lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. » Results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. » Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. » Floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions including door and window details and outline material specifications. » Formal approval by the owner. � Next Steps Construction Documents (40%): Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. A cost estimate is completed. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. Approval by the Council is sought to proceed. Next Steps Bidding (5%): » Issuing of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. » The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. » Hold a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. » The Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. » The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. » Council awards the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. » The final deliverable is a construction contract. rW702, Next Steps Construction Administration (20%): Contract Administration (CA) services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. » Architect's core responsibility is to help the Contractor to build the project as designed » Architect to offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. » Deliverable: A successfully built and contracted project. Next Steps Furniture and Equipment Design: » Evaluating the condition of existing assets » Developing a plan for reuse and new purchases » New Furniture and Equipment selection » Develop installation plan » Procurement » Submittal Review » Installation coordination and oversight » Punch Lists » Warranty walkthrough Next S Wold's Calculated Fixed Fees: Schematic 15% Design $ 128 400.00 ( ) Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,900.00 $ 915,200.00 Request for Action Agenda Section Work Session September 19, 2016 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Item Number Originating Department: City Manager 11.2 By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Citizens Task Force Space Needs Study Recommendation for Police Department/City Hall Facility (project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council receive a presentation from Wold Architects and the Space Needs Citizens Task Force regarding a new police department/city hall facility. Roger Landy, Task Force Chair, will be in attendance along with some members of the Task Force. The city engineer will also be in attendance to discuss future renovations that will be needed at the swimming pool. Policy/Past Practice In the past the City Council has authorized the formation of citizen groups to study specific issues and present their recommendations to the Council. Background Per the attached background information, the city has been studying the police department/city hall space needs since 2013 when Wold Architects was selected to assist the city with the study. Periodic updates have been provided to the Council throughout the process. In the spring of 2015, the City Council authorized the formation of a citizens' task force to study the issue. The Task Force consisted of representatives from all' the city commissions, crime prevention board, businesses and local organizations and stakeholders. The Task Force presented a recommendation to the Council in September, 2015, to construct a new facility at the existing Civic Center Park site. An open house was held in November, 2015, to solicit community feedback. The feedback supported a new facility but recommended that it not be located near Zealand Avenue. This information was presented to the Council in December, 2015, and the Council agreed to move forward with the study. In January, 2016, the Council approved a proposal from Wold Architects to work with the Task Force to develop site options, which also included soil boring and survey work by the city engineer. It was also recommended that the Task Force be expanded to include several residents from the Zealand Avenue neighborhood. Meetings were conducted between February and May by Wold, the Task Force chair and staff to develop concept plans for the Task Force to consider. Survey and soil boring work was completed and cost estimates were updated. The Task Force was expanded to include two Zealand Avenue residents and reconvened in June of this year. The Task Force met several times, studied a variety of options and cost estimates, and unanimously agreed on the recommendation being presented tonight. The presentation will include: • Review of options and costs (Wold Architects) • Brief description of the extent of the future renovations needed at the swimming pool (city engineer) • Task Force recommendation (Chair of Task Force) I:\RFA\Clty Manager \ 2016 \ WS - project 926 09.19.16.d ocx Request for Action, Page 2 Similar to the last Task Force recommendation, staff is recommending that the City Council authorize staff to coordinate in conjunction with the Task Force a public open house to present all the information to solicit feedback from the community regarding the recommendation. It is recommended that an open house be held at city hall on Wednesday, November 2 from 5 -8 -pm to present the information. It is also recommended that feedback be sought by posting the information on the city's website/on-line survey and that display boards be posted in the city hall lobby. All information would then be presented to the Council at the December 19 work session to determine the next steps. Attachments • Task Force Recommendation (September 19, 2016) • City Engineer Memo - Pool Renovation • Task Force Recommendation (September 21, 2015) • Project History TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION September 19, 2016 CITY OF NEW HOPE CITIZENS TASK FORCE: SPACE NEEDS STUDY City Council Report September 19, 2016 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Committee Members 4 Study Methodology 5 Recommendation 6 Cost Worksheet 12 Appendix A - Additional Site 10-19 Options Studied Appendix B - Soil Boring Information 20-21 Appendix C - Meeting Minutes 22-28 Appendix D - Ehlers Information 29-40 825/2016 4:37:11 PM H:\CI-New Wpe\162026 SD Maslerplan\02—ARCH\CBlzens lack force reporKilizens Task Force ReportA Page 2 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 INTRODUCTION The New Hope Citizen Task Force is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council, this Recommendation for the site development of a new Police Department and City Hall facility as an addition to our report from the September 21 st, 2015 meeting. The Task Force wishes to thank the City Council for authorizing the formation of this Task Force, and to City staff for their efforts in providing the Task Force with the information necessary to aide their study and advance the development of their recommendation. Thank you for the consideration of this project recommendation. �Sx Roger Landy Citizen Task Force Chairperson 6/25/2016 2:36:57 PM MCI -New Hope\162026 SD Mas1erp1an\02_ARCH\Cit1zens task force reporKitizens Task Force Reporind Page 3 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 TASK FORCE Mary Arnold Kim Lewis Greg Bender Rick Riley Teri Burkstrand Molly Sanborn Tim Donohoo Todd Schmeltzer Kent Garbers Michelle Slotto Michael Isenberg Steve Svendsen Roger Landy (Chair) Bill Wills ('ITV CTAI=G Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Director of Police Rich Johnson, Director of HR / Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Director of Parks & Recreation Jeff Sargent, Director of Comm. Development WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS Joel Dunning Ben Beery Cozy Hannula STANTEC ENGINEERING Chris Long EHLERS Jason Aarsvold 9/9/2016 3:57:52 PM S.\C1-%wHope\162026 SD Masterplen\02LARCMCitizens task lorce report\Citizens Task Force Reporiml Page 4 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 STUDY METHODOLOGY To arrive at the conclusions in this report, multiple meetings and discussions occurred among the Wold team, Stantec Engineering, the Citizen Task Force Committee, and City of New Hope Police Department and City Hall Staff. SPACE NEEDS TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE: Meeting #1 June 22, 2016 Site Options Review progress since Council Recommendation Sites - Addition/Remodel - Park Site - Existing Site - Pool Site Review costs and financing options Review soil boring information Meeting #2 July 21, 2016 Develop Citizen Recommendation Review task force questions Additional site: Parking Lot Site Discuss recommendation Meeting #3 September 19, 2016 City Council Presentation 825/2016 2:38:57 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Mas1erp1an\02_ARCH\C1t1zens task lorce reporKilizens Task Force Repoa M Page 5 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION The Citizen Task Force was formed to objectively review facility options for the New Hope Police Station and City Hall. At the September 21, 2015 City Council meeting, the Task Force recommended to the City Council that a new facility should be built at Civic Center Park to replace the existing facility but with no specific site location recommended. Following that recommendation and guidance from the City Council, the Task Force met to review several options developed by Wold Architects and Engineers and Stantec Engineering for the location of the building on the site. The site options reviewed were as follows: - Option 0: Addition/Remodel - option to remodel and add onto the existing building was reconsidered. - Option 1: Park Site - new building west of the existing building - Option 2: Existing Site - new building in the same location as the existing building - Option 3: Pool Site - new building on the existing pool site - Option 4: Parking Lot Site - new building on the existing parking lot site The Task Force recommends the following: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. The Citizen Task Force recommendation is based on the following rationale: 1. There is poor soil to the west of the existing building and under the parking lot which makes building on those areas of the site more expensive. Park features such as skate parks, play fields, etc. would be better suited for these areas because they do not require subgrade foundations. 2. An open house on November 17, 2015 highlighted concern from the neighbors that a site near Zealand Avenue be strongly resisted. 3. City staff & police considered moving offsite to an interim location so that the existing building's location could be utilized, but felt that temporarily relocating police would be difficult. 4. The existing pool site would collocate City Hall, police and fire departments into a campus, which is beneficial to citizens (centralized services) and to the city for collaboration between departments and shared site circulation. 5. Moving the Police Station and City Hall to the existing pool site would help create an open and contiguous park space for future redevelopment of Civic Center Park. 6. The existing pool and pool buildings are in need of significant repairs or replacement and are included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan budget for 2018. The funds which are set aside to update the existing pool could instead be put toward a new pool that is more integrated with the overall park and could potentially better serve the citizens of New Hope. Taking into consideration the future cost of repairs needed at the pool, building a new Police Station and City Hall facility at the current pool site is the least expensive new building option excluding any park improvements. 8/25/2016 2:36:57 PM H.\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Maslerplan\02—ARCH\Cillzens task force report\Cilizens Task Force Reportai Page 6 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Five site options, developed based on internal adjacency criteria, were reviewed based on best placement of the building on the site. Estimated construction costs, total project costs, and site layouts were developed for each option. The task force recommends a new building on the existing pool site and the following site plan and cost study reflect the recommendation. The diagrams and cost analysis for the other site options considered can be found in Appendix A. 625/2016 2:36:58 PM H:\CI-New Flope\162026 SD Masterp1an\02J1RCH\Cit1zens task force reporKilizens Task Force Report rN Page 7 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 SITE PLAN OPTION 3 - Pool Site ESTIMATED SOIL CORRECTION DEPIII 15 20 r6".rw ;019 aroe, I•r. 1 A �' r, , r r •' a ` �' DPW Ilk mm Ki IA Y I l `•� +f, ADVANTAGES ■ Creates campus of city buildings. • Limits construction on poor soils. • Park Area is contiguous with good access from parking. • Disrupts few park amenities. • City Hall staff and police could remain operational during construction in the existing building. DISADVANTAGES • Pool would need to be relocated and no pool would be available for a minimum of 2 summers. • Depending on how and where the pool is replaced and what the new pool looks like, it could raise the cost of the overall project. • Sallyport location is not ideal. 825/2016 2:38:58 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Maslerplan\02J\RCH\Cilizenstask force report\CilizensTask Force Report rK Page 8 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 3 Potential Park Im r vemen Option 3 Pool Site Police Ci Hall $0.00 Building Construction $13,680,0002 Building Demolition Site Development Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75,000.00 Construction Contingengy $684,000.00 Subtotal Construction $15.554.000.00 Temp Bilocation Rent QQsts $0.00 Ternp Tenant Improvements Temp Technology Costs Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165-000.00 Technolo-Qy Allowance $165,000.00 Pro'ect o nati-n-gency $780,000.00 Fees, Testin , PrinfinQ $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 Potential Park Im r vemen Theater Replacement $0.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 Park Shelter Re lacement Park Parkin Lot BasketballNolleyball Replacement $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium Total Park Improvements Total $20,979,000.00 825/2016 2:38:58 PM H:\CI-New Hope\1620265DMasterplan\02—ARCKIlizenstask force repornCit¢ensTask Force ReportA Page 9 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 APPENDIX A - Additional Site Options Studied 825/2016 2:38:68 PM H:\CI44ew Hope\162026 SD Masterplan\02J1RCH\CRlzens task force repor4CRlzens Task Force Repod.rk Page 10 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 SITE PLAN OPTION 0 - ADDITION/REMODEL ADVANTAGES • Cost Difference, though there is not a large cost difference between a new building and renovation. • Keeps street frontage of existing building. • Utilizes existing building instead of demolishing it. DISADVANTAGES • Existing building needs a lot of maintanence (see September 21, 2015 report) • Renovation will not accomplish all goals/needs. • The new building would be on poor soils which raises overall cost. • Some disruptions to city departments during construction. • Short relocation of City Hall during remodel. • Areas of remodeling are limited to the existing column bays and floor to floor heights, likely resulting in less than ideal space layouts. 8/25/2016 2:38:58 PM HACI-New Hope\162026 SD Masterp1an\02_ARCH\Ci1izens task force report\Citizens Task Force Report rN Page 11 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 0 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 )tential Park Improvements Option 0 Addition/Remodel Police / City Hall $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,080,000.00 Buildina Demolition $50,000.00 Site Development (Police Parking) $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $250,000.00 Construction Contingency 654 000.00 Subtotal Construction $14,899,000.00 Temp Belocatmon Rent Costs $0.00 Temp Tenant Improvements $0.00 Temp Technology Costs 0.00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 E ui ment Allowance $165,000.00 Technolo-gy Allowance $165,000.00 Proiect Continaency $740,000.00 Fees Testing, Printing $1.490.000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,114,000.00 )tential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parkin Lot $0.0 BasketballNolleyball Replacement Pool Replacement Premium Total Park Improvements $500.000.00 Total $18,614,000.00 rACilizensTask Force Repotni Page 12 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 SITE PLAN OPTION 1 - PARK SITE ADVANTAGES • Likely far enough from Zealand Ave to not disrupt neighbors. • City Hall/Police could remain in the existing building until new building is complete. DISADVANTAGES • Displaces many park amenities. • Building blocks park from parking. • Poor soils significantly raise overall cost. 8125/2016 2 38 59 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Masterp1an\02_ARCH\Citizens task force reporl\Cilizens Task Force Report rN Page 13 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 1 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 Potential Park improvements Option 1 Park Site Police / City Hall $500.000-00 Building Construction $13,680,000-00 Building Demolition $150,000.00 Site Development Police Parking) $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild 365 000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $600,000.00 Construction Contingengy $684,000.00 Subtotal Construction 115-979.000.00 Relocation Rent GosIs 0.00 —J= Temp Tenant Improvements $0.00 Temp Technology Costs $0.00 Furniture Allowance 655 000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technology Allowance $165,000-00 Project-Conntin� n y800,000.00 Fees, Testing, Printing 1.600.000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $19,364,000.00 Potential Park improvements Theater Replacement $500.000-00 Skate Park Replacement $1Q0,000-00 Park Shelter Replacement $150,000.00 Park Parkin Lot BasketbaliNolleybail Replacement Pool Replacement Premium Total Park Improvements Total $20,239,000.00 Ian\02jARCHOizenstask force reporNCi ansTaskForceRepod.M Page 14 SITE PLAN OPTION 2 - EXISTING SITE Ik r, IAf i fi[k hi• II 'J 0,1 ADVANTAGES • Limits construction on poor soils • Keeps prominent street frontage. • Blocks park access less than some other options. • Disrupts few park amenities. DISADVANTAGES • City Hall and Police would need to relocate for duration of project. 8/25/2016 2:38:59 PM H\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Mas1erp1an\02_ARCH\Cilizens lask force reporl\Cilizens Task Force Report rd Page 15 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 A City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 2 Potential Park Improvements Option 2 Existing Site Police / City Hall $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,680,000-00 Building Demolition $150,000.00 Site Development LPolice Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $250,000.00 Construction Contingency $684-000.00 Subtotal Construction $15,629 000.00 $1,350,000.00 Temp Tenant Improvements $450,000-00 Ternp Technology Costs $200,000.00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 E ui ment Allowance $165,000.00 Technology Allowance $165,000-00 Pro'etontin Cgency_ Fees. Testing, Printing 780 000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj, $20,954,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parkin Lot $0.00 BasketbaliNolleyball Replacement Pool Replacement Premium $0.00 Total Park Improvements $500,000.00 Total $21,454,000.00 6/25/2016 2:38:59 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Masterplan\02—ARCH\Cilizens task force reparflCilizens Task Force Report.rvt Page 16 SITE PLAN OPTION 4 - PARKING LOT SITE City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 . I ter• Isar ADVANTAGES • Police department and City Hall could remain operational during construction. • Pool site is not affected. DISADVANTAGES • Building is on poor soils. • Cuts off access to pool. • Cuts off parking flow to farmers market. • Public lobby faces inward on the site and is not viewable from street. 6/25/2016 2:38:00 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Masterplan\02—ARCH\C6lzens lask force reporAG&ens Task Force yeport.M Page 17 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 4 Potential Park im r vements Option 4 Parking Lot Site Police / City Hall BuildinQ Construction $13,680,000.00 BuildinQ Demolition $150,000.00 Site Development Police Parldng $200,000.00 Parkin Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $450,000.00 Construction Contingency 684 0.00 Subtotal Construction $15,829,000.00 Temp Relocation Bent Costs $0.00 Ternp Tenant Improvements $0.00 Ternp Technology Costs $0.00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technolo,oy Allowance $165,000.00 Pro'Proiect Contingency$790,000.00 Fees, Testing, Printing 1 580 000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $19,184,000.00 Potential Park im r vements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $100,000-00 Park Shelter Replacement $150,000-00 Park Parkin Lot 0 BasketbaIINolieyball Replacement $0.00 Pool Replacement Premium 0.00 Total Park Improvements $750,000.00 Total $19,934,000.00 825/2016 2:39:00 PM H:\CI-New Elope\162026 SO Masterplan\02—ARCI-Mlizens task force reporNCilizens Task Force Report.rvl Page 18 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET Potential Paris Improvements Option 0 Addition/Remodel Option 1 Park Site Option 2 Existing Site Option 3 Pool Site Option 4 Parking Lot Site Police LU Hall $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,080.000.00 $13,680,000.00 $13,680,000.00 $13,680A0.00 $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition $50,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $250,000.00 $150,000.00 Site Development Police Parkin 00 00 .00 200 000.0 $200,000,00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 $365,000,00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Soil Remedialjofl $250,000.00 $600,000.00----$25-0,000.00 0 $450,000.00 Construction Contingency Subtotal CoasUction $14,899.0 0.00 04,0DO $15.979.000.00 Q $15,629,000.00 $15,554,000.00 000.00 $15,829,000.00 Temp Relocation Rent Costs$0.0.0— Temp Tenant Improvements 0.00 $655000.00 $0.00--$200,0 $655,000.00 00.00 $655,000.00 0.00 $655,000.00 $655,-900.00 Temp Technology Costs Furniture Allowance Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 $165.000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 Technology Allowance $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $780,000.00 1,560 OOQ00 $165.000.00 $790,000.00 $1.580.000.00 Project Contingency $740,000.00 $1,490,000M $800,000.00 $780,000.00 $1.600,000.00 1 560 000.00 Fees, Testing. Printinq Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,114,000.00 $19,364,000.00 $20,954,000.00 $18,879,000.00 $19,184,000.00 Potential Paris Improvements Theater Re lacement $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 Park Parkin Lot $0.00 $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BasketballNolle ball Replacement _ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0,00 Pool Replacement Premium M. $0.00 Total Park Improvements $500,000.00 $875,000.00 $500,000.00 $2,100,000.00 $750,000.00 Total $18,614,000.00 $20,239,000.00 $21,454,000.00 $20,979,000.00 $19,934,000.00 625/2016 2:39:00 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Maslerplan\07_ARCH\Cilizens task force reporl\Cilizens Task Force Report rvt Page 19 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 APPENDIX B - Soil Boring Information 8/25/2016 4:39:55 PM H:\CI44ewFlope\162026SO Maslerplan\02J\RCH\Cilizenslaskforce reporW[VensTask Force Reporl.rN Page 20 �� � >�' } �•,.r*-w,A. �� e ,r.• �' tri.. 46TH AVE N C � • ,r' W .u. j � r• � 4 '� 71 1 I r 1'4 X44, 1 w 1,7 i��At1'4,w � i tM• - n YytM F wlw `, ,e, , •i + I r , +� Rrwt '°�,. t `'M1} � ilpr ��J ♦. '� m'i'l t J I� Cf_+ ,},�—��� , w rs wr , {, r, , � � � �►�� z 1 m i 4! . t Ir i ''E' ° j• F'� '� �` "'!';.— �' a ,-=� �• � — e 1■, I.A;'. { fir, @�' �F p _•fV /,} lrfy Trey-�.- 1�4i4� 1.. — p: _ A 4.re e' u C w L Q 0 z z W IL 0 = w LU Z J 0 S Fj U City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 APPENDIX C - Meeting Minutes 625/2016 4:32:25 PM H::\OI44sw ftd\162026 SD Masterplan\02_AROMens task force reporKlftens Task Force Report.rR Page 22 To: Attendees From: Cosette Hannula I CH Date: July 5, 2016 (Updated July 11, 2016) Comm. No: 162026 MEMORANDUM Subject: City of New Hope Space Needs Masterplan June 22, 2016 Meeting Minutes Attendees: Roger Landy, Community Task Force r Tandy@aol.com Kathi Hemken, Mayor khemken@ci.new-hope.mn.us Kirk McDonald, City Manager kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator jbeck@ci.new-hope.mn.us Tim Fournier, Police Chief tfournier@ci.new-hope.mn.us Valerie Leone, City Clerk vleone@ci.new-hope.mn.us Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development jsargent@ci.new-hope.mn.us Susan Rader, Parks and Recreation srader@ci.new-hope.mn.us Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us Chris Long, Stantec chris.long@stantec.com Mary Arnold marnold@yahoo.com Kent Garbers kentgarbers@yahoo.com Michael Isenberg misenbergl3@gmail.com Kim Lewis jnklewis@msn.com Todd Schmeltzer todd@setdesigns.com Michelle Slatto michell.westberg@comcast.net Steve Svendsen svendsen@q.com Bill Wills wjw9416@msn.com Tim Donohoo donohootim@yahoo.com Molly Sanborn Molly.sanborn@gmail.com Rick Riley rrileygirls4@comcast.net Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers jdunning@woldae.com Cosette Hannula, Wold Architects and Engineers channula@woldae.com Absentees: Greg Bender gjbender1950@gmail.com Teri Burkstrand ttpburk@yahoo.com Ben Beery, Wold Architects and Engineers bbeery@woldae.com Wold Architects and Engineers PLANNERS 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 ARCHITECTS Saint Paul, MN 55101 woldae.com 1 651 227 7773 ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 3 Discussion Topic A. Wold, Stantec, and Ehlers gave an overview of what has happened so far in the project and presented 4 options for the site location of the new City Hall Police Department with the associated costs. B. Feedback on Option 2 — Existing Site: 1. Concern was expressed for safety and function of police in temporarily relocating and the potential costs to relocate booking and holding. C. Option 3 Pool Site: 1. Question was asked if there is potential for a community center with an indoor pool to be built on old City Hall site. A new task force would be needed to evaluate a community center or other site use including what amenities should be in the City and Park. 2. What is the driveway near tennis courts used for? a. Would be occasionally used by police for booking or an alternative route if Xylon is blocked. b. There is concern about sally port proximity to playground. 3. Could a new pool be placed over tennis courts? Potentially, based on soil bearings but tennis court is more expensive to replace than basketball/volleyball. 4. Is there an option where police department is closer to fire department/Xylon Avenue? This was explored, but police departments are typically back from the street for privacy and security. 5. Concern expressed with the amount of traffic this option would add to Zealand. The chief responded that it is preferred to exit the police department on Xylon since there is control there. A few added squads coming back to the police department may occur. D. Does timeline change between these options? 1. Pre -construction time is similar for all options. 2. Addition/remodel has the longest construction time due to phasing. 21/z - 3 years. 3. Existing site will take 2 or so months slower than an entirely new site due to time it takes to demolish the existing building. 18-20 months. 4. Park/pool site would be the fastest construction. E. Other Discussion: 1. Proposal for placing the building over existing parking lot was explored but was not ideal from a site planning perspective. Placing building on existing parking lot would block off the rest of the site from Xylon Avenue and separate the pool from the parking lot. 2. Concern was expressed on a desire to educate the community on reasons new City Hall/Police Department is needed, and address the concerns from the surveys. 3. Question on whether footprint of building could be reduced by making it multiple stories. Current building layout with most functions on one level with an underground garage was determined based on functionality for City staff. 4. It was noted that Option 0- Addition/Remodel was previously decided against by task force in favor of building new. MEMORANDUM Page 3 of 3 5. Concern with generator location. a. Could be combined with already planned new generator for fire department or placed behind building in service area. Next Meeting: Thursday, July 21 at 5:30 p.m. EK/CI_NewHope/162026/min/6.22.16 To: Attendees From: Cosette Hannula I CH Date: August 1, 2016 Comm. No: 162026 Subject: City of New Hope Space Needs Masterplan July 21, 2016 Meeting Minutes Attendees: Roger Landy, Community Task Force Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Police Chief Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Susan Rader, Parks and Recreation Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin Chris Long, Stantec Mary Arnold Michael Isenberg Kim Lewis Todd Schmeltzer Michelle Slatto Steve Svendsen Bill Wills Tim Donohoo Molly Sanborn Greg Bender Rick Riley Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers Cosette Hannula, Wold Architects and Engineers Absentees: MEMORANDUM r lardy@aol.com khemken@ci.new-hope.mn.us kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.rrm.us jbeck@ci.new-hope.mn.us tfournier@ci.new-hope.mn.us jsargent@ci.new-hope.mn.us srader@ci.new-hope.mn.us rJohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us chris.long@stantec.com marnold@yahoo.com misenbergl3@gmail.com jnklewis@msn.com todd@setdesigns.com michell.westberg@comcast.net svendsen@q.com wjw9416@msn.com donohootim@yahoo.com molly.sanbom@gmail.com gjbender1950@gmail.com rrileygirls4@comcast.net jdunning@woldae.com channula@woldae.com Kent Garbers kentgarbers@yahoo.com Valerie Leone, City Clerk vleone@ci.new-hope.mn.us Teri Burkstrand ttpburk@yahoo.com Ben Beery, Wold Architects and Engineers bbeery@woldae.com Wold Architects and Engineers PLANNERS 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000 ARCHITECTS Saint Paul, MN 55101 woldae.com 1 651 227 7773 ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 3 Discussion Topics: A. Wold presented a review of park options. B. Wold presented new site option: Parking Lot Site, reviewed all site costs, and gave a breakdown of parking lot site costs. 1. Noted that 250,000 for demolition in Option 4 should be 150,000 and total project would be 19,204,000 (see attached for revised cost analysis). C. Questions: 1. Is cost the same for all parking lots? a. The parking lot rebuild cost shown is to replace the existing parking lot and add some parking. The other elements are factored into other lines of cost analysis e.g. site development more expansive. Parking to accommodate some of the park feature could be more expensive depending on what park amenities/park layout are decided on. 2. Is the building one or two stories? a. Due to functional adjacencies, offices are all on one story, police parking is below. 3. Should we consider utilizing the already dug down area of the deep end of the pool for lower level of police department? a. This will not change the cost, the soil moved for police lower level will be moved to the pool side. 4. Can this building have a second or third story built up later? a. This is possible if planned for ahead of time so structure and space can be designed to later accommodate an additional level. However, building an additional story while there are occupants in building can be disruptive. 5. How does sallyport work in pool option? Will police enter off Zealand Ave. for booking? a. Current plan is to enter from Xylon through service road or parking lot. The sallyport entrance can possibly be reinvestigated if this option is chosen. b. Some kind of berm/fencing is envisioned to block view of sallyport from park. c. Chief Fournier noted that currently the police use Zealand for entrance while booking even if there is a slight increase in police traffic from placing building on the pool site, it likely would not be noticeable. 6. How many people currently use the pool? a. Susan to share information with group. 7. Does this plan account for growth of staff so building does not need to be rebuilt again in 30 years? a. It factors in some projected growth, it was determined that the city hall/police department are not like to grow by much. b. The new building would be planned so that additions could be added if needed. D. Roger asked for opinions on which of the 5 options each task force member recommended. The Task Force unanimously recommended pool site with the following comments: 1. This site gives the opportunity to relook at Civic Center Park. 2. Pool site groups City Hall, police and fire departments together, ties the pool to rest of the site, and allows the street and parking lot to flow together. 3. It was noted that this option may not end up being cheaper, though it currently looks that way, because of additional associated park/site improvements. MEMORANDUM Page 3 of 3 4. It was noted that this is recommended only if the pool is replaced the tennis courts remain, and the park is also developed E. Schedule: 1. September 19,2016: Council recommendation. 2. October/November: Public Open House. 3. December: Final vote. 4. Future: a. Reconvene task force for input on building design. b. A park master planning committee which could include some task force members. Open House: 1. Could there be multiple open houses? How do we ensure more people come? Maybe mention the pool? a. If it is advertised in all ways available, those who are interested will come. AK/CI_NewHope/162026/min/7.21.16 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 APPENDIX D - Ehlers Information 625/2016 4:32:25 PM H.4I44ew Hope\162026 SD Mes1erp1an\02-1RCH\CR1zens task force repornCllkens Task Force Reportrvt Page 29 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE City Hall Financing City of New Hope Jason Aarsvold — Ehlers June 22, 2016 Overview • City Hall Bonding Estimates for Project Alternatives • Tax Impacts EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — Option 0 — Addition/Remodel Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 De I ive re d 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $18,345,000.00 $505,000.00 $18,850,000.00 Total Sources $18,345,000.00 $505,000.00 $18,850,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 146,760.00 4,040.00 150,800.00 Costs of Issuance 81,749.60 2,250.40 84 000.00 Deposit to Proiect Construction Fund 18,114,000.00 500,000.00 18,614,044.04 Rounding Amount 2,490.40 (1,290.40) 1,2UU.00 Total Uses $18,345,000.00 $505,000.00 $18,850,000.00 _ EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts —Option 0 — Addition/Remodel TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Option 0 - Addition/Remodel Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax Increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 61.37 $ 5.11 150,000 23,740 126,260 107.98 9.00 Residental 185,000 20,590 164,410 140.61 11.72 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 247.81 20.65 400,000 1,240 398,760 341.02 28.42 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 85.39 $ 7.12 200,000 - 200,000 185.02 15.42 CommerciaVlndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 298.87 24.91 400,000 - 400,000 412.73 34.39 500,000 - 500,000 526.59 43.88 1,000,000 - 1 1,000,000 1,095.87 91.32 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. - _.- -_ EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate —Option 1 —Park Site Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 Delivered 06/01/2017 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds Total Sources Uses Of Funds Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Summary $19,605,000.00 $885,000.00 $20,490,000.00 $19,605,000.00 $885,000.00 $20,490,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 156,840.00 7,080.00 163,920.00 Costs of Issuance 83,242.31 3,757.69 0.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 19,364,000.00 875,000.00 (� 20,239,0OO.OU Rounding Amount 917.69 (837.69) 80.00 Total Uses $19,605,000.00 $885,000.00 $20,490,000.00 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts —Option 1 — Park Site TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Option 1 - Park Site Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 66.70 $ 5.56 150,000 23,740 126,260 117.36 9.78 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 152.82 12.74 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 269.34 22.44 400,000 1,240 398,760 370.66 30.89 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 92.81 $ 7.73 200,000 - 200,000 201.09 16.76 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 324.84 27.07 400,000 - 400,000 448.59 37.38 500,000 - 500,000 572.34 47.70 1,000,000 - 1 1,000,000 1,191.09 99.26 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. `'.. EHL_ ERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — Option 2 — Existing Site Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 Delivered 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $21,210,000.00 $510,000.00 $21,720,000.00 Total Sources $21,210,000.00 $510,000.00 $21,720,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 169,680.00 4,080.00 173,760.00 Costs of Issuance 85,933.71 2,066.29 .00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 20,954,000.00 500,000.00 21,454,000.00 Rounding Amount 386.29 3,853.71 4,240.00 Total Uses $21,210,000.00 $510,000.00 $21,720,000.00 EHLERS 10k LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — Option 2 — Existing Site * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Option 2 - Existing Site Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 70.71 $ 5.89 150,000 23,740 126,260 124.42 10.37 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 162.01 13.50 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 285.53 23.79 400,000 1,240 398,760 392.94 32.74 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 98.39 $ 8.20 200,000 - 200,000 213.18 17.77 Commercial/Industrial 300,000 - 300,000 344.37 28.70 400,000 - 400,000 475.56 39.63 500,000 - 500,000 606.75 50.56 1,000,0001 - 1 1,000,000 1,262.69 105.22 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate —Option 3 —Pool Site Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 Delivered 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Sunywry Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $19,115,000.00 $2,125,000.00 $21,240,000.00 Total Sources $19,115,000.00 $2,125,000.00 $21,240,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 152,920.00 17,000.00 169,920.00 Costs of Issuance 79,195.86 8,804.14 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 15,879,000.00 2,100,000.00 20,979,000.00 Roundine Amount 3,884.14 (804.14) , 0.00 Total Uses $19,115,000.00 $2,125,000.00 $21,240,000.00 Total project costs include only the "additional" costs associated with a new pool at this location to provide a comparison of alternatives. These costs are over an above what would be required for renovation of the pool at the existing location. -- 40 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — Option 3 — Pool Site TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Option 3 - Pool Site Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 69.16 $ 5.76 150,000 23,740 126,260 121.68 10.14 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 158.45 13.20 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 279.25 23.27 400,000 1,240 398,760 384.30 32.02 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 96.23 $ 8.02 200,000 - 200,000 208.49 17.37 Commercial/l ndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 336.80 28.07 400,000 - 400,000 465.10 38.76 500,000 - 500,000 593.41 49.45 1,000,000 - 1 1,000,000 1,234.93 102.91 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. e EH LE RS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts - Summary Residential Homestead Commercial/Industrial TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Summary► of Options Estimated Market Value larket Value Exclusion $ 100,000 $ 28,240 150,000 23,740 185,000 20,590 300,000 10,240 400,000 1,240 $ 100,000 $ - 200,000 5.56 300,000 5.89 400,000 5.76 500,000 9.00 1,000,000 - * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. 0 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Pro osed MONTHLY Tax Increase* Option 0 - Remodel Option 1 - Park Option 2 - Existing Option 3 - Pool $ 5.11 $ 5.56 $ 5.89 $ 5.76 $ 9.00 $ 9.78 $ 10.37 $ 10.14 $ 11.72 $ 12.74 $ 13.50 $ 13.20 $ 20.65 $ 22.44 $ 23.79 $ 23.27 $ 28.42 $ 30.89 $ 32.74 $ 32.02 $ 7.12 $ 7.73 $ 8.20 $ 8.02 $ 15.42 $ 16.76 $ 17.77 $ 17.37 $ 24.91 $ 27.07 $ 28.70 $ 28.07 $ 34.39 $ 37.38 $ 39.63 $ 38.76 $ 43.88 $ 47.70 $ 50.56 $ 49.45 $ 91.32 $ 99.26 1 $ 105.22 1 $ 102.91 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. 0 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE CITY ENGINEER MEMO - POOL RENOVATION �� Stantec September 13, 2016 File: 193803464 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Fax: (651) 636-1311 Attention: Kirk McDonald, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Reference: 2015 New Hope Swimming Pool Study Summary Dear Kirk: As requested, this letter provides as a brief summary of the New Hope pool assessment completed and presented to the council in April of 2015. A pool condition assessment report and study of the potential improvements to the shallow pool and overall pool improvements was presented. Pool Condition Assessment Summary A condition assessment report (attached) was created based on a physical walkthrough inspection of the existing Milton C. Honsey Outdoor Pool and support buildings. Pool operating personnel were also interviewed to develop a hands-on understanding of operating and/or performance issues with the existing pools and their support facilities. The main pool was originally constructed in 1965 and is leaking. While a major renovation 18 years ago replaced the pool deep well and pool mechanical systems, piping, decking and above grade pool amenities, approximately 85% of the pool shell is still original and over 50 years old, which is well past normal expected life. Outdoor municipal pools in the northern climates are typically designed for a life expectancy of about 30-40 years. Potential Shallow Pool Improvements Four options for development of the shallow pool were presented. The options ranged from a minimal program of simply reconstructing the pool as with a new ADA pool access ramp, to a medium program using a larger capacity more diverse age range shallow water pool, to high level program using a combination shallow water/splash pad pool designed to increase capacity, user age diversity and user safety. The total project cost for the preferred Option A was estimated at $1,026,243. Option A included a 4,100 square feet shallow water pool with 70 foot long zero depth entry, water play amenities, expanded turf picnic area and deck with chase lounge September 13, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 2 of 3 Reference: 2015 New Hope Swimming Pool Study Summary seating with one new shade structure. Some enhancements to the existing mechanical building are included to accommodate the new pool mechanical systems Potential Overall Pool Improvements In addition to evaluating shallow water pool improvements, a cursory study and concept plan for two options for improving the existing main 50 meter pool were developed. Both concepts included a basic 6 lane 50 meter lap pool, two lanes less than the existing pool, with a diving well similar to the existing pool. Also included was an ADA access ramp, some enhanced multipurpose water play areas, a reduced deck to accommodate sun turf as well as one option which included a receiving pool for two family style body slides. Modern water play amenities, including a climbing wall and floating obstacle course, were included to allow the traditional 50 meter pool to better accommodate recreational activities when not used for lap swimming or competitive events. The support buildings were essentially left intact, but included a minor renovation budget for primarily refreshing the interior wall finishes, replacing building mechanical systems and lights. The general building shells for the support buildings, while dated, are in reasonable condition for their age. The bath house, main pool and shallow pool mechanical buildings are about 25 years old and the concession building is about 18 years old. The concept plans prepared for the overall improvement options included the desired Shallow Water Pool Option A from above, and were essentially limited to the area within the existing pool fencing. Option 2 was the preferred improvement concept (see concept sketch attached), and the total project cost was estimated at $5,578,000. Understanding the improvements may be scheduled for later in the future, such as 2019, we recommend budgeting $6,500,000 to account for inflation, possible scope changes, and other project contingencies. If you have any questions or require further information please call me at (651)604-4808. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. r Christopher W. Long, P.E. Design with community in mind (1� September 13, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 3 of 3 Reference: 2015 New Hope Swimming Pool Study Summary Attachments: Pool General Condition Assessment, Comprehensive Pool Improvement Option 2 c. Susan Rader - New Hope; Kellie Schlegel, Jim Maland, Adam Martinson - Stantec. Design with community in mind TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION September 21, 2015 CITY OF NEW HOPE CITIZENS TASK FORCE: SPACE NEEDS STUDY City Council Report September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION City of New Hopi SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORI September 21, 201: The C itizen Task Force was formed to objectively review space needs and facility options of the current New Hope Police Statior and City Hall facility. Facilitated by Wold Architects and Engineers, the Task Force held four meetings over the course of several months to develop project goals, review deficiencies in the current facility, tour recently built police stations in neighboring communities, and study different site options and their associated costs. The Citizen Task Force recommendation is based on the following rationale: 1. The existing facility needs a lot of maintenance. (See Appendix E) 2. Renovation will not accomplish all goals/needs. 3. Police department facilities are inadequate which pose a considerable security and safety issue for Police Officers, City Staff, and the Community, 4. A new building would allow for more flexibility for future uses, and 5. Interest rates are currently very favorable. Based on the reasons above, the Task Force recommends the following: 1. A new Police Station and City Hall facility should be built to replace the existing facility. 2. The city park adjacent to the pool and fire station appears to be the ideal site. 3. With adjacent new developments and streetscape projects, this is an ideal project to take part in the revitalization of that area. In addition, the Task Force was asked to consider the options of adding a gymnastics facility and an expanded serving kitchen. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: 1. Gymnastics Facility: After studying this option, the group took a ballot vote with the results being two (2) members in favor and eleven (11) members against. In general, the reasoning was that a gymnastics facility is not a harmonious use with the Police Department/City Hall facility. Because the majority were not in favor, this option is not recommended. However, the group recommends that a task force be formed to study overall city park and recreation facilities. There was a lot of discussion around the need for a community center where a gymnastics facility would be an appropriate component. 2. Expanded Serving Kitchen: The group did not recommend this option as the smaller serving kitchen in the program could provide for the needs of the facility. 9/10/1015 3:3620 PM H:MCI-Ne 1132077 Spm Needs Suds Mmns Task Forn flePW&M Task Face PWrt.M Pape 6 ' City of Now Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION (cont.) Finally, the Task Force discussed adding a shooting range to the project in order to better train police officers. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: The group could not reach concensus on this topic and recommend that the City Council continue to study the financial impacts of adding a shooting range. Ballot results were six (6) members in favor and seven (l) members opposed. The group members in favor felt that it was important that all police officers had access to a shooting range to continually improve their skills. The group members opposed felt that the current lease with Maple Grove is adequate and did not want to see the addition of a shooting range potentially challenge the viability of the project moving forward. Ultimately, the group concluded that if the Council is comfortable with the financial impacts to the project, a shooting range would be a justifiable amenity. The Citizen Task Force did not review actual site and building layouts, as this is a future step in the process. 9/10/1015 3222 PM 1004"flve113E077 WM Needs &Wffl?Jnns Task Force Repor Wens Task Force Aepo A Page 7 PROJECT HISTORY Police Facility/City Hall Space Needs Study Project 926 Timeline 2013 Proposals fors ace needs analysis — selected Wold Architects 2013-14 Considered joint project with School District 2015 Citizens task force formed; held four meetings • May - Reviewed existing conditions/tour facility • June — tours of other city hall/police station facilities (Richfield, Cottage Grove, etc) • July — discussed options/costs for New Hope — remodel/addition vs. new • August — committee developed recommendation to city council (last time committee met) 09/21/15 Task force recommendation to Council — construct new facility at the current Civic Center Park site (see attached) 11/17/15 Community open house/on-line survey results. Majority supported task force recommendation to build new facility on city campus and said they would support property tax increase. Concerns were expressed about losing green area in park with recommendation to keep new building close to Xylon Avenue (see attached) Fall, 2015 Professional survey results presented to council which included questions about new facility with majority in support of new facility (see attached) 12/21/15 City Council Work Session — discussed next steps for study — concept site planning process — Council determines to proceed and expand task force to include several Zealand Avenue property owners 01/11/16 City Council Meeting — approved proposal from Wold Architects to develop site options 02/16 — 05/16 Meetings between Wold and staff committee to develop concept plans for task force to consider, survey and soil borings work completed, and cost estimates updated I:/space needs study/steps taken to date Wol City of NEW HOPE MINNESOTA 2013 April 26, 2013 T Space Needs Study Kickoff 2014 January 21, 2014 May 13, 2014 August 12, 2014 2015 Spring 2015 May 15, 2015 September 21, 2015 November 17, 2015 History Council Update — Space Needs and Site Exploration Council Update — Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force Task Force Kick Off Citizen Task Force Recommendation to council Public Open House — Received feedback to move building away from Zealand Avenue 2013 April 26 2014 January 21 May 13 August 12 2015 Spring May 15 Sept. 21 Nov. 17 January 21, 2014 Council Update -Space needs established -Explored addition/remodel, park site, and K -Mart site options Wol 2013 April 26 2014 January 21 May 13 August 12 2015 Spring May 15 Sept. 21 Nov. 17 WRY 1 I SCHOOL MSTRiCT SITE — SITE PLAN V s 200•-0° 0 150' 300' May 13, 2014 Council Update -Explored option for a Joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project History 2013 April 26, 2013 Space Needs Study Kickoff 2014 January 21, 2014 Council Update — Space Needs and Site Exploration May 13, 2014 Council Update —joint District Office and City Hall/Police Project August 12, 2014 Council Update on Needs and Facility Issues 2015 Spring 2015 Council Authorizes a Citizen Task Force May 15, 2015 Task Force Kick Off September 21, 2015 Citizen Task Force Recommendation to council November 17, 2015 Public Open House — Received feedback to move building away from Zealand Avenue 2013 April 26 � 2014 January 21 May 13 August 12 2015 Spring September 21, 2014 Citizen Task Force Recommendation to Council Task Force Recommendation: 1. A new Police Station and City Hall facility should be built to replace the existing facility 2. The city park adjacent to the pool and fire station appears to be the ideal site 3. With adjacent new developments and streetscape May 15 projects, this is an ideal project to take place in the revitalization of that area Sept. 21 Nov. 17 2013 April 26 2014 January 21 May 13 August 12 2015 Spring May 15 Sept. 21 f AR}G CPT1Gt 517 P-: - "c" 111d"' G" November 17, 2014 Public Open House PR iC OF' rION iii PL+4i i - T1,10 LSVPC7L" O ty�' 2KY Nov. 17 4— - Received feedback to move the building away from Zealand Avenue ADDITION/REMODEL `mow 1`-- PARK SITE i C 1 C LariR .s4 R1i Lf1CAFfOC -SD Site Planning Process -Site location Studies -Soil Analysis/Surveys November 2014 — Present SD Site Planning EXISTING SITE POOL SITE rwo I Option 0 Add ition/Re model WrIfiliffi-IMMI Option 1 Park Site Wol Option 2 Existing Site Wol i r8 n 1 � ' ..rnV u 1 1 •�. Y�fi lfN�! P, 7FeJ,.Si10 1 t � •. x r Option 3 Pool Site wol Cost Analysis • • 4� Stant@C Total Park Improvements $5000.00 $875,0.00 $500,000.00 $2,100,000.00 0,00 Total $18,614,000.00 $20,239,000.00 $21,454,p00.00 $20,979, 170Q.D0 Page 1 City of New Hope Site Master Plan May 12.2016 Comm No. 162026 Option 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Addition/Remodel Park Site _ Fl _ in Site Pool Site Police / City Hall Building Construction $13,080,000.00 $13,680,000.00 $13,680,000.00 $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition $50,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $250,000.00 Site Development (Police Parking) $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 Stormwater Mgmt $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $250,000.00 $600,000.00 $250,000.00 $75,000.00 Construction Contingency $654,000.00 $684,000.00 $684,000.00 $664,000.00 Subtotal Construction $14,899,000.00 $15,979,000.00 $15,629,000.00 $15,554,000.00 Temp Relocation Rent Costs $0.00 $0.00 $1,350,000.00 $0.00 Temp Tenant Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $450,000.00 $0.00 Temp Technology Costs $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 $655,000.00 $655,000.00 $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 Technology Allowance $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 Project Contingency $740,000.00 $800,000.00 $780,000.00 $780,000.00 Fees, Testing, Printing $1,490,000.00 $1,60Q000.00 $1,560,000.00 $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Project $18,114,000.00 $19,364,000.00 $20,954,000.00 $18,879,000.00 Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Park Parking Lot $0.00 $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Basketball/Volleyball Replacement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 Pool Replacement Premium $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000,000.00 Total Park Improvements $5000.00 $875,0.00 $500,000.00 $2,100,000.00 0,00 Total $18,614,000.00 $20,239,000.00 $21,454,p00.00 $20,979, 170Q.D0 Page 1 City of New Hope Site Master Plan May 12.2016 Comm No. 162026 Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager December 21, 2015 Work Session Item No. 11.3 By: Kirk McDonald, City Mana er BX: Kirk McDonald Discussion with Wold Architects regarding next steps in space needs study (improvement pr J�Ect #926) Requested Action In follow up to the open house and online survey regarding the police station/city hall space needs study, staff requests to discuss next steps in the process with the City Council. Wold Architects has submitted the attached proposal to initiate the concept site planning process, and representatives from Wold will be in attendance at the meeting. Roger Landy, chair of the space needs task force, has also agreed to attend the meeting as well as Chief Fournier. Staff is supportive of moving forward with the proposal. Policy/Past Practice The city utilizes the services of professional consultants for special services and projects on an as needed basis. Background The city solicited proposals in 2013 for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study at a cost of $9,400. Over the last three years Wold Architects has completed the study and assisted with providing information to a citizens task force, and assisted with a public open house (no additional fees have been charged). If the City Council desires to continue this process, the next step would be to start the concept site planning process to determine options as to where the new facility could be located on the current city hall/Civic Center Park site. This process would include working with city staff, the task force and surrounding neighborhood on various options, presenting the options to the Council, and seeking more feedback from all New Hope residents. The attached proposal from Wold to continue the process is in the amount of $42,500, and assumes the city would utilize Stantec Engineering for civil engineering services (soil borings, park planning, etc.). The city has been setting funds aside over the past several years for city hall improvements and/or to study the need for a new facility. The third quarter of 2015's financial report shows the city hall CIP fund had a balance of $396,319 as of September 30, 2015. If the Council proceeds with the proposal, staff recommends the study be funded with the city hall CIP funds. Attached are a memo and the survey responses from the open house, lobby display, and online survey regarding a potential new facility. Motion by Second by To:( Eli -/0, IlLtei is/tcr.v/v ttyivianagerjLulb/u-utscuss5paceNeeds 122115 Request for Action, Page 2 December 21, 2015 If the Council is supportive of the proposal, staff recommends the item be placed on the January 11 council agenda for formal approval at a regular council meeting. Attachments Proposal from Wold Architects Open House/Online survey results City Survey excerpts Task Force recommendation December 16, 2015 Kirk McDonald, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 architects engineers Re: City of New Hope www.woldae.com New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 332 Minnesota Street Suite W Two Thousand Dear Kirk: Saint Paul. MN 55101 We are pleased to provide a proposal for professional engineering and architectural consulting services to develop site tel 651.227.7773 options, master planning for the reconfiguration of Civic Center Park and its amenities while planning for the proposed fax 651.223.5646 new facility. mail@woldae.com As with the Space Needs Study we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction and 7.5% for remodeling, based on your approved construction cost. We understand that your objective is to develop various options for the siting of the new Police Station / City Hall and to develop ownership from the community on the remaining uses of the Civic Center Park. Therefore, we propose that our fixed fees be based upon completion of one third of the Schematic Design phase. This results in the following calculation: Potential Construction Budget (w/ escalation) $14,179,000 Full Service Fixed Fee Rate x 6.0% Proposed Full Service Fixed Fee $ 850,000 Site Planning and Conceptual Design Phase x 5% Preliminary Site Planning Full Service Fixed Fee $ 42,500 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS k 010-0—on"00 Joel . Dunning // AIA, LEED AP Partner Minnesota cc: Ben Beery, Wold Illinois Matt Mooney, Wold Michigan MF/9999/CI_NewHope/crsp/dec15 Colorado designers and researchers for public environments Iowa Open House and Online Survey Results Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager; Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator From: Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant Date: December 14, 2015 Subj ect: Survey Results from Space Needs Survey Overview The city held an open house on November 17, 2015 to provide information to interested residents about the condition of the city's existing municipal building, the space needs of the police department and city hall, and the recommendations of a recent citizen task force. Open house attendees were asked to complete a survey, which was also offered at city hall and through the city's website from November, 24, 2015 through December 13, 2015. The display boards, PowerPoint presentation, and task force report presented at the open house were made available on the city's website along with a video of the presentation. The display boards were displayed at city hall while the surveys were offered. There were 18 surveys completed at the open house, 8 surveys turned in at city hall, and 157 surveys submitted through the website. Surveys offered after the open house asked if respondents were New Hope residents or businesses owners. Those who answered "no" are not included in the overall results outlined within this memorandum. This included a total of 2 surveys turned in at city hall and 22 surveys submitted through the website. Staff can provide results from non-residents/business owners if the data is of interest to the City Council. There were also two instances in which the survey offered through the city's website was completed more than two times with the same computer, as determined by the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the completed survey. An IP address is a numerical label assigned to each device participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. As per the recommendation of the city's Communication Coordinator, these surveys were also excluded from the overall results. This included a total of 5 surveys. Up to two surveys were accepted per IP address. Factoring in these omissions, there were 18 surveys completed at the open house, 6 surveys turned in at city hall, and 130 surveys submitted through the website. 1 Results from Open House Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? If no, please describe an alternative. Yes No No Response 17 0 1 The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for 17 an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Comments on Alternative I Have other locations been explored - Science Drive business park?" Why move closer to Zealand - why not north? Consider overbuilding/budget for growth. Can the fields be re- developed, make park walking friendly - light." "I agree that a new city campus is needed. I strongly prefer a brand new structure not a remodel." "Place the new structure over the deteriorating pool. $5 mil to repair, new tax increase? Give me a break! Dump the pool for the new building site. Some day in the future, build an indoor poor instead. Pick your winners and losers. Both are losers $ wise." Additional Comments "Thanks to staff and members of staff needs task force." "I see this as a $1.3M question due to the fact that a complete gutting of the existing facility is needed at a minimum. I believe remodeling a 50 year old building would be a disservice to the people of New Hope as well as New Hope employees that are here every day." "I think remodeling the current facility would fall under the old saying about a silk purse and sow's ear." "Although alternative sources of funding ought to be explored." "Every year there is a new cost added to my taxes. My cost of living is always going up (like many others) but our wages and benefits (S.S.) do not go up. Do the math!" 2 Results from Lobby Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? If no, please describe an alternative. Yes No No Response 6 0 0 The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for 6 0 0 an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Comments on Alternative • "I have enjoyed the present City Hall for 40 years plus and it has worked for me. But the evidence presented by Wold convinces me we need a new City Hall and police station." Additional Comments • "The presentation was very helpful. We will need to do this." 3 Results from Website Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? If no, please describe an alternative. The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Yes No No Response 65 65 0 77 C Comments on Alternative Comments from the website have been categorized by subject of content, as most focused on the location of a potential new building/impact on Civic Center Park and the cost of a new building as opposed to remodeling. LocationlPark (32 comneaz ts) • "Recommendation to keep the existing footprint of the city hall and police station and not encroach on the park. If more space is needed, consider building in the vertical direction (larger basement and/or taller building). A multi -story apartment complex already exists across the street, so going higher would not set a precedent." V "Why can't city hall and the police station relocate to another place for the time it takes to demolish and rebuild the building in the same place? What an eye sore the back of a building will be on Zealand Ave N. I do not care about the tax impact but I do care about how it will affect my neighborhood. When the city put in the temporary street to get in and out I understood why but could not stand the traffic. Why can't it be relocated to another area within the park, land, etc. Please find another way to do this." W "But not in the middle of the park! It should be built on the existing site. The park has been there for over 50 years and it should not be destroyed. The city workers could be temporarily moved while construction took place. The city should take a long term view and not think back 20 years from now and wonder what they destroyed our showcase park. Why don't any of the proposed models consider this? We want to keep all of the park amenities! Pool, hockey rink, skate park and playground. The neighborhood is turning over and many new families have moved in because of the location next to the park. We do not want to live next to a building." C! "I think remodeling the existing building and possible adding on to the existing building would be better. This would save the park space. Building a new structure in the middle if the park would not benefit the residence of New Hope. Taking away outdoor places young and old people visit is never a good thing. New Hope should encourage outside activities not discourage them." "I would request rather more renovations on the current site and preserve the beauty of the civic center. It really is a great resource for families." "We do not support the proposed location. The park in "our backyard" is one of the reasons why we purchased our house. What would this do to the property values in our surrounding neighborhood? I would like an answer to that!" * "I realize that more space is needed and that the most convenient and probably financially reasonable plan is to build a new building. However, I am cautious about what homeowners around the park will be left looking at when a new building is finished. When we moved to New Hope 15 years ago, our view of the park was one of the biggest selling points for our home. We would be very unhappy to be left staring at buildings instead of our beautiful park. Therefore, we remain hesitant to be overly enthusiastic until we can see what the building would look like and where and how it will be situated within the park property. We know that will be the next step, and we will remain neutral until then." "It may be needed, but we do not support the proposed location. The park in "our backyard" is one of the reasons why we bought our house. Also, what would this do to the property values in the surrounding neighborhood? I would like an answer to that." "Take over the strip mall by unique thrift. That mall looks like hell anyway. Move all the administrative offices over there and try to attract restaurants (like the old sunshine factory) and local businesses and build up a more modern strip mall. The location would be better and easier for the PD to get to where they need to go. If you do that, then you can leave civic center park, the theatre, hockey rink, and playground intact." The site next to the golf course. I don't support diminishing the green spaces in New Hope." • "Looking at the proposed plans it is a horrible location for residents living off of the park on Zealand. Why would one put a commercialibusiness building directly across from homes? Why not where the building already is? Or use the current building - remodel, add on, or go up." ® "I am deeply disappointed to learn that this is even a discussion on the table. For the past several years we have been taking our kids to the swimming pool for lessons. The park, tennis courts and skate park have been a huge benefit and draw for us. Removing and relocating these iconic 'child and family -friendly' spots would be devastating!! We also just moved from Golden Valley to New Hope and more specifically closer to this park. Our kids have commented and have been looking forward to being able to now bike to the park. As a wife of a firefighter, I understand the importance of public safety and the need for building and space for service departments; however, I will be very 5 disappointed in the city of New Hope if they choose to mob forward with the project and remove the park and the other structures and replace it with a new police station and building project. I believe there are other solutions. When I drive in that area, I don't want to see more building structures. I want to see that the city I live in supports families, kids and the growth of community and coming together. Taking away from that communicates something very different that I don't think I can support. Please, please please reconsider and put the park FIRST!! Thank you!!" • "It should be remodeled or rebuilt on the existing site and parking area. It should not be built in the park. A new building in the middle of the park would split the park in half and ruin it. The park would no longer be accessible to the surrounding neighborhood, and the neighborhood would have difficulty accessing HyVee and the surrounding businesses. Additionally, we do not want to lose the park amenities. The neighborhood is changing over and new families with young children are moving in. This is NOT the time to take away park land and amenities! Please, please save our park!" • "I don't think disturbing a great park is a good idea. I think if the current sites could be reconstructed would be a better option for the community. Plus there are families that would be disrupted by changing the site." • "I believe there is already way too much traffic around City Center campus already. It seems, through the years, anything residents living around another New Hope park didn't want, City Center got. The swimming pool brings so much traffic that creates a parking problem already ... why would you want to add to that situation. With the pool, and the theater already in the Park, you should enhance the playground even more than it is, so families can enjoy the park when using the pool. It would not be fair at all to take the view away from the homes on Zealand and move the current playground. That is what most bought their homes for. If you need to build a new city hall and police station, I believe it should be built north of the current theater and west of the cemetery. But the best situation due to traffic congestion is to build entirely in another area of New Hope, not locating the building in a city park. With Hyvee, the new clinic, and the gas station recently added, together with all the other buildings built through the years, traffic would be unsafe and unmanageable." • "I don't know where it should be built but if you take any of the playground it will discourage people with children from coming to the park." • "But it should not be built in the park. Build it on the existing site or find another one. Civic Center park is New Hope's showcase park- it makes no sense to put a building in the middle of it. The plan is shortsighted and ill-conceived. The city has a duty to preserve its open spaces. There are plenty of commercial sites available in the city, don't take the park land!" • "Yes I believe a new building is needed but not at the expense of park space. It seems that the architects need to go back to the drawing board and design a building that does not encroach on the park space. We should be enhancing the park and not destroying it. People want to live in cities with parks and green space. By constructing a building that 1.9 splits New Hope's largest park in half, you are sending the residence of New Hope a message that you don't care about parks and places residence of all ages can go and enjoy. Why tear down paradise to put up a parking lot?" "We have always enjoyed the outdoor theater, the park and the pool. We wouldn't want to see those landmarks changed as a result of building bigger, then renovation of the old buildings is an option." "I support the need for a new complex but I don't want you to destroy much of our Civic Center Park. I've live next to this park since 1967 before the park was a park. A center in the lives of my children and now my grandchildren. The hockey rink and soccer fields are important to our family. We are a family of hockey players. Don't destroy it!" • "A new building is fine, but do not move the playground. Do not move anything. Just build up (and down for parking). Build a taller building with the identical footprint. Save our green space and save money by not relocating the playground, the theater and more." "The importance would be on maintaining the current park design and keeping the building in its current location for my family." "I disagree with this action because it will take out most of the park that is there. My child will not have a park to play in if this happens." "I agree in needing a new center, but not at the cost of the park space which is heavily used. The existing space of the building can and should be used for replacement." "Building upon the exact same location of the existing city hall or directly adjacent to the west would be a far better choice. I have lived in New Hope since 1990 and after the amount of time, money, and effort this city has put into this park is is ridiculous to consider tearing it down and putting a building on top of it. It is also completely unfair to the families whose properties would now be directly adjacent to this new building instead of the park which in most cases was the reason they purchased those homes." "Replacing the park with a facility will reduce our free space for community to gather and enjoy. Find another location!" The impact to the park is too big with the proposed new developments. The park should remain a place for kids to play. The buildings should stay where they are and be renovated." "I would support improvements and possible enlargements to the existing buildings instead of building new. I don't support such a drastic change in the parks footprint. Where would the warming house go? What is the future of the ice rinks? I bought a home with a park across the street, I don't want to be looking at buildings now." "You know, that isn't a very old building by comparison to other area buildings. My house nearby City Hall and is older yet I don't need to tear it down and start over. With a little annual maintenance it is in fine condition and I'm mighty proud to live here. It would sound like you haven't taken great care of your building over the years and now want us to pay for it. That isn't exactly fair to the citizens that work hard for their paychecks is it? And why should the neighborhood kids lose their playground and we 7 lose our park? The kids love to go there and play, it is close enough to walk every day if they like. Now we'd have to bundle them up and drive somewhere (even if during construction which will take at least a year or more). For a luxury that benefits only a select few people that work for the city? So it doesn't seem fair to punish the citizens - you should remodel or at least build on the same footprint so you do not disrupt our neighborhood and our park. You can live out of construction trailers for the construction period and then move into your new home with no disruption to the park - I've done it for work and it is perfectly functional for your office work, etc. No doubt there is also a temporary solution for the police too if you look." My house is older than that yet appears to be in better condition from your description. And it hasn't needed any major expansion or remodeling work. Don't sacrifice Civic Center park for your new buildings. The playground and skate park are very popular with the neighborhood kids, it isn't fair to them to lose that. And the theatre provides a good summer time cultural experience. Not to mention the hockey rink, ball fields, tennis courts, etc. are all good recreational features for the residents. Why not look at moving to space near the Public Work garage where your project would be less disruptive to the neighborhood? It would also save fuel from your people going back and forth between sites." "I support that a new building is necessary, however I believe the best plan for the neighborhood and the park specifically is for a renovation and addition of the current building. Building a new building on the park site will disrupt the park, the flow, the sight lines and no matter where it goes, it is likely to be a burden to the neighbors who border the park. The inconvenience factor will be infinitely higher for neighbors if the site is moved as opposed to the temporary inconvenience of relocation city offices during construction." • "I could be persuaded to support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation if and only if I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Civic Center Park would not be changed or altered by the reconstruction of said buildings." Cost/Remodel (23 comments) • "I struggle to understand that we need $16M in improvements. I have been in the building twice both times to Homestead my house. Fix the repairs needed to maintain the building and that's all." "90% of the houses were constructed in 1960th in city of New Hope. It doesn't mean all houses have to be rebuilt. The city should raise/save money from existing property tax and not use home owners as a piggy bank." "I don't necessarily not support it, however, we're new residents and one of the factors for buying in New Hope was the park and pool as we have 4 young children. Could the current building be renovated and added on to?" ® "Remodel the existing space." 0 "My property taxes have increased over 10% every year since I've lived in New Hope (over $1,000 cumulatively). I think we need to come up with different alternatives than just tax and spend." "Seems like the city is getting fleeced on the cost of updating vs. cost of new. Just doesn't seem realistic." "Fix existing problems or reconstruct portions of the building on the same site." "Fix the issues of existing facilities, and save us tax payers on an unnecessary increase." • "I like the idea of renovating the current building and maintaining the location. What would happen to the current building if you built new, Are we tearing it down to lay new sod?" a "Would it not be less expensive to repair the station and city hall? Get some estimates and share what this cost would be to we tax payers." "I would prefer to remodel the current building including an 'add-on' to provide additional space which is obviously much needed. It does not seem necessary to demolish the current city hall which is newer than a great many of our houses in New Hope, and seems to have the same maintenance problems that we all have as our buildings get older. I would also like more thinking toward provision of community center facilities in the building plan to provide a better gathering spot for a variety of functions in our city." i "Ok so you are saying that the building was constructed in 1968. My current home was built in 1965 and we have put money in it through the years to fix it up. I am very sure that New Hope has put money into fixing up that building as well. It makes no sense that it would cost that much to fix up the building instead of tearing the whole thing down. If you haven't noticed lately we have been having a lot of young families moving out of the district because they want to be in a better school district than 281. I do not support that amount of money coming out of my property taxes. I would support this money going to our schools to improve our children's education and to keep the young families here as their kids age and go into our schools." "With the economic dive taken by this country in the last 8 years, we cannot afford to be extravagant. I know that this seems petty somewhat, but I am also aware there are other very necessary improvements that cannot be ignored that will also be big, if not much bigger dollars (water pipes). Please consider those who are suffering deeply from the down turn in the economy as well as those on fixed incomes. Please choose to remodel versus new for this reason." F "Remodel." • "Those are ridiculous numbers. Use what you have or find a company that can do it for half the price. I suggest going through each expense item by item to see where they're robbing you. Find out what they're charging for a toilet then go to Menards to see the difference." t "I'm not happy about this increase in local taxes after the recent upgrade in the cost of my health insurance, we are owners of a property built in 1963, we could use some of that 0 money to make improvements on our home, I suppose that amount will not break us, but in the event my husband dies, my income is not really sufficient to pay for all of the things he covers including real estate taxes, house insurance, utilities and a good share of our groceries. I would not want to leave this property that has been my home since 1978, and I need the fully paid for home to make changes in my budget for the future. I understand that building a new police department might be more cost effective, but couldn't the city split this amount into 2 or 3 years of increased levy instead of one year with high Minnesota taxes and a federal government that wants to control our health care among other things, every little bit counts with only 1% or less increase in my pension and other small amount of Social Security?" • "Unfortunately it appears that the building has not been properly maintained and has limited functionality going forward. It is ironic that my home was constructed in 1963 and with proper maintenance will not require replacement or a significant remodel in the near future. It appears that I have been a responsible property owner and the City of New Hope has dropped the ball and is now looking to the citizens of NH to foot the bill." "I did not get a letter about what's going on with city hall and police. Stay with the old building no improvements if that isn't possible make improvement to the existing building." * "That is excessive remodeling that does not support or add value to me as a taxpayer. Taxpayers get little value for 'nice' office space - I suggest city planners revisit their budget and plans as we all have to live within our means!!!" • "I propose the city postpone for another year all remodeling or updating plans. I do not see an end date as in how many years these additional funds are needed. My current tax increase proposal for 2016 is $255.7. That is an additional $21.30 a month plus the city wants to add another $10.50 monthly for an indefinite period of time. I won't say yes to this." "1.3 million dollars is a lot of money. And I don't really believe the numbers. I think the remodel budget is BS - way higher than reality. And the new building # is BS low. They're a little too convenient. The Civic Center Park is a great park that adds a lot to the community. With the addition of Hyvee, and road work, we have a really nice area there - and the park plays a role. We don't need to be eliminating green space in that area. Expand the existing if you have to, but don't build new and wipe out a great park. Hasn't New Hope's population dropped since the 1990s? Why do we need a bigger police station?" • "Not if it means the elimination of the playground/skate park/ice rink. We have several young families on our street that have all enjoyed the playground/park and are all looking forward to using the skating rink and skate park in the future." • "A new building is fine but should be built on existing site, leaving the city park, theater, playground and rink intact. If this isn't possible, then renovations should be made to existing building." 10 Other (7 comments) • "We need a new building but I have visited new city halls in Cottage Grove, Maple Grove and see a lot of unused ornamental space. This seems like a lot of wasteful spending to construct, heat and maintain a feel good space that serves no real purpose." • "If the roof needs fixing then do that." • "I support fixing the roof of the police station. We should suspend the buying of private home and selling them to re -developers and apply those funds." • "I'll agree if you can plow the sidewalks of Lion's Park!" • "I don't believe it is necessary." • "The police department, especially, is in need of additional space." • "Merge BACK with the city of Crystal and end this cost to taxpayers and make city government more streamlined and less repetitive." Additional Comments Location/Park (7 comments) • "My property value is going to drop. The location of the new city hall would basically put the mayor's office in my kitchen. I would not support the increase." • "But not if it means losing the park." • "Can you remodel the building you now have? Or maybe extend it west?" • "But only if the new building was not in the park. It could be built on the existing site and parking lot." • "I would not support property taxes for the purposed 17.4 million dollar plan. Come up with a plan that does not destroy the park and I would support it. Why would I pay for less park space and devalued property around the existing park." • "If done properly and without taking the park to do it. I drive by the skate park and it is used quite often by the kids." • "Again, not at the expense of the playground/park but I understand the need for upgrades or a new facility." Cost/Remodel (37 comments) • "Preference is for remodeling the existing structure." • "Why should we have to pay for this?" • "Please consider site lines and access for the neighborhood with any plan designs." • "Paying to have something taken away is never a good deal. Come up with a new plan that leaves the park space along and I will support it." • "No new taxes." • "It is hard to believe that expanding and remodeling can cost nearly as much as new construction. With that criteria no homes in New Hope should be remodeled but replaced by new just because they are inefficient and outdated." 45 "Our property taxes are high enough." 11 • "I do not support any property tax increase." * "Stop wasting tax payer's money and curb spending, then you would not have to raise it by that much per annum." • "Fund other ways to cut expenses. Let go of employees." • "Our taxes are already high enough, we recently moved from Plymouth and now owning in New Hope, about 20% higher." • "I'm really not a fan of increasing taxes even a small amount. New Hope property taxes are already considerably high." • "With the increased taxes that we are already paying for District 281 due to the last levy and insurance expenses going up due to Obamacare, we are tapped out. Employment raises are not keeping up with increased taxes and the current costs of living." "Property taxes in New Hope are way too high for what this city offers, compared to larger, more affluent cities." • "I'm never interested in any property tax increases, since the mill rate is plenty high. Check out assets the city owns, that maybe liquidated, to help support the $17.4 million cost." • "Taxes are too high already, especially for those of us on fixed incomes. Look elsewhere in the city budget for the necessary funds." • "Nobody wants to pay more taxes. I want to spend as little as possible." • "Who wants to pay more taxes, really?" • "After the 7% this year I doubt we can swing it." • "You are already raising our taxes by 7%. It sounds like we failed in our budget process." • "We are seniors on fixed incomes. $10.50 isn't much but my social security will not increase that much!" • "Taxes always are going up by so much. Is there a way for you to budget and then actually use the budgeted amount for its intended use? There has to be a place that has had money in the past that was never dropped off and is allocated to something else." • "I doubt the city would find a way to pay for this without the tax payer's input, but when a person is 75 even $10.50 a month looks large after a $30 increase in health insurance." • "No I do not support this. I do not want my property tax raised to fund something I do not support." • "It is absolutely ludicrous to think that we should have to increase our property taxes to pay for something that is going to lower the values of our properties." ® "I am not in favor of a property tax increase, but three years of analysis by Wold Architects implies action must be taken. I hope that the current leadership of NH will advocate a comprehensive remodel of the current facility in order to limit the financial burden to residents. A remodel also would limit changes to the current footprint which would be far less disruptive to residents of the immediate area as well as others that enjoy the park." 12 • "I would not approve of tax increase. I have a family and we live on a budget. Spending huge amounts of money on an ugly building in down the street is not the way I would spent money. Plant a tree instead." • "This cost might be ok depending on how many years the increase would be in effect." "Because you failed to tell us how many years this increase would go on for." m "That is a big jump. Increasing taxes by 10.50 per month on top of the -$7 per month tax increase for the Robbinsdale school district approved last year means an overall increase of $210 per year. I find it sad that we are willing to spend more money on office space than we are on our schools." • "Quite extravagant. Everyone has a wish list and city government always gets what they want and not with what they can get by with as the average tax payer must." • "When I have to work hard every day for my pay and you just want to take more of it for a building that benefits few city employees then no, I don't support it. Would it be for something for the public good like a community center, better infrastructure, city park improvements, etc. that everyone in the city can enjoy then yes, I would support that. But not something that is a luxury for only a few people." • "Every month I budget my money, plan my expenses, etc. I can't do everything I want but J live within my means. How about the city living within its means? Our public infrastructure is in poor condition is many areas (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.), that should be fixed up first before building a brand new building that only a few people will use. If it was going to city beautification which helps all residents (both in property value and daily livability) that would be one thing but this just goes to help City Hall and the few people that work there. Some austerity should be shown on the city's part when it comes to non-critical items." • "But again - a tax increase for a building on its current site." • "New Hope had one of the lowest property tax rates when we first moved in and now they are one of the highest." • "Would prefer increases in tax dollars to go towards school system upgrades (technology etc.)." • "This survey is a bit ridiculous isn't it, and skewed toward those who want this to pass. Sure, $10.50 per month doesn't seem like a lot, but how about asking the question differently. What would I like $10.50 a month go to make New Hope better? It's about priorities and I don't think this is the best use of tax dollars at this time. A more modest remodel could accomplish much of what is needed." Other Q comments) • "We just moved here as I mentioned and no! I would not support this!!" • "So you are saying that every structure in the area that was built before 1968 be demolished and rebuilt. There would be no structures left here." "I'll agree if you can plow the sidewalks of Lion's Park!" 13 Combined Results The combined results from the open house, website, and city hall surveys are as follows: Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? If no, please describe an alternative. The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to ay for the construction? Attachments 14 Yes No No Response 88 65 1 a Bar Graphs Depicting Survey Results ® Letter from David Lingo Do you support the Citizen bask Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Response Response Response Open House Lobby Website The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $17.6 per year for an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? 80 70 - 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Response Response Response Open House Lobby Website Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a nein► police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 f 0 Yes No No Response Combined Results The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? 90 80 70 � 60 40 30 -' 20 10 0 _ Yes No No Response Combined Results David P Lingo 8225 3811, Ave N New Hope, MN 55427 PH: 763-544-5213 Mr. Kirk McDonald City Manager New Hope, MN 55427 Re: New Hope Facilities Study December 4, 2015 I read with interest the write up in the Sun Post of Dec. 3, 2015 dealing with the questions of what to do with aging and inadequate New Hope City buildings. Government buildings I think should be seen as simply tools to aid in the delivery of city services and police protection. When these tools are obsolete, inadequate, badly worn, or poorly fit to the task, then the efficient and effective delivery of these services and protections cannot take place at the desired level of output. I think any business or manufacturing owner understands that modern, efficient tools are necessary to arrive at desired and reliable product output, it simply is not cost-effective to continue to try and deliver quality goods using poor, unsuited, worn-out and outdated tools. As I read the article, there is long laundry list of shortcomings in the present facilities; several upgrades have been made during the life of these buildings. That was good. But it seems to me that more attempts to patch and paper over facilities (tools) that are worn out and not up to the current job would be misuse of public funds. As a resident and home owner in New Hope of 44 years, I would certainly support a total upgrade to get the tools for our staff that they need, and that would allow city employees to continue well into the future to deliver the services we need and have all come to expect from our excellent city staff. I support efforts to move toward new and adequate facilities for our city employees. I think it would be a bargain and a strong move forward in city operating efficiency if this could be accomplished for the $125 or so per year the article indicates may be the cost of these upgrades. The sooner the better before interest rates begin to climb. Sincerely, City Survey Excerpts The Morris Leatherman Company 2015 New Hope Residential Study October, 2015 Mayor and City Council. Sixty-one percent feel they know either "a great deal" or "a fair amount" about the work of the Mayor and City Council. A comparatively small 38%, though, admit they know "very little." Eighty-three percent either "strongly approve" or "somewhat approve" of the job of the Mayor and City Council. Only twelve percent register disapproval. The seven -to -one approval -to - disapproval ratio is among the highest in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area suburbs. A very low six percent are uncertain. City Staff Forty-seven percent report they have "quite a lot" or "some" first-hand contact with the New Hope City Staff; this level of contact is 18% higher than the suburban norm. Eighty percent rate the staff as "excellent" or "good," while 14% rate them lower. The almost six -to -one favorable - to -unfavorable ratio is also among the highest in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Again, a very small seven percent are unsure. Seventy-one percent did not contact or visit City Hall during the past year. But, 18% telephoned, while 11% contacted it in person. In thinking about their last contact, 83% rate the ease of obtaining the service they needed as either "excellent" or"good;" eighty-nine percent rate the waiting time for a staff member to assist you similarly; and, 92% rate the courtesy of the City Staff highly. In each case, the percent of positive ratings exceed 80%, the threshold indicating high quality customer service in the public sector. City Hall and Police Department Facilities: Sixty-one percent support remodeling or replacement of the current Police and City Hall facilities if the City Council, with advice from the citizen task force who will determine it is necessary. Twenty-nine percent are opposed and 11% are undecided. When informed the renovation or replacement would increase property taxes on the average home in New Hope by $10.50 per month or $126.00 per year, 59% support the tax increase, while 33% oppose it, and eight percent are uncertain. Page 5 7 U L cn C: W, U) O 0- 0 0) O U) U O CL DL W tf O CL U) 0 N O O 0 O U c m E CDL cn .L L a T11- F - Task Force Recommendation Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald, Request for Action Appro gen a Agenda Section September 21, 2015 Work Session Item No. Kirk McDonald 11.2 Police Station/City Hall space needs task force recommendation (improvement project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests the city council receive the report and recommendations from the space needs task force studying the need to renovate or construct a new police station and city hall facility. Planning Commissioner Roger Landy, who was selected as the chair of the task force, will be in attendance at the meeting to present the recommendations along with representatives from Wold Architects. Other members of the task force may also be in attendance. Policy/Past Practice The city council has appointed or approved the formation of various citizen task forces in the past to study specific issues in the city and present recommendations to the council. Background The city council has been discussing the potential need to upgrade or replace the current police station and city hall facility since January, 2013, and in March, 2013, approved a contract with Wold Architects in the amount of $9,400 for a space needs assessment. Over the last two years a space needs assessment was conducted and meetings were held with District 281 to discuss a potential joint city/school district administration building. In February, 2015, both District 281 staff and city staff mutually agreed the concept of a joint facility no longer be pursued due to a variety of factors, and the city council authorized staff to form a citizen/stakeholder task force to study the issue and make a recommendation to the council. A task force was formed in April, 2015, and has been studying the issue since May. The task force was comprised of a broad cross section of the community representatives including city commissioners, business representatives, and various stakeholder groups such as Crime Prevention Board, gymnastics, Lions Club, etc. An update on the work of the task force was presented at the June 15 council work session. Roger Landy, chair of the task force, will be in attendance to present the recommendations from the group and representatives from Wold Architects will also be in attendance. A full copy of the report is attached. If the council is in agreement with the recommendation to construct a new facility on the current Civic Center Park/city hall site, it is recommended that Wold Architects be directed to develop more specific site and building Motion by _ Second by To: L f %�lr /� IJ C h n A h nn h'),1 F ,., ref 11 1-r 13 1:/RPA/CityManager/2015/Q-TaskForceRecommends 092115 Request for Action, Page 2 September 21, 2015 concept playas including the potential relocation of some park facilities, and the task force be involved in the process. When more detailed plans are developed, they would be shared with the city council. If the council was in general agreement with the plans, staff would then recommend an open house be held to educate the public about the need for a facility and gather public opinion on the issue. Attachments Citizens task force space needs study report Space needs analysis history/timeline CITY OF NEW HOPE CITIZENS TASK FORCE: SPACE NEEDS STUDY City Council Report September 21, 2015 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Committee Members 4 Study Methodology 5 Recommendation 6-14 Cost Worksheet 15 Appendix A - Meeting Minutes 16-27 Appendix B - Program 28-38 Appendix C - Ehlers Information 39-58 Appendix D - Shooting Range 59-61 Appendix E - Facility Analysis 62-67 9/10/2015 3:36:19 PM H:TI-NewHopsN132077 Space Needs SWdy%Citlzens Task Force Repoftitkens Task Force Report.M Page 2 City of Now Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 The New Hope Citizen Task Force is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council, this recommendation for the development of a new Police Department and City Hall facility. The Task Force wishes to thank the City Council for authorizing the formation of this Task Force, and to City staff for their efforts in providing the Task Force with the information necessary to aide their study and advance the development of their recommendation. Thank you for the consideration of this project recommendation. Roger Landy Citizen Task Force Chairperson 9/142015 3:32:05 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Cftizens Task Force ReporW[Izens Task Force Report rw Page 3 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE Mary Arnold Kim Lewis Greg Bender Rick Riley Teri Burkstrand Todd Schmeltzer Kent Garbers Michelle Slotto Mary Hudson Steve Svendsen Michael Isenberg Bill Wills Roger Landy (Chair) CITY STAFF Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Director of Police Rich Johnson, Director of HR / Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Director of Parks & Recreation Jeff Sargent, Director of Comm. Development WOLD ARCHITECTS Joel Dunning Ben Beery 9/10/2015 3:36:19 PM H:1CI-NewHope1132077 Space Needs Sludy\Citlzens Task force Report0lizens Task Force Repor m Page 4 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 STUDY METHODOLOGY To arrive at the conclusions in this report, extensive meetings and discussions occurred among the Wold team, the Citizen Task Force Committee, and City of New Hope Police Department and City Hall Staff. This effort includes staff interviews, information gathering, a tour of recently constructed police facilities, and a study of any future growth. SPACE NEEDS TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE: Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Meeting #5 May 27, 2015 Existing Conditions Introductions Review Process Project Goals/Expectations Video/Powerpoint of facility deficiencies Review programmatic deficiencies Tour planning Tour of New Hope Police Department and City Hall June 16, 2015 Tour(s) Tour of Richfield Municipal Center Virtual Tour: Cottage Grove Public Safety/City Hall Facility Tour discussion July 21, 2015 Options for New HoDe Sites - Impact to neighborhood - Inclusion of gymnasium New versus addition Review costs and financing options August 18, 2015 Develop Citizen Recommendation Discuss: Gymnastics, Kitchen, Gun Range Review draft report to City Council September 21, 2015 City Council Presentation 9/108015 3:36:20 PM HACI-NewHope11320T7 Space Needs SludyThizens Task Force ReporWillzens Task Force ReporIA Page 5 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION The Citizen Task Force was formed to objectively review space needs and facility options of the current New Hope Police Station and City Hall facility. Facilitated by Wold Architects and Engineers, the Task Force held four meetings over the course of several months to develop project goals, review deficiencies in the current facility, tour recently built police stations in neighboring communities, and study different site options and their associated costs. The Citizen Task Force recommendation is based on the following rationale: 1. The existing facility needs a lot of maintenance. (See Appendix E) 2. Renovation will not accomplish all goals/needs. 3. Police department facilities are inadequate which pose a considerable security and safety issue for Police Officers, City Staff, and the Community. 4. A new building would allow for more flexibility for future uses, and 5. Interest rates are currently very favorable. Based on the reasons above, the Task Force recommends the following: 1. A new Police Station and City Hall facility should be built to replace the existing facility. 2. The city park adjacent to the pool and fire station appears to be the ideal site. 3. With adjacent new developments and streetscape projects, this is an ideal project to take part in the revitalization of that area. In addition, the Task Force was asked to consider the options of adding a gymnastics facility and an expanded serving kitchen. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: Gymnastics Facility: After studying this option, the group took a ballot vote with the results being two (2) members in favor and eleven (11) members against. In general, the reasoning was that a gymnastics facility is not a harmonious use with the Police Department/City Hall facility. Because the majority were not in favor, this option is not recommended. However, the group recommends that a task force be formed to study overall city park and recreation facilities. There was a lot of discussion around the need for a community center where a gymnastics facility would be an appropriate component. 2. Expanded Serving Kitchen: The group did not recommend this option as the smaller serving kitchen in the program could provide for the needs of the facility. 9/10/1015 3:36:20 PM H:1CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Stu*CNizens Task Force ReportUtizens Task Force Repoint Page 6 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION (cont.) Finally, the Task Force discussed adding a shooting range to the project in order to better train police officers. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: The group could not reach concensus on this topic and recommend that the City Council continue to study the financial impacts of adding a shooting range. Ballot results were six (6) members in favor and seven (7) members opposed. The group members in favor felt that it was important that all police officers had access to a shooting range to continually improve their skills. The group members opposed felt that the current lease with Maple Grove is adequate and did not want to see the addition of a shooting range potentially challenge the viability of the project moving forward. Ultimately, the group concluded that if the Council is comfortable with the financial impacts to the project, a shooting range would be a justifiable amenity. The Citizen Task Force did not review actual site and building layouts, as this is a future step in the process. 9/102015 3:36:20 PM HAA-NewHope1132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force ReporrCkizens Task Fotce Reportnt Page 7 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Three conceptual building stacking diagrams — two of new buildings and one addition/remodeling — were reviewed based upon meeting the consensus space needs and the functional adjacencies arrived upon in earlier stages of the study. Each of these options were demonstrated being developed on two separate sites: • The site of the existing building. (not recommended) • The site at the west end of the City Hall / Pool parking lot. (recommended) Estimated construction costs, total project costs, advantages and disadvantages were developed for each of the options. A summary of the recommended concepts follows. 9/10/2015 3:36:20 PM H:\CI-NeMiope\132077 Space Needs SWACRizens Task Force RepomCilizens Task Force ReporLM Page 8 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 COST WORKSHEET BASE PROJECT PARK SITE NEW ADDITIONS 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION $150,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT* 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $12,890,000 EST. PROJECT COST $12,890,000 x .35 = $4,512,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $17,402,000 "ACTUAL SITE PLAN MAY REQUIRE RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING.THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SITE DEVELOPMENT, 9/10/20153;36:24 PM H:\CkNewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\CiOzens Task Force Reporl\CRizens Task Force Report.M Page 15 Bequest for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager September 21, 2015 Work Session Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 1 By, Kirk McDonald 11.2 Police Station/City Hall space needs task force recommendation (improvement project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests the city council receive the report and recommendations from the space needs task force studying the need to renovate or construct a new police station and city hall facility. Planning Commissioner Roger Landy, who was selected as the chair of the task force, will be in attendance at the meeting to present the recommendations along with representatives from Wold Architects. Other members of the task force may also be in attendance. Policy/Past Practice The city council has appointed or approved the formation of various citizen task forces in the past to study specific issues in the city and present recommendations to the council. Background The city council has been discussing the potential need to upgrade or replace the current police station and city hall facility since January, 2013, and in March, 2013, approved a contract with Wold Architects in the amount of $9,400 for a space needs assessment. Over the last two years a space needs assessment was conducted and meetings were held with District 281 to discuss a potential joint city/school district administration building. In February, 2015, both District 281 staff and city staff mutually agreed the concept of a joint facility no longer be pursued due to a variety of factors, and the city council authorized staff to form a citizen/stakeholder task force to study the issue and make a recommendation to the council. A task force was formed in April, 2015, and has been studying the issue since May. The task force was comprised of a broad cross section of the community representatives including city commissioners, business representatives, and various stakeholder groups such as Crime Prevention Board, gymnastics, Lions Club, etc. An update on the work of the task force was presented at the June 15 council work session. Roger Landy, chair of the task force, will be in attendance to present the recommendations from the group and representatives from Wold Architects will also be in attendance. A full copy of the report is attached. If the council is in agreement with the recommendation to construct a new facility on the current Civic Center Park/city hall site, it is recommended that Wold Architects be directed to develop more specific site and building Motion by Second by L To: 1:/RFA/CityManager/2015/Q-TaskForceRecommends 092115 Request for Action, Page 2 September 21, 2015 concept plans including the potential relocation of some park facilities, and the task force be involved in the process. When more detailed plans are developed, they would be shared with the city council. If the council was in general agreement with the plans, staff would then recommend an open house be held to educate the public about the need for a facility and gather public opinion on the issue. Attachments Citizens task force space needs study report Space needs analysis history/timeline Task Force Report CITY OF NEW HOPE CITIZENS TASK FORCE: SPACE NEEDS STUDY City Council Report September 21, 2015 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Committee Members 4 Study Methodology 5 Recommendation 6-14 Cost Worksheet 15 Appendix A - Meeting Minutes 16-27 Appendix B - Program 28-38 Appendix C - Ehlers Information 39-58 Appendix D - Shooting Range 59-61 Appendix E - Facility Analysis 62-67 9/10/2015 3:36:19 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132071 Space Needs Sludy\Cltlzens Task Force Report\Clllzens Task Force Repod.M Page 2 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 INTRODUCTION The New Hope Citizen Task Force is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council, this recommendation for the development of a new Police Department and City Hall facility. The Task Force wishes to thank the City Council for authorizing the formation of this Task Force, and to City staff for their efforts in providing the Task Force with the information necessary to aide their study and advance the development of their recommendation. Thank you for the consideration of this project recommendation. '�;r Roger Landy Citizen Task Force Chairperson 9/14/2015 3:32:05 PM H:\CI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Slut[�Cilizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Reporl.M Page 3 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE Mary Arnold Kim Lewis Greg Bender Rick Riley Teri Burkstrand Todd Schmeltzer Kent Garbers Michelle Slotto Mary Hudson Steve Svendsen Michael Isenberg Bill Wills Roger Landy (Chair) CITY STAFF Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Director of Police Rich Johnson, Director of HR / Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Director of Parks & Recreation Jeff Sargent, Director of Comm. Development WOLD ARCHITECTS Joel Dunning Ben Beery 9/10/2015 3:36:19 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs StudyTitizens Task Force Report\Cilizens Task Force Reportnt Page 4 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 STUDY METHODOLOGY To arrive at the conclusions in this report, extensive meetings and discussions occurred among the Wold team, the Citizen Task Force Committee, and City of New Hope Police Department and City Hall Staff. This effort includes staff interviews, information gathering, a tour of recently constructed police facilities, and a study of any future growth. SPACE NEEDS TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE: Meeting 11 May 27, 2015 Existing Conditions Introductions Review Process Project Goals/Expectations Video/Powerpoint of facility deficiencies Review programmatic deficiencies Tour planning Tour of New Hope Police Department and City Hall Meeting #2 June 16, 2015 Tour(s) Tour of Richfield Municipal Center Virtual Tour: Cottage Grove Public Safety/City Hall Facility Tour discussion Meeting #3 July 21, 2015 Options for New Hope Sites - Impact to neighborhood - Inclusion of gymnasium New versus addition Review costs and financing options Meeting #4 August 18, 2015 Develog Citizen Recommendation Discuss: Gymnastics, Kitchen, Gun Range Review draft report to City Council Meeting #5 September 21, 2015 9/10/2015 3:36:20 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs StucIff itizens Task Force Repo%ltizens Task Force Report rvt City Council Presentation Page 5 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION The Citizen Task Force was formed to objectively review space needs and facility options of the current New Hope Police Station and City Hall facility. Facilitated by Wold Architects and Engineers, the Task Force held four meetings over the course of several months to develop project goals, review deficiencies in the current facility, tour recently built police stations in neighboring communities, and study different site options and their associated costs. The Citizen Task Force recommendation is based on the following rationale: 1. The existing facility needs a lot of maintenance. (See Appendix E) 2. Renovation will not accomplish all goals/needs. 3. Police department facilities are inadequate which pose a considerable security and safety issue for Police Officers, City Staff, and the Community. 4. A new building would allow for more flexibility for future uses, and 5. Interest rates are currently very favorable. Based on the reasons above, the Task Force recommends the following: 1. A new Police Station and City Hall facility should be built to replace the existing facility. 2. The city park adjacent to the pool and fire station appears to be the ideal site. 3. With adjacent new developments and streetscape projects, this is an ideal project to take part in the revitalization of that area. In addition, the Task Force was asked to consider the options of adding a gymnastics facility and an expanded serving kitchen. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: Gymnastics Facility: After studying this option, the group took a ballot vote with the results being two (2) members in favor and eleven (11) members against. In general, the reasoning was that a gymnastics facility is not a harmonious use with the Police Department/City Hall facility. Because the majority were not in favor, this option is not recommended. However, the group recommends that a task force be formed to study overall city park and recreation facilities. There was a lot of discussion around the need for a community center where a gymnastics facility would be an appropriate component. 2. Expanded Serving Kitchen: The group did not recommend this option as the smaller serving kitchen in the program could provide for the needs of the facility. 9/10/2015 3:36:20 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Cilizens Task Force Reporl\Cilizens Task Force Report M Page 6 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION (cont.) Finally, the Task Force discussed adding a shooting range to the project in order to better train police officers. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: The group could not reach concensus on this topic and recommend that the City Council continue to study the financial impacts of adding a shooting range. Ballot results were six (6) members in favor and seven (7) members opposed. The group members in favor felt that it was important that all police officers had access to a shooting range to continually improve their skills. The group members opposed felt that the current lease with Maple Grove is adequate and did not want to see the addition of a shooting range potentially challenge the viability of the project moving forward. Ultimately, the group concluded that if the Council is comfortable with the financial impacts to the project, a shooting range would be a justifiable amenity. The Citizen Task Force did not review actual site and building layouts, as this is a future step in the process. 9/102015 3:36:20 PM HVI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Stud}\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force RepoftrN Page 7 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Three conceptual building stacking diagrams—two of new buildings and one addition/remodeling —were reviewed based upon meeting the consensus space needs and the functional adjacencies arrived upon in earlier stages of the study. Each of these options were demonstrated being developed on two separate sites: • The site of the existing building. (not recommended) • The site at the west end of the City Hall / Pool parking lot. (recommended) Estimated construction costs, total project costs, advantages and disadvantages were developed for each of the options. A summary of the recommended concepts follows. 9/10/2015 3:36:20 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Farce Repod\Citizens Task Farce ReportM Page 8 SITE PLAN OPTION WITH TUCK UNDER GARAGE y. City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 AL ISO OSIBLE TRAIL RINK? � � ^ ��Y —_____----&OJNr1 i EXISTING THF�,TEA? LPOLICE 11 aS1i� i � ���� t CITY HALL � IL _ _ _ J 1 ! PARKING (0) LL -- LOBBY PUB IG' ENTRY FEXIFENG 9/1 U2015 3:36:21 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Reporl\CItlzens Task Force Report.rv[ Page 9 POTENTIAL BUILDING DIAGRAM - TUCK UNDER GARAGE POLICE -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3,847 sf -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -1,700 SUPPORT SPACES 5,654 sf 19,874 sf x 1.2 23,849 sf LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804s - 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1,527 sf 8,331 sf x 1.2 9,997 sf CITY HALL - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCEAT/HR 2,531 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898 sf - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2,311 sf 8,615 sf x 1.2 10,338 sf GARAGE - 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf -1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf LOBBY POLICE City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 L BBY, • _ � I 9/100015 3:36:22 PM H:\CI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Reporl\Citizens Task Force Reportnt Page 10 LEVEL 2 44,184 SF I F\/FI 1 12,704 5F City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TUCK UNDER GARAGE MASSING 9/102015 3:36:22 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Cilizens Task Force Repoftilizens Task Force Reporl.rvl Page 11 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 SITE PLAN OPTION WITH TWO LEVEL POLICE 9/10/2015 3:36:23 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Cllizens Task Force Reporl\Cilizens Task Force ReporLM Page 12 POTENTIAL BUILDING DIAGRAM - TWO LEVEL POLICE LORRY � POLICE � L POLICE, POLICE -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3,847 sf -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf 8,704 sf x 1.2 10,445 sf LOBBY CONE CHAMBERS - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf - 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1,527 sf 8,331 sf x 1.2 9,997 sf CITY HALL - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCE/IT/HR 2,531 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898 sf - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2,311 sf 8,615 sf x 1.2 10,338 sf POLICE -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5,654 sf 11,170 sf x 1.2 13,404 sf GARAGE - 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf -1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf do `.;q% POLICE OBBY *4`. 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Farce Report.m Page 13 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 LEVEL 2 30,781 SF LEVEL 1 26,108 SF City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 TWO LEVEL POLICE MASSING 9/1020153:36:24 PM HACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Report\Cilizens Task Force Report.M Page 14 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 COST WORKSHEET BASE PROJECT PARK SITE NEW ADDITIONS 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION $150,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT* 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $12,890,000 EST. PROJECT COST $12,890,000 x .35 = $4,512,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $17,402,000 *ACTUAL SITE PLAN MAY REQUIRE RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING.THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SITE DEVELOPMENT. 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Farce Report M Page 15 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX A - Meeting Minutes 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM HACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study0fizens Task Force ReportTitizens Task Force Reporw Page 16 architects engineers www.woldae.com 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 fel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 mail@woldae.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa To: Attendees From: Ben Beery Date: June 4, 2015 Comm. No: 9999 Subject: City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting #1 May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attendees: Task Force Mary Arnold Greg Bender Teri Burkstrand Kent Garbers Mary Hudson Michael Isenberg Roger Landy Kim Lewis Rick Riley Todd Schmeltzer Michelle Slatto Steve Svendsen Bill Wills City Staff Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Police Chief Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Wold Architects and Enelneers Joel Dunning Ben Beery memorandum marnoldmn@yahoo.com gjbender1950@gmail.com ttpburk@yahoo.com kentgarbers@yahoo.com mnhudson@gmail.com misenbergl3@gmail.com rjlandy@aol.com jnklewis@msn.com rrileygirls4@comcast.net told@setdesigns.com michelle.westberg@comcast.net svendsen@q.com wjw9416@msn.com khemken@ci.new-hope.mn.us kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us jbeck@ci.new-hope.mn.us tfournier@ci.new-hope.mn.us rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us vleone@ci.new-hope.mn.us srader@ci.new-hope.mn.us jsargent@ci.new-hope.mn.us jdunning@woldae.com bbeery@woldae.com Discussion Topics: A. Introductions were made. B. Kirk McDonald, City Manager, distributed a document titled'Public Safety/City Hall Facility Space Needs Analysis History.' C. Highlights of the document are as follows: 1. January 2013 — City Council discusses a conducting a space needs analysis as part of the City Center Redevelopment and the possibility of a joint facility with District 281. 2. August 2013 — Wold Architects presents an update to City Council. The update included the results of meetings with City Staff on current and future operations as well as deficiencies with the current building. designers and researchers for public environments City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting #1 May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page Two a r c h i t e c t s 3. January 2014 — Progress report presented to City Council. Three site concepts were presented: Existing City engineers Hall Building Site, Civic Center Park Area Site and City Center Site. www.woldae.com 4. February 2014 — City Council agrees that Phase 1 of the City Center redevelopment should not include a new city facility. In addition, a joint meeting with District 281 should occur to gauge their interest in a joint facility. 5. April 2014 — Wold presents an updated to the City Council. Three sites were discussed: Existing City Hall Site, Civic Center Park Site and a District 281 site (near bus garage) for a joint facility. 6. February 2015 —After study was completed on a joint facility, both District 281 and the City mutually agreed that the concept of a joint facility should no longer be pursued. City Council asked City Staff to form a citizen/stakeholder task force to further study a new city facility. The City Council noted the following items regarding the task force: a. Focus should be on the need for a new Police Facility. b. The group should determine whether the facility should include a gymnastics space. c. The impact to the City Park should be discussed. d. The task force should be led by Wold Architects, D. Wold Architects and Engineers explained the process the task force will go through: 1. Meeting 1: Identify the Need 2. Meeting 2: Building Tours/Build a Common Language of Modern Police Facilities 3. Meeting 3: Options for New Hope; Review sites and cost estimates 4. Meeting 4: Review a draft report to City Council. E. Wold Architects and Engineers, in conjunction with the City Staff, presented a power point of building deficiencies. F. The group discussed the power point: 1. The group would like a digital copy of the power point. (Jerry Beck to distribute, after editing content related to safety with Chief Fournier). 2. One group member stated that they were horrified by some of the conditions. 3. The question was asked, has Xcel Energy conducted an Energy Audit? The answer was that several years ago they did, The City will find the report and distribute its conclusions. 4. Wold noted that the basic upgrades that are needed in the existing building for maintenance would total approximately $1.5 million dollars. This would only address the maintenance aspects but not the space needs. 5. One member of the group stated that a Cost/Benefit analysis of new vs, existing would be useful. 6. The group asked if there is potential in a new facility to have revenue generating programs? The answer is yes, although this concept has not been completely explored. Gymnastics, Kitchenette, Meeting rooms all have the potential to have rental fees attached to them. 7. One group member asked if the dance program could use the proposed gymnastics space. The answer was no. Gymnastics needs a dedicated space because of the difficulty of setting up and tearing down equipment. 8. The group would like to see a cost analysis of gymnastics program, For example, what would be the cost to build new vs. renting vs, potential revenue etc. Susan Rader will work on gathering this information. 9. The group asked if there is a potential need to add additional staff? a. Police: Likely to add 5 to 10 officers/staff in the future, However it was noted that the police station does not have the space for current staff let alone future staff. b. City: Likely stable in staffing as population is fairly stable. 10. The question was asked: Does City Hall need to be attached to the Police Station? a. The group agreed that it needs to be studied. b. It is partly about culture and past experience. c. The Police Chief routinely meets with City Staff. d. Current location of the police station is ideal in terms of location within the City. Minnesota 11. The group toured the existing Police Station and City Hall facility. Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa designers and researchers for public environments architects engineers www.waidae.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting 41 May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page Three 12. After reconvening from the tour, the group discussed programmatic deficiencies. Wold presented some of the missing or vastly undersized spaces from the existing facility. This information was gathered with input from City staff. 13. Some of the spaces highlighted were: a. Police: 1) Lobby/Interview Room 2) Community Room/Emergency Operations Center 3) Future Staff Workstations (Clerical, IT, Reserve Officer) 4) Copy/Supply/Workroom 5) Sergeants Shared Area 6) Roll Call Area 7) CSO/Reserve Storage 8) Soft Interview Room 9) Case Management/Conference Room 10) Juvenile Holding Cell 11) Booking/Intox 12) Evidence Entry/Process Lab 13) Evidence Storage 14) Vault Storage 15) Evidence Garage 16) Armory 17) Ammunition Room 18) Fitness Room/ Defensive Tactics Room 19) Break Room 20) Parking Garage b. City Hall: 1) Public/After Hours Conference/ Training 2) Mayor/Council Workspace 3) Cash Handling/ Safe room 4) I.T. Storage/ Workstation 5) Loading Dock 6) Staff Toilets 7) Community Development Parking Garage 14. The group stated that the Police and City Staff have done a good job working within the existing space. 15. However, based on the building deficiencies and programmatic deficiencies, they agree that there is a facility need for a Public Safety/City Hall project, 16. Tours were discussed: a. The next meeting, on June 16, 2015 will be a building tour. The group will meet at New Hope City Hall and travel at 5:15 p.m., via bus, to Richfield Municipal Center, Valerie Leone will send out more details as the date approaches, Next Meetings: June 16, 2015 (Tours) — 5:15 p,m. to 7:30 p.m. July 21, 2015 — 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. August 18, 2015 - 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p,m, September 21, 2015 (City Council) — 6:30 p.m, cc: Mike Cox, Wold MH/Promo/CI_NewHope/mi n/5.27,15 designers and researchers for public environments architects engineers www.woldae.com 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 mail@woldae corn Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa memorandum To: Attendees From: Ben Beery Date: July 14, 2015 Comm. No: 9999 Subject: City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force June 16, 2015 Tour Citizen Task Force Mary Arnold marnoldmn@yahoo.com Greg Bender gjbender1950@gmaii.com Teri Burkstrand ttpburk@yahoo.com Kent Garbers kentgarbers@yahoo.com Mary Hudson mnhudson@gmail.com Michael Isenberg misenbergl3@gmail.com Roger Landy rjlandy@aol.com Kim Lewis jnklewis@msn.com Rick Riley rrileygirls4@comcast.net Todd Schmeltzer told@setdesigns.com Michelle Slatto michelle.westberg@comcast.net Steve Svendsen svendsen@q.com Bill Wills wjw9416@msn.com City of New Hope Kathi Hemken, Mayor khemken@ci.new-hope.mn.us Kirk McDonald, City Manager kmcdonald@ci,new-hope.mn.us Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator jbeck@ci.new-hope.mn.us Tim Fournier, Police Chief tfournier@ci.new-hope.mn.us Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us Valerie Leone, City Clerk vleone@ci.new-hope.mn.us Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation srader@ci.new-hope.mn.us Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development jsargent@ci.new-hope.mn.us Facilitators Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers jdunning@woldae.com Ben Beery, Wold Architects and Engineers bbeery@woldae.com The group met at the New Hope City Hall and boarded a bus to tour City of Richfield Municipal Center, Q1=11an Topics: A. Prior to the walking tour, a virtual tour of the City of Cottage Grove Public Safety Facility was given by Wold. 1. The facility was opened in 2013. 2. Overall organization has police and city hall functions on either side of the building with core space down the middle. Public meeting rooms are separated from the police and city hall functions. 3. It was noted that this was built out to accommodate future growth. 4. It was noted that the site was selected because it is close to the middle of the city. designers and researchers for public environments architects engineers www.woldae.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force June 16, 2015 Tour Page Two 5. Overall square footage is similar to the City of New Hope's space needs. B. Prior to the City of Richfield tour, the group asked a few questions regarding the facility : 1. What was the overall cost of the project? Answer: $18 million construction. It was noted that total project cost was about 30% higher than that. 2. When did the facility open? Answer: 2011 3. It was noted that the facility is nestled within a rebuilt city park. Although the park was heavily modified due to construction, overall the results have been favored by the public. 4. It was noted that overall construction phasing was complicated as the new building was built around the existing building that remained in operation during construction. 5. It was noted that there is also a fire station in the facility however it will not be toured as New Hope is not planning a new fire station. C. The group toured City of Richfield Municipal Center: 1. Comments on Police Facility Tour: a. Panic buttons were noted at the entry vestibule. b. Soft interviews rooms were noted at the entry. c. It was noted that the entry to the Police station is secure and could be utilized 24 hours a day. d. It was asked if ground level glazing was a concern? Answer: Generally this is not a concern. Blinds are used when necessary but the cost of bullet resistance glass is prohibitive. e. The tile wainscot was noted as a good idea because it protects walls from damage due to the officer's gun belt. f. It was noted that the roll call/training room was a nice space that the City of New Hope does not really have. g. The group noticed a sizable difference in the locker rooms from that of City of New Hope. Overall, the lockers were much larger and properly sized for the officer's equipment. h. There was a lot of discussion around a gun range. City of Richfield currently has a gun range and the City of New Hope is not planning one. The group asked if it is needed? The group agreed to further discuss this at a future meeting. It was noted that ammo storage and ballistics room is planned in the space needs for New Hope. I. On the investigations floor, it was asked if the open conference room worked as planned? Or would a closed off conference room be better? Answer: Because the floor can be secured, the open conference space works well for Richfield during investigations. 2. Comments on the City Hall Tour: a. It was noted that there seems to be adequate storage and work space for city staff. b. The use of natural light is ideal however some of the mechanisms to bounce day light into the space seem difficult to clean/maintain. c. Work out facility seemed adequate however it was noted it was not open to the public. d. It was asked if Motor Vehicle Licensing department was planned for New Hope? Answer: No. e. The group liked the Council Chambers and took note of the back access point and Council work space. f. Overall, the group liked the various meeting and training rooms including the catering kitchen, Next Meeting: July 21, 2015 at 5:30 pm cc: Mike Cox, Wold MC/promo/I0_281/mins/6.16.15 tour designers and researchers for public environments architects engineers www.waidae.com memorandum To: Kirk McDonald From: Joel Dunning AD Date: August 5, 2015 Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa Absentees: Mary Hudson mnhudson@gmail.com Rick Riley rrileygirls4@comcast.net Discussion Topics. A. Review of Facility Tour of Richfield 1. Council Chambers seemed small. 2. Wear and tear on chairs from gun belts made sense and was a detail that be given attention. 3. Light shelves were an annoyance that were difficult to clean and not wanted by staff. 4. Roger asked what Wold learned from the project? 5. It was asked, "What was the highest desire by the chief for a new police station?" Chief Fournier responded that giving each patrol officer their own workspace, even if shared on shifts, was his desire to make each officer feel like they have a home and belong there. B. Review of the Space Program 1. Wold distributed and reviewed the space program of needs that had been developed with input from city department staff, vetted by a committee of department heads and presented to council. designers and researchers for public environments Comm. No: 132077 332 Minnesota Street SuiteWTwo Thousand Subject: City of New Hope Saint Paul, MN 55101 Police Station / City Hall Needs Study July 21, 2015 Community Task Force Meeting #3 Minutes tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 Attendees, mail@woldae.com Mary Arnold marnold@yahoo.com Greg Bender gjbenderl950@gmail.com Teri Burkstrand ttpburk@yahoo.com Kent Garbers kentgarbers@yahoo.com Michael Isenberg misenbergl3@gmail.com Roger Landy rjlandy@aol.com Kim Lewis jnklewis@msn.com Todd Schmeltzer told@setdesigns.com Michelle Slatto michell.westberg@comcast.net Steve Svendsen svendsen@q.com Bill Wills wjw9416@msn.com Kathi Hemken, Mayor khemken@ci.new-hope.mn.us Kirk McDonald, City Manager kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator jbeck@ci.new-hope.mn.us Tim Fournier, Police Chief tfournier@ci.new-hope.mn.us Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us Valerie Leone, City Clerk vleone@ci.new-hope.mn.us Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development jsargent@ci.new-hope.mn.us Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers jdunning@woldae.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa Absentees: Mary Hudson mnhudson@gmail.com Rick Riley rrileygirls4@comcast.net Discussion Topics. A. Review of Facility Tour of Richfield 1. Council Chambers seemed small. 2. Wear and tear on chairs from gun belts made sense and was a detail that be given attention. 3. Light shelves were an annoyance that were difficult to clean and not wanted by staff. 4. Roger asked what Wold learned from the project? 5. It was asked, "What was the highest desire by the chief for a new police station?" Chief Fournier responded that giving each patrol officer their own workspace, even if shared on shifts, was his desire to make each officer feel like they have a home and belong there. B. Review of the Space Program 1. Wold distributed and reviewed the space program of needs that had been developed with input from city department staff, vetted by a committee of department heads and presented to council. designers and researchers for public environments architects engineers www.woldoe.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa City of New Hope Police Station / City Hall Needs Study July 21, 2015 Community Task Force Meeting #3 Minutes Page Two 2. It was inquired if the concept of not having any offices was considered. Wold responded that we often push our clients to move towards the idea of working in an open collaborative environment with available private conference spaces to check out. But there are often employees who cannot perform their roles without privacy/confidentiality and it doesn't make sense in those cases to provide an open office workstation and a dedicated conference room to the same person — a traditional office just makes more sense. C. Other Spaces Considered 1. Gymnastics Gym a. An option was explored which would replace the gymnastics facility (2,800sf) that the city currently leases at Sandburg MS with a 4,OOOsf expansion of the City Hall program at a project cost of roughly $1,000,000. b. Susan Rader, Parks Director, presented data about the program's financials, participation levels and lease to the Task Force. Susan equated the gymnastics program to the dance program — where private clubs exist, but Parks & Rec can offer a more approachable alternative for New Hope families. c. Included was information that ISD#281 just approved a facilities master plan which forecasts Increasing the usage of Sandburg, leaving the city without a space for their gymnastics program. d. The Task Force stated that creation of a gymnastics facility was ultimately more about whether that presence of that program improved the quality of life in New Hope than about money. 2. Expanded Kitchen a. Wold explained that the base program included a small kitchenette space of 120sf. This option increases the space to by adding another 450sf at a cost of $134,000 for a 570sf kitchen that could be utilized by the community for more flexibility when renting out meeting rooms.Gun Range b. The New Hope Police Department does not currently have a firing range, but was an original participant of Maple Grove's shooting range, thus securing priority and a stable rent cost for officer training. Chief Fournier stated that the lease costs at Maple Grove are less than maintenance of their old shooting range was. c. A 6 -lane range was estimated to add between $500,000 and $750,000 to the project. d. Training for officers is negotiated into union contracts and scheduled months in advance to include half of the force each time. Use of force and other training sessions all occur in one day at Maple Grove. D. Project Costs 1. Wold presented that a facility with a remodeling of the existing facility for City Hall and an addition for a new Police Station was estimated with a project cost of $17,314,000 (including gymnastics and expanded kitchen spaces). 2. Wold presented that a new Police Station/City Hall facility built on the park's site was estimated with a project cost of $18,616,000 (including gymnastics and expanded kitchen spaces). 3. Both resulting buildings would be like new and negligibly different in maintenance and operational costs. 4. The rational for the minimal difference in cost was explained as due to the maintenance/infrastructure needs that were proposed to be addressed to make the remodeled building like new and the fact that all that would be save would be the structure of the existing building. 5. The advantages of a new building were identified as: a. More freedom to define ceiling heights and structural layouts to meet the functional needs of the space better than would be allowed in a remodeling. b. A building addition for police would put the least public function in the geographic center of the park, as opposed to the putting the more community oriented spaces towards the park. c. The move costs and disruption to staff and the public receiving services would be minimized by building new. E. Financial Models 1. Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers & Associates, presented the options and impacts for financing the proposed projects. designers and researchers for public environments architects engineers www.woldee.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa City of New Hope Police Station / City Hall Needs Study July 21, 2015 Community Task Force Meeting 43 Minutes Page Three 2. Revenue Bonds could be issued through the city's Economic Development Authority (EDA) without a public hearing or the recourse of a reverse referendum, but at a higher cost to the city's taxpayers. 3. General Obligation Bonds could be issued as part of a Capital Improvement Program approved by the council. These would have the lowest interest rate and would not affect the city's AA rating, but require a public hearing to approve the sale of the bonds and are subject to a reverse referendum. 4. Sales of G.O. Bonds are most competitive when bundled with other offerings, but sales must be under $10 million annually to be eligible to maintain bank qualification. To achieve this, Ehlers suggests issuing bonds in two successive years to raise enough funds for the proposed project but remain under the cap set for bank qualification. 5. Charts of property tax impacts for the median home value and other examples were distributed to the Task Force. Ehlers was requested to provide commercial property tax examples as well. 6. All funding for this project would need to come from bond sales. There are no city funds in savings or reserves available for use in the project. F. Conclusion 1, The group elected Roger Landys as chair of the group. 2. Roger called for a voice vote of whether the Task Force should recommend a new building vs an addition/remodeling. The group unanimously chose to recommend a new building. 3. Roger called for a voice vote of whether to include the expanded kitchen. The group unanimously chose to recommend an expanded kitchen. 4. Roger called for a voice vote of whether to include a gymnastics gym in the project. The group unanimously chose to recommend including this space. 5. The group asked for more data regarding a shooting range, including concept layouts and costs. Wold will provide this information to the group prior to the next Task Force Meeting. cc: Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates Ben Beery, Wold Mallory Dillon, Wold AK/CllyofNewHope/132077/mi ns/7.21.15 designers and researchers for public environments www.woldae.00111 �W' to 6 1 1a memorandum To: Attendees From: Ben Beery Date: September 8, 2015 Comm. No: 9999 Subject: City of New Hope Police Station/City Hall Needs Study August 18, 2015 Community Task Force Meeting 44 Minutes Attendees: Mary Arnold marnold@yahoo.com Greg Bender gjbender1950@gmail,com Teri Burkstrand ttpburk@yahoo.com Kent Garbers kentgarbers@yahoo,com Michael Isenberg misenbergl3@gmail.com Roger Landy rjlandy@aol.com Kim Lewis jnklewis@msn.com Todd Schmeltzer told@setdesigns.com Michelle Slotto michell,westberg@comcast,net Steve Svendsen svendsen@q,com Bill Wills wjw9416@msn.com Mary Hudson mnhudson@gmail,com Rick Riley rrileygirls4@comcast,net Kathi Hemken, Mayor khemken@ci.new-hope.mn,us Kirk McDonald, City Manager kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator jbeck@ci,new-hope,mn,us Tim Fournier, Police Chief tfournier@ci,new-hope.mn.us Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn,us Valerie Leone, City Clerk vleone@ci,new-hope,mn,us Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development jsargent@ci,new-hope,mn.us Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers jaarsvold@ehlers-inc,com Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers jdunning@woldae,com Ben Beery, Wold Architects and Engineers bbeery@woldae,com Absentees Susan Rader, Parks and Recreation srader@ci,new-hope.mn,us Discussion Topics: A. Confirm recommendations; 1. The group unanimously confirmed their recommendation that a new police/city hall facility should be built in lieu of renovating the existing facility, B. Shooting range: 1. Wold presented some information on gun range costs and plans, 2. Is there potential for Return on Investment with this? a, Answer: This has not been studied in depth yet. Chief Fournier has had some discussion with two neighboring cities that are interested. However, their rental fees would likely only offset maintenance fees, designers and researchers for public environments vrwGe.4vn Irl.ae.s: xyaaa City of New Hope Police Station/City Hall Needs Study August 18, 2015 Community Task Force Meeting #4 Minutes Page Two 3. What are the ball park maintenance costs? What are potential ball park rental costs? 4. Costs data from Range Systems was presented. a. Maintenance costs for an old range: $15,000/year but that was an old system, It could be lowered with new systems ($5,000 ball park), C. Discussion on shooting range: 1, One group member stated that from a financial standpoint, it makes sense. 2. Another group member stated that it seems like a luxury, not a must -have. There is a location nearby, and it does not cost the City a lot of money. 3. Would officers go above and beyond their required training to improve their skills if the shooting range was onsite? a, Answer: Yes — Currently, New Hope police officers have lost the ability to do this. b. However, a large range (like Maple Grove) allows for the officers to do more scheduled training. 4, It was offered that it is sometimes nice to go offsite to do training (encourage social interaction). 5. Is a five lane even a possibility? Answer: No, not really. Seven lane would be minimum, ten lane would be preferred, 6. There is a potential for revenue to pay for maintenance. However, the more use, the more you need to replace, 7. Is there a difference in cost between above ground and below ground range? a. Answer: No significant difference in cost. 8. It was noted that the $22,000 annual rental cost that is paid now could be used for maintenance, That said, it would take 70 years to pay off the five lane range. How long does a range/building last? a. Building: 50 years (longer with maintenance), b. Range: Old range lasted about 20 years, 9. Is it a luxury item? a, Maybe not: the officers are required to do training, 10. Can the old range be enlarged? a. No, not without affecting the fire station. 11. It is not always a financial decision. Our police force should have top facilities and the opportunity to improve skills, 12. It would be a benefit to all tax payers to have highly trained police officers, D. Recommendation: 1, There is not enough information to make a recommendation. 2. The group stated that our recommendation is not about money/financial impact — the City Council should study this. Our recommendation is about if the space is important to include? 3. The group took a ballot vote, Results: Yes — (6) six. No — (7) seven. E, Gymnastics gym: 1, Discussion: a, Existing space is small today. b. Do not have ability to grow/expand/enhance program, c. People are leaving the program because of facility. d. There is a "Build it, and they will come" mentality. e, The program losing momentum because of the existing space. f. There is potential for the City to rent out the new space. designers and researchers for public environments www woldnexam City of New Hope Police Station/City Hall Needs Study August 18, 2015 Community Task Force Meeting #4 Minutes Page Three g, Hennepin County youth sports grant is a possibility to offset some of the cost. Max grant amount is $325,000. Grant is not possible in a rental space, h. There are other needs in the community: 1) Ice arena. 2) Pool. 3) When these projects came up, a gymnastics facility might be thought of then as it is a broader community asset. F, Gymnastics facility does not make sense at this facility. It should be a part of a community -wide study or a community facility/center. It is outside of the scope of this task force, G. Identity of a police/city hall building is very different from a community space. "It does not fit." H. It is possible that including it will challenge the success of the overall project. 1. Recommendation: a. The group took a ballot vote, b. Results: Yes: (2) two. No: (11) eleven. c. However; the group recommends that overall park and recreation facilities/community center should be a future study/task force and the inclusion of a gymnastics space should be considered then. I. Expanded kitchen: 1. What is the difference between the two kitchens? a. Smaller kitchen would be for food prepared off-site and served on-site (catered). b. Larger kitchen would be for food preparation on-site, 2. Overall, the group felt the large kitchen would be more appropriate for a Community Center facility. The smaller kitchen would serve the needs of this facility. 3. The group recommends not including the larger kitchen as part of this project. J. Draft report was reviewed: 1 The group discussed their reasons for a new Police/City Hall Facility: a. Existing facility would need a lot of maintenance, b. Renovation will not accomplish all goals of the project, G. Police department facilities are inadequate. d. A new space would allow for better flexibility for future uses. e. Improved safety and security for police and city hall. f. Interest rates are currently very favorable, K. Site plan diagrams were discussed: 1. One group member liked the slanted site option as it moved the building farther away from the neighbors. 2. The group agreed that site planning and building design are appropriate next steps. L. Mayor Hemken thanked everyone for their time and valued input. Next Meeting; September 21, 2015 City Council Presentation cc: Mallory Dillon, Wold Mike Cox, Wold C N/Promo/C I_NewNope/m 1 n/8.18.15 designers and researchers for public environments City of New Nope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX B - Space Program 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Citizens Task Farce Reporl\Cilizens Task Farce Reportnt Page 28 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 OVERALL SPACE NEEDS SUMMARY Spaces needed to support Police Department and City Hall operations were developed and reviewed with the Police Department staff and City Hall staff. The following pages summarize and then detail room by room the space needs generated to allow the Police Department to operate effectively both today and into the foreseeable future. 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM HNGI-NeWope\132077 Space Needs Study\Cltizens Task Force ReporACitizens Task Force ReporLM Page 29 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary REVISED Existing Proposed Proposed Building Program Program Departmental Summary - Police 1.100 Public Spaces USF Needed 2,044 s.f. 784 s.f. 1.200 Administration Bldg USF Needed 2,617 s.f. 2,617 s.f. 1.300 Patrol USF Needed 3,170 s.f. 3,847 s.f. 1.400 Investigations USF Needed 1,456 s.f. 1,456 s.f. 1.500 Holding USF Needed 2,184 s.f. 2,184 s.f. 1.600 Evidence USF Needed 3,332 s.f. 3,332 s.f. 1.700 Support Spaces USF Needed 5,397 s.f. 5,654 s.f. 1.800 Gara _q_Su _port USF Needed - 520 s.f. 520 s.f. Total Police Office USF 20,720 s.f. 20,394 s.f. x 1.20 x 1.20 Total Police Office GSF 24,863 s.f. 24,472 s.f. Departmental Summary - City Hall 2.100 Public Space USF Needed 6,804 s.f. 6,804 s.f. 2.200 City Manager USF Needed 1,875 s.f. 1,875 s.f. 2.300 Finance/IT/HR USF Needed 2,531 s.f. 2,531 s.f. 2.400 Comm. Development Bldg USF Needed 1,898 s.f. 1,898 s.f. 2.500 Parks and Rec USF Needed 2,311 s.f. 2,311 s.f. 2.600 Shared Space USF Needed 2,087 s.f. 1,527 s.f. Total City Hall Office USF 17,507 s.f. 16,947 s.f. x 1.20 x 1.20 Total City Hall Office GSF 21,008 s.f. 20,336 s.f. Garage Summary 3.100 Total Police Garage GSF 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 3.200 Total City Hall Garage GSF 900 s.f. 900 s.f. Total Garage GSF 12,080 s.f. 12,080 s.f.l TOTAL Total Gross Square Footage - Police 24,863 s.f. 24,472 s.f. Total Gross Square Footage - City Hall 21,008 s.f. 20,336 s.f. Total Gross Square Footage -Garage 12,080 s.f. 12,080 s.f. Total 26,740 s.f. 57,952 s.f. 56,889 s.f. 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM HACI-NewHope1132077 Space Needs Study0tizens Task Farce ReporACilizens Task Force Repod.rvt Page 30 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary 1.000 Police 1.100 Public Spaces 1.101 Public Waiting 1.102 Lobby Interview Room 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 1.104 Community Room Storage Public Spaces Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Public Spaces IJSF Needed 1.200 Administration 1.201 Chief Office 1.202 Captain Office 1.203 Admin. Assistant Office 1.204 Office Supervisor Office 1.205 Clerical Workstation 1.206 Future IT Coordinator - Workstation 1.207 Active Records Storage 1.208 Archive Records Room 1.209 Copy/Supply/Workroom 1.210 Conference Room 1.211 Admin Storage Administration Net Area Total: 200 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor Administration Bldg USF Needed 9/10/20153:36:24 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report.M City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Existing Proposed Rrifirffnn Prnnram REVISED Proposed Program 155 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 900 s.f. 0 s.f. 40 s.f. 40 s.f. 155 s.f. 1,460 s.f. 560 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 2,044 s.f. 784 s.f. QTY Unit Size 185 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 2 130 s.f. 260 s.f. 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 96 s.f. 110 s.f. 110 s.f. 120 s.f. 135 s.f. 135 s.f. 2 64 0. 128 s.f. 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 160 s.f. 160 s.f. 150 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 1,239 s.f. 1,869 s.f. 1,869 s.f. X 1.40 x 1.40 2,617 s.f. 2,617 s.f. Page 31 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 a ♦ e� Space Program Summary REVISED Existing Proposed Proposed Building Program Program 1.300 Patrol 1.301 Sergeants Shared Area 2 67 s.f. 135 s.f. 480 s.f. 480 s.f. 1.302 Shared Patrol Workstations incl 256 s.f. 640 s.f. 1.303 Patrol File Storage incl incl incl 1.304 Community Service Officer Wkstn 65 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 1.305 Animal Control Officer Wkstn 65 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 1.306 Crime Prevention Specialist Wkstn 65 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 1.307 PTE CSO/Reserve Officer Wkstn 192 s.f. 192 s.f. 1.308 School Resource Officer Wkstn 130 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 1.309 Copy/Workarea See 1.209 See 1.209 1.310 Roll Call Area 440 s.f. 800 s.f. 900 s.f. 1.311 CSO/Reserve Storage 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 1.312 Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev.) 140 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. Patrol Net Area Total: 1,040 s.f. 2,264 s.f. 2,748 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 Patrol USF Needed 3,170s.. 3,847 s.f. 1.400 Investigations 1.401 Investigator's Office 2 130 s.f. 260 s.f. 450 s.f. 450 s.f. 1.402 Investigator's Office - Part Time 65 s.f. incl incl 1.403 Computer Forensics / DTF Office 80 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 8.f. 1.404 Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 1.405 Soft Interview Room 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 1.406 Invest. Storage/ Elect. Equip. 20 s.f. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. Investigations Net Area Total: 425 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 1,040 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 Investigations USF Needed 1,456 s.f. 1,456 s.f. 9/10/2015 3:36:24 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs StucIff itizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report.rvt Page 32 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary 1.500 Holding 1.501 Holding Cell 3 60 s.f 1.502 Holding Cell Juvenile 1.503 Booking/Intox. 1.504 Sallyport 1.505 Hard Interview Holding Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Holding USF Needed 1.600 Evidence 1.601 Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 1.602 Evidence Storage 1.603 Large Property Storage 1.604 Vault Storage/ Drugs/ Weapons/ Drying Room 1.605 Evidence Garage 900 s.f. Evidence Net Area Total: 100 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor Evidence USF Needed 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Cilizens Task Force ReporMilizens Task Force Report rvl Page 33 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 REVISED Existing Proposed Proposed Building Program Program 180 s.f. 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 140 s.f. 73 s.f. 280 s.f. 280 s.f. 580 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 90 s.f. 100 s.f. 100 s.f. 92-3s. f. 1,560 s.f. 1,560 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 2,184 s.f. 2,184 s.f. 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 256 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 210 s.f. incl Incl 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 46-6s, f. 2,380 s.f. ..A 2,380 s.f. .., City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary 180 s.f. 180 s.f. REVISED 120 s.f. 120 s.f. Existing Proposed Proposed Garage Support Net Area Total: 60 s.f. 400 s.f. Building Program Program 1.700 Support Spaces Garage Support USF Needed 520 s.f. 520 s.f. 1.701 Armory 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 1.702 Ammunition Room 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 1.703 Fitness Center 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 1.704 City Staff Changing Room 160 s.f. 160 s.f. 1.705 Defensive Tactics Training Room 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 1.706 Defensive Tactics Training Storage 40 s.f. 40 s.f. 1.707 Breakroom w/ Kitchenette (6-8 people) 450 s.f. 640 s.f. 1.708 Quiet/Mothers Room 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 1.709 Beverage Station 72 s.f. 72 s.f. 1.710 Staff Toilet 2 25 s.f. 50 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 1.711 Men's Locker Room 550 s.f. 600 s.f. 600 s.f. 1.712 Men's Toilet/ Shower Included 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 1.713 Men's Vestibule Included 44 s.f. 44 s.f. 1.714 Women's Locker Room 224 s.f. 240 s.f. 240 s.f. 1.715 Women's Toilet/ Shower Included 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 1.716 Women's Vestibule Included 44 s.f. 44 s.f. Support Spaces Net Area Total: 824 s.f. 3,998 s.f. 4,188 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.35 x 1.35 Support Spaces USF Needed 5,397 s.f. 5,654 s.f. 1.800 Police Garage Support 1.801 Swat Gear Storage / Locker Room 180 s.f. 180 s.f. 1.802 Gear bag storage/Radio Charging 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 1.803 Squad Supply Storage 60 s.f. 100 s.f. 100 s.f. Garage Support Net Area Total: 60 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.30 x 1.30 Garage Support USF Needed 520 s.f. 520 s.f. 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report.rvt Page 34 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary 2.000 City Hall 2.100 Public Spaces 2.101 Public Lobby 2.102 Council Chambers 2.103 Council Chambers Table Storage 2.104 TV Control Room 2.105 Council Work Session Room 2.106 Public After Hours Conference /Training 2.107 Kitchenette 2.108 Conference Room 2.109 Public Toilets Public Space Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Public Space USF Needed 2.200 City Manager 2.201 City Manager Office 2.202 City Clerk Office 2.203 Admin. Assistant 2.204 Assessor Workstation 2.205 Mayor/Council Workspace 2.206 Public Counter 2.207 Ballot Storage 2.208 Elections Storage 2.209 Public Record Viewing Kiosk 2.210 Counter Workstations (2@54) 222 s.f. City Manager Net Area Total: 400 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 300 s.f. City Manager USF Needed 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Study\Cilizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Reportrvt 2 54 s.f. Page 35 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 REVISED Existing Proposed Proposed Building Program Program 420 s.f. 600 5.f. 600 s.f, 1,280 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 0 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 60 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 840 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 800 s.f. 800 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 222 s.f. 400 s.f. 400 s.f. 270 s.f. 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 3,092 s.f. 4,860 s.f. 4,860 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 6,804 s.f. 6,804 s.f. 280 s.f. 200 S.f. 200 s.f. 145 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 110 s.f. 110 s.f. 110 s.f. 20 s.f. 64 s.f, 64 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. incl incl 40 s.f. 40 s.f. 640 s.f. 600 s.f. 600 s.f. 25 s.f. 25 s.f. 108 s.f. 0 s.f. 0 s.f. 1,303 s1. 1,339 s.f. 1,339 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 1,875 s.f. 1,875 s.f.. City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary REVISED Existing Proposed Proposed Building Program Program 2.300 Finance / IT / HR / Communications 2.301 HR/Admin Director Office 170 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 2.302 HR Coordinator Office 135 s,f. 150 s,f. 150 s.f, 2.303 Wellness Workstation 64 s.f. See 1.703 See 1.703 2.304 Finance Director Office 160 s.f, 200 s,f. 200 s.f. 2.305 Finance Storage 80 s.f. 80 s,f. 80 s,f, 2.306 Storage 28 s.f. 28 s.f. 28 s.f. 2.307 Finance Workstation (1@801@110) 190 s.f, 192 s.f, 192 s.f. 2.308 Cash Handling/Safe Room 60 s.f. 60 s.f. 2.309 I.T. Coordinator Office 140 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 2.310 I.T. Support Workstation 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2.311 I.T. Set Up Workstation 128 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 2.312 I.T. Storage 80 s,f. 80 s,f, 2.313 Server Room 164 s.f. 240 s.f. 240 s.f, 2.314 Communications Office 155 s.f, 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 2.315 Communications Intern Work Area/Storage Wkstn 64 s.f. 64 s.f. Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: 1,414 s,f, 1,808 s.f, 1,808 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.40 x 1.40 Finance/IT/HR USF Needed 2,531 s.f, 2,531 s.f. 9/10/20153:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Cilizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report M Page 36 APPENDIX B Space Program Summary 2.400 Community Development 2.401 CD Director Office 2.402 CD Specialist Office 2.403 Building Official Office 2.404 Housing Inspector Office 2.405 General Inspector Office 2.406 CD Assistant Workstation 2.407 Intern Workstation 2.408 Office Support Specialist 2.409 Work Area 2.410 Plan Storage 2.411 Public Counter Comm. Development Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Comm. Development Bldg USF Needed 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office 2.503 Rec. Coordinator Office 2.504 Office Support Spec. Workstation 2.505 Seasonal Supervisor 2.506 Work Area 2.507 Work Room 2.508 Supply Storage 2.509 Park and Rec Counter Parks and Rec Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Parks and Rec USF Needed 910/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SludyTilizens Task Force ReporRCilizens Task Force Report rvt 2 48 s.f. Existing Bulldina 175 s.f. 140 s.f. 175 s.f. 135 s.f. 115 s.f. 54 s.f. 54 s.f. 96 s.f. 48 s.f. incl 76 s.f. 1,068 s.f. 250 s.f. 165 s.f. 155 s.f. 2 48s.1. 96 s.f. 100 s.f. 80 s.f. 190 S.f. 505 s.f. 50 s.f. 1,591 s.f. Page 37 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Proposed Program 200 s.f. 150 s.t. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 128 s.f. Ind 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 1,356 s.f. x 1.40 1,898 s.f. 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 128 s.f. 108 s.f. 120 s.f. 190 s.f. 505 S.f. Inn q r REVISED Proposed Program 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 128 s.f. Incl 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 1,356 s.f. x 1.40 1,898 s.f 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 128 s.f. 108 s.f. 120 s.f. 190 s.f. 505 s.f. 100 s.f- 1 ,bOl S.T. 1,b01 S.T. x 1.40 x 1.40 2,311 s.f. 2,311 s.f. APPENDIX B Space Program Summary 2.600 Shared Spaces 2.601 Copy/Supplies/Work Room 2.602 Mail/Work Area 2.603 Quiet/Mother's Room 2.604 Break Room 2.605 Archive Storage 2.606 Loading Dock 2.607 Janitorial 2.608 Staff Toilets 250 s.f. Shared Space Net Area Total: 64 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 150 s.f. Shared Space USF Needed 3.100 Vehicle Garage 3.101 Parking Stalls 3.102 Swat Truck Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage GSF Needed 3.200 Community Development Vehicle Garage 3.201 Parking Stalls - CD Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Vehicle Garage GSF Needed 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report.M Page 38 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 REVISED Existing Proposed Proposed Building Program Program 210 s.f. 300 s.f. 300 s.f. 80 s.f. incl incl 63 s.f. 63 s.f. 63 s.f. 640 s.f, 400 s.f. 0 31 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 200 s.f. 250 s.f. 250 s.f. 64 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 128 s.f. 128 s.f. 1,257 s.f. 1,491 s.f. 1,091 s.f. x 1.40 x 1.40 2,087 s.f. 1,527 s.f. 2,160 s.f. 8,100 s.f. 8,100 s.f. 0 s.f. 500 s.f. 500 s.f. 2,160 s.f. 8,600 s.f. 8,600 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 11,180 s.f. 11,180 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. 0 s.f. 900 s.f. 900 s.f. x 1.30 x 1.30 1,170 s.f. 1,170 s.f. City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX C - Ehlers Information 9/10015 3:36:25 PM HVI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Repoalllzens Task Force Report.M Page 39 EHLE R LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE City Hall Financing City of New Hope Jason Aarsvold — Ehlers July 21, 2015 - --- -- - - - - -4: - - ! " - - - --- Overview • City Hall Financing Options Bonding Estimates for Project Alternatives • Tax Impacts - -- - - -- _E H LE_ RS_ LEADERS IK PUBLIC RMANCE City Hall Financing Options • General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds • Lowest interest rate • Currently rated AA with stable outlook by Standard & Poor's Full faith and credit of the City's tax base • 'Unlimited pledge Bondholders can force property taxes to be raised to pay debt • Revenue Bonds • Generally higher interest rate /cost • Pledge may be revenues or a lease Ae ----- ----- -- - -- - -- - _E H LE RS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Authority to Issue Bonds • EDA Lease Revenue bonds — Based upon annual appropriation so have higher interest costs — No public hearing, referendum or reverse referendum requirement -- _--- - -- - -- - --� - EH LE RS LEADERS In PUBLIC FINANCE Authority to Issue Bonds • General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds ✓Provides authority for city hall, public safety, library or public works buildings ✓Public hearing requirement . Subject to reverse referendum within 30 days of public hearing 18 5% of votes cast in last general election EH -LX -RS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimates for Project Alternatives Remodel and Expand Existin Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 12101120161 Delivered 12/0112016 City Hall Issue Series 2016 Series 2017 Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amalant of Bonds $10.000-000.00 $ 7,590,000.00 517,590,000.00 Total Sources Uses Of Funds $1+00+00.000.00 57.590,000.00 $17,490,000.00 Total'Gndem,ntees Disconmt(0900°/0j 90,000.00 68310.00 158,310.00 Com oflssuarcce 67,000.00 60,000.O0 104.01 P�posit to Project ConstraMon Fund 9,843,000.00 7,457.000.00 17,300,000.00 I]evIout to Proiect Fwd - 4,690-00T—M-0-0 Total Uses $10.000000,00 $7,A;90.000.00 S17,590.000.00 M .. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — Remodel City Hall TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - REMODEL AND EXPAND CITY HALL Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax Increase* $ 1001000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 55.52 $ 4.63 150,000 23,740 126,260 97.68 8.14 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 127.19 10.60 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 224.17 18.68 400,000 1 15240 398,760 1 308.49 25.71 - - - _ EHL_E_R_S_ LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimates for Project Alternatives Construct New Citv Hall Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 12101120161 Delivered 1 210 1120 1 6 Issue Series 2016 Series 2017 Summary Sources Of funds Par Amount of Bonds $10.0007000.00 58.905,000.00 518.905,000.00 Total Sources Uses Of Funds 510.000.000.00 $8.905.000.00 SISS05.000.00 Chit nal Issue Discount (20 - 1,252.40 1,252.40 Total tinde rw itees Discount (0900%) 90,040.00 80,145.00 170,145.00 Costs of Issuance 67.000.00 65.000M o Deposit to Project Comhuction Fund 9,843.00{x.00 8-757-000.00 18,600,0100.00_ osit to Project Fund - 1-602.60 -1-.02-60 Total U- ses 510.000.000 00 SS.905.000.00 5181905.000.00 EHLER LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — New City Hall TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - NEW CITY HALL Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value, Tax Increase* Tax Increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 59.66 $ 4.97 150,000 23,740 126,260 104.98 8.75 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 136.70 11.39 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 240.92 20.08 400,000 1,240 398,760 1 331.54 1 27.631 -- - ----- __� --- EHLER LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts - Comparison TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - REMODEL AND EXPAND CITY HALL Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax Increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 55.52 $ 4.63 150,000 23,740 126,260 97.68 8.14 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 127.19 10.60 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 224.17 18.68 4001000 1 1,240 1 398,760 1 308.49 1 25.71 TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - NEW CITY HALL Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax Increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 59.66 $ 4.97 150,000 23,740 126,260 104.98 8.75 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 136.70 11.39 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 240.92 20.08 400,000 1,240 1 398,760 331.54 1 27.63 LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 1tv EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE City Hall Financing City of New Hope Jason Aarsvold — Ehlers August 18, 2015 Overview • City Hall Bonding Estimates for Project Alternatives • Tax Impacts ,e- - - -- -- ---- - -- --- -_- -------_E_ _H LE RS %F 0 LEADERS IN PUSLIG FINANCE Bond Estimate — New City Hall, No Gun Range Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 12/01/2016 1 Delivered 12/01/2016 Series 2016 Series 2017 Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $10,000,000.00 $8,905,000.00 $18,905,000.00 Total Sources $10,000,000.00 $8,905,000.00 $18,905,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.900%) 90,000.00 80,145.00 170,145.00 Costs of Issuance 67;000.00 65,000.00 12;000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 9,843,000.00 8,757,000.00 C 18,600,000.0 Deposit to Project Fund - 2,855.00 2,855.00 Total Uses $10,000,000.00 $8,905,000.00 $18,905,000.00 EMLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — New City Hall, No Gun Range TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Base O tion New City Hall, no gun range) Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase Tax Increase $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 59.61 $ 4.97 150,000 23,740 126,260 104.88 8.74 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 136.57 11.38 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 240.70 20.06 400,000 1,240 398,760 331.24 27.60 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 82.21 $ 6.85 200,000 - 200, 000 178.12 14.84 CommerciaVl ndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 287.73 23.98 400,000 - 400,000 397.34 33.11 500,000 - 500,000 506.95 42.25 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,055.01 87.92 - -- -gamifil..E H _LE_ RS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — New City Hall, 5 -1 -ane Gun Range Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 12/01/2016 1 Delivered 12/01/2016 Series 2016 Series 2017 Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $10,000,000.00 $10,485,000.00 $20,485,000.00 Total Sources Uses Of Funds $10,000,000.00 $10,485,000.00 $20,485,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.900%) 90,000.00 94,365.00 184,365.00 Costs of Issuance 67,000.00 70,000.00 137,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 9,843,000.00 10,317,000.00 20,160,000.00 Deposit to Project Fund - 3,635.00 3,635.00 Total Uses $10,000,000.00 $10,485,000.00 $20,485,000.00 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — New City Hall, 5 -Lane Gun Range TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - New City Hall wth 5 -Lane Gun Range Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase Tax Increase $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 65.87 $ 5.49 150,000 23,740 126,260 115.90 9.66 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 150.92 12.58 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 265.99 22.17 400,000 1,240 398,760 366.05 30.50 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 90.85 $ 7.57 200,000 - 200,000 196.83 16.40 CommerciaVlndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 317.96 26.50 400,000 - 400,000 439.09 36.59 500,000 - 500,000 560.22 46.68 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,165.86 97.16 -- - - EHL_ERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FIMANC£ Bond Estimate — New City Hall, 1 0 -Lane Gun Range Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 12/01/2016 1 Delivered 12/01/2016 Series 2016 Series 2017 Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $10,000,000.00 $11,685,000.00 $21,685,000.00 Total Sources Uses Of Funds $10,000,000.00 $11,685,000.00 $21,685,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.900%) 90,000.00 105,165.00 195,165.00 Costs of Issuance 67,000.00 72,000.00 139000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 9,843,000.00 11,507,000.00 21,350,000.00 Deposit to Project Fund - 835.00 835.00 Total Uses $10,000,000.00 $11,685,000.00 $21,685,000.00 EHIERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — New City Hall, 1 0 -Lane Gun Range TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - New Cityall with 10 -Lane Gun Range Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of PropertV Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase Tax Increase $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 69.80 $ 5.82 150,000 23,740 126,260 122.82 10.23 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 159.93 13.33 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 281.86 23.49 400,000 1,240 398,760 387.88 32.32 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 96.27 $ 8.02 200,000 - 200,000 208.58 17.38 CommerciaVi ndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 336.93 28.08 400,000 - 400,000 465.29 38.77 500,000 - 500,000 593.64 49.47 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,235.42 102.95 EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE City of New Hope Summary of City Hall Financing Alternatives G.0 Bonds issued over two No change from previously presented years to preserve bank $18,600,000 $18,905,000 $1,371,314 $137 qualification version Base Assumption with 5 -Lane Shooting Range G.0 Bonds issued over two Requires $474,000 in city cash to stay years to preserve Bank $20,160,000 $20,000,000 $1,450,649 $144 below BQ limit. Could not issue Qualification (BQ) additional debt in 2016 or 2017. G.O. Bonds issued in 2016 for $20 317 ,160,000 $20,445,000 $1,557, $155 One bond issue; preserves BQ for 2017 full project; non-BQ for other city projects. Projects net savings using a BQ issue in G.O. bonds issued in 2016 (BQ) $20,160,000 $20,485,000 $1,515,398 2016. Could not issue additional debt $151 and in 2017 (non-BQ) in 2016. Additional debt issued in 2017 would be non-BQ. Base Assumption with 10 -Lane Shooting Range - G.O Bonds issued over two Requires $1,664,000 in city cash to stay years to preserve Bank $21,350,000 $20,000,000 $1,450,649 $144 below BQ limit. Could not issue Qualification (BQ) additional debt in 2016 or 2017. G.O. Bonds issued in 2016 for $21350000 $21,650,000 $1,648,925 $164 One bond issue; preserves BQ for 2017 full project; non-BQ ,350,,650, for other city projects Projects net savings using a BQ issue in G.O. bonds issued in 2016 (BQ) $21,350,000 $21,685,000 $1,605,808 2016. Could not issue additional debt $160 and in 2017 (non-BQ) in 2016. Additional debt issued in 2017 would be non-BQ. City of New Nope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX D - Shooting Range Information 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:1CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SludfCltizens Task Force Report\Cilizens Task Force Report rvt Page 59 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 LIVE FIRE TRAINING OPTIONS COST ANALYSIS EXISTING ANNUAL COST TO RENT MAPLE GROVE'S TRAINING FACILITY $22,000/yr POTENTIAL NEW SHOOTING RANGE PROJECT COSTS" Total Project Cost Most Affordable Annual Debt Service Increase 2,100,000 187,000/yr* The annual operational costs (heating/cooling, ventilation and electricity) and maintenance costs of lead removal are not included in these costs and would be additive. These costs are estimated to be between $5,000 and $15,000 per year depending on how often the Shooting Range is operated. 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report rvt Page 60 Construction Add for 10 Lane Shooting Range, 75 ft. (136' x 48') Area Cost/ SF Cost Base for Structure and Enclosure 6500 SF $ 124 $ 809,000 Add for Finishes 6500 SF $ 20 $ 130,000 Add for Mechanical 6500 SF $ 54 $ 351,000 Add for Electrical 6500 SF $ 20 $ 130,000 Add for Range Equipment 10 LS $ 33,000 $ 330,000 Subtotal Construction and Equipment 1,750,000 Typical Soft Costs $ x 1.20 Total Project Cost Most Affordable Annual Debt Service Increase 2,100,000 187,000/yr* The annual operational costs (heating/cooling, ventilation and electricity) and maintenance costs of lead removal are not included in these costs and would be additive. These costs are estimated to be between $5,000 and $15,000 per year depending on how often the Shooting Range is operated. 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report rvt Page 60 WCL 4l'-8" SOUND LOGK ENTRANGE City of New Hope SHOOTING RANGE DIAGRAM - 10 STATION / 25 1'P 0 12' 24' W/2015 12:53:04 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SludyTilizens Task Force ReportGShooting Range Diagramrvt Shooting Range Diagrams Comm No: 132077 MEGHANIGAL TRAP I I I I I I I I I I I I r I k t I 1 I I I I t I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ I I I 1 1 I I I A ! Y I E I I 1 I I 1 I ¢ I I i I I 1 I I I l 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I d I t I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I k I I I I I M I I I 1 I I I 6 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I t i I I I t I I 1 I I 1 l I I l I I 1 l I I i f I I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I 1 I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I h I I I I I I I I I I } -ql I r I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 8 G 10 ---=1 z I GONTROL ROOM I SOUND LOGK ENTRANGE City of New Hope SHOOTING RANGE DIAGRAM - 10 STATION / 25 1'P 0 12' 24' W/2015 12:53:04 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SludyTilizens Task Force ReportGShooting Range Diagramrvt Shooting Range Diagrams Comm No: 132077 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 APPENDIX E - Facility Analysis 9/10/2015 3:36:25 PM H:\CI-NewHope1132077 Space Needs Slud}\Cilizens Task Force Reporl\Cilizens Task Force Report.M Page 62 City of New Nope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 FACILITY ANALYSIS Wold Architects & Engineers toured through the existing City Hall and Police facility to assess the major building systems and components. The following is a summary of the findings: ExistinQ Building Analysis • The ballasted EPDM roof over the Parks & Rec Addition dates to 1992 and is beyond the 20 year life of a ballasted EPDM roof. It is unknown when the ballasted EPDM roof over the original city hall was installed, but it is likely older than the Park & Rec Addition, putting it well past its expected life cycle. • Metal parapet and miscellaneous flashing is bending and is damaged, compromising the water -tightness of the exterior envelope. • The original 1969 exterior face brick shows some signs of mortar deterioration. Spot tuckpointing maintenance and replacement of expansion joint sealant should occur. • Approximately forty windows installed in the original city hall are not up to current Minnesota State Energy Codes. Existing Building Issues 1. Replace the roof over the Parks & Rec Addition. Priority:1 Cost: $50,000 2. Replace the roof over the original City Hall, Priority:1 Cost: $109,000 3. Tuckpoint and replace sealant on the existing exterior face brick. Priority: 2 Cost: $20,000 4. Replace approximately 40 windows on the original city hall. Priority: 2 Cost: $50,000 9/10/2015 3:36:26 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report.rN Page 63 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Existing Mechanical Systems Analysis Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ■ The boilers were replaced in 2010 with two Burham, flexible tube, standard efficiency, 350 MBH, hot water boilers. The burners are gas only as manufactured by power flame. Hot water in circulated throughout the building by two redundant Grunfos circulating pumps with integral variable speed drives. The heating plant is in good operating condition. ■ The boiler plant did not appear to have a code required shut off switch on the outside of each of the boiler exits. ■ A 38 ton McQuay air cooled chiller is located on the south side of the building. The chiller operates on R-22 refrigerant. A glycol solution is the circulated throughout the building by a single speed variable chilled water pump. The chiller was installed in the original construction and is nearing the end of its useful life. The upper level of the area of original building construction is ventilated, heated, and cooled by a rooftop air handling unit as manufactured by McQuay. Individual zone heating and cooling control is provided by perimeter base mounted induction heating and cooling units. The perimeter induction units are served by a 2 -pipe heatng and cooling system requiring a seasonal change over. The rooftop unit was installed with the original building construction and is in fair condition. • The lower level Police, council chambers, and lunchroom are heated, ventilated and cooled by a pneumatically controlled variable air volume air handling unit located in the boiler room. Individual zone heating and cooling control is provided by perimeter base mounted induction heating and cooling units. * The data closet on the lower level is cooled by air delivered from a pneumatically controlled damper off the unit located in the boiler room. ■ The server room is cooled by dedicated fan coil unit with roof mounted condenser. The originally installed split DX system was determined to be too small to handle the entire cooling load but is still installed as a back-up cooling unit. • A small constant volume unit with hot water heat and DX cooling is located in'a lower level closet and serves the lobby area. The condensing unit is located on the roof. • The garage area of the new addition is served by hot water unit heaters connected to the heating plant. The garage area is exhausted by two in-line exhaust fans configured for low exhaust. The fans are manually turned on. • The upper level office area is served by two constant volume rooftop package DX units with gas fired heat. Space zone temperature controlled by a VVT style variable air volume system. The perimeter office areas do not have fin tube radiation for individual room heating control. 9/10/2015 3:36:26 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Cilizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Reporl.M Page 64 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Plumbing • Building hot water is provided by a 50 gallon gas fired 42,000 Btu water heater. The water heater vent is installed with a power vent. The water heater was providing 132 Deg F water. • Stainless steel security fixtures are installed in the detention areas. • The plumbing fixtures appear to be in good working condition and are typically manually controlled. Controls ■ The building controls are typically pneumatic. Some of the new systems retrofit to the building are controlled by electric thermostats. Existing Mechanical Systems Issues Provide a code required boiler shutdown switch. Priority:1 Cost: $7,500 Replace the Heating ventilation and cooling systems serving the original area of the building construction. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the replacement systems will be roof mounted packaged DX variable air volume systems with hot water perimeter fin tube radiation. The new systems will connect to the existing boiler plant. The existing chilled water systems will be removed. Priority:1 Cost: $950,000 3. Replace all remaining pneumatic systems with new direct digital control systems. Priority:1 Cost: $32,500 4. Provide a make-up air system, exhaust, and controls to automatically initiate ventilation in the vehicle garage. Priority:1 9/102015 3:36:26 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SludyTitizens Task Force Repoftitizens Task Force Report M Page 65 Cost: $50,000 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Existing Electrical S stems Analysis Power Service and Distributions • The building power is supplied by pad mounted Xcel energy utility transformer feeding the main electrical service disconnect switch of 6O0A at 208Y/1 20V, 3-phase, and 4 -wire system. The main service disconnect switch is Federal Pacific made, old and appears to be part of the original electrical installations. A 600 -Amp Square -D switchboard was installed in 1998 as part of the electrical service renovations and back fed from the exiting service disconnect switch. The switch board has spare breakers and spaces for additional loads however further investigation is needed to determine if the existing service has additional power capacity beyond what it is currently serving. • A 3OOKW standby Ziegler generator set is serving the building with 6O0A breaker serving the main switchboard and a 1O0A breaker feeding the emergency ATS for police department security and lighting. • A 6O0A automatic transfer switch is feeding the main switchboard and a 1O0A automatic transfer switch feeds a 1O0A emergency panelboard. The generator appears to be sized enough to carry the building electrical load. It is approximately at 67% capacity when serving the current building load, assuming 0.80 power factor. • Branch panelboard are a mix of Federal Pacific made panels from the original power distribution systems of the building and Square -D made panelboards which were part of the renovations or addition that took place later. Some of the branch panelboards are fully utilized with no spare breakers for additional load and some are with few spares and additional branch panelboard may be needed for future addition of loads. • Receptacle deficiencies are noted throughout the building and extension cords and plug strips are used to compensate for the shortage of receptacles. Further use of adding plug strip could overload the circuit beyond its capacity. • There is not a dedicated electrical room and currently service distributions equipment are located in the boiler room where adequate working clearance required by code appears to be a concern. Lighting • The majority of lighting in the building appears T8 fluorescent and there are some compact fluorescent and exterior LED fixtures. Lighting in private offices and open office areas consist of 2x4 recessed energy inefficient parabolic fixtures and prismatic lens fixtures. • Lighting in most offices and common areas appears to be controlled by single wall switches and are energy inefficient. Adding occupancy sensors and rewiring perimeter private offices with dual switches for inboard/outboard switching as applicable could save energy. • The light level in the council of chamber appears to be low. The lighting consists of 2x2 recessed parabolic and prismatic lens fixture and compact fluorescent down light fixtures. Lighting is controlled by Crestron lighting control system with wall dimming and multi scene controller. • There are emergency light units in the hallway for emergency and egress lighting. Exit signs appears old and in some areas with broken covers and are present in the hall ways and at exit door. The existing exit signs and emergency lighting units could be replaced with energy efficient LED fixtures to save energy. • Lighting in police area and detention cells appears to be institutional high abuse type fixtures commonly used for correctional facilities and vandal resistant applications. 9/10/2015 3:36:26 PM HAA-NewHopeW2077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force ReporACillzens Task Force Repod.m Page 66 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 • Retrofitting the existing parabolic fixtures with energy efficient fixtures and changing the existing compact fluorescent down lighting with LED down lighting could save energy and maintenance cost. LED down lighting could be used in the council of chambers for a better dimming controllability to work with lighting controls in the council of chambers. Systems/Technology • The building data/communications cabling systems is Cat 5 with the main demark in lower level data closet and data rack in the server room on upper level. The phone systems was switched over to VoIP recently and supports the city hall and the police department. Life Safety and Fire Alarm Systems • The building is served by fire alarm systems and there are notification and detection devices in the building. Existing Clectrlcal Systems Issue Solutions Service and Distributions Replace existing old panelboard and feeder and provide additional panelboards Priority: 2 Cost: $50,000 Provide additional receptacles at work station to meet the need Priority:1 Cost: $20,000 3. Replace existing old main service disconnect switch with new Priority: 2 Cost: $10,000 Lighting 1. Replace existing fixtures with new energy efficient lighting Priority: 2 Cost: $70,000 Provide lighting control - occupancy sensors and switching Priority:1 Cost: $20,000 3. Replace existing exit sign with new LED exit signs Priority:1 Cost: $ 5,000 4. Replace existing emergency lighting with new LED lighting Priority:1 Cost: $ 5,000 9/10/2015 3:36:26 PM H:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Citizens Task Force Report\Citizens Task Force Report.rVt Page 67 PUBLIC SAFETY/CITY HALL FACILITY SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS HISTORY The City Council has been discussing the potential need to upgrade or replace the current facility over the past 21/z years. A brief recap of actions taken is outlined below: January 22, 2013 City Council discusses conducting a space needs analysis as part of the city center (work session) redevelopment and also discussing with District 281. March 18, 2013 City Council discusses quotes obtained for space needs analysis from Stantec and Wold (work session) Architects; Wold quote lower than Stantec, they have designed many city facilities including Richfield and Cottage Grove, and they are the school district's architect. Council acknowledges space issues especially in police department, and express support for study to gain better understanding and for long term planning purposes, joint meeting with District 281 scheduled for end of April. March 25, 2013 City Council approves contract with Wold for facilities space needs assessment for (council meeting) maximum amount of $9,400. April 15, 2013 Council reviews/approves proposed agenda for joint meeting with District 281 including (work session) update on city center redevelopment, city space needs study, and discussion regarding District 281 facility needs and possible joint facility with city. April 29, 2013 Work session conducted with District 281. District responded that a joint building concept (joint work session) was an interesting idea and the Board would discuss further and report back to the city in the fall. August 18, 2013 Wold presents update to council. Over the summer they had met city staff to discuss (work session) current and future operations and discussed the deficiencies with the current building. Sept. 25 & 30, 2013 City staff and mayor tour city hall/police facilities with Wold: Richfield, Prior Lake, (tours) Cottage Gove, Inver Grove Heights. January 9, 2014 Staff committee meets with Wold to further refine space needs analysis. (committee meeting) January 21, 2014 Progress report presented to City Council. Three concepts presented: existing city hall (work session) building site, Civic Center Park area, and an offsite area such as city center. Amenities such as community room and gym discussed. Estimated cost for 57,000 square foot building is $18 million. February 3, 2014 Council agrees a new city facility should not be included in phase 1 of city center (work session) redevelopment, another joint meeting with District 281 to be scheduled to determine their interest in joint facility. March 12, 2014 City staff committee meets with Wold to update study, discuss gymnastics space, etc. (committee meeting) April 21, 2014 Wold presents update to City Council with three proposed options: addition/remodel at (work session) existing site, park site option with tuck under garage or school district shared facility site option near bus garage. Savings in square footage through joint facility were discussed; agenda for joint meeting with District 281 also discussed. May 13, 2014 Information provided to District 281 regarding options being considered by city, and 281 (joint work session) provided space needs information for administration building; it was agreed District 281 and city administration officials would continue to meet with Wold and the financial consultant to better define cost savings and financing options for a shared facility and report back to their respective bodies. July 30, 2014 Staff committee meets with Wold to work on presentation describing the need for a new (committee meeting) city facility. August 18, 2014 Staff and Wold provides draft presentation to City Council for feedback; presentation (work session) intended to be shared with public to identify need for new facility if Council decides to proceed. The following items were noted by the City Council regarding the task force: • Focus should be on the need for a new police facility • The group should determine whether the facility should include gymnastics space • The impact to Civic Center Park should be discussed with the neighborhood • The task force should be led by Wold Architects March/April 2015 Task force formed and staff met with Wold to outline goals and objectives for each meeting. G:/CityManager/Reports/Space Needs Analysis Council also updated on discussions with District 281; they would like a proposal from the city to purchase the school district property; council agrees to solicit quotes for appraisals of school district property. October 13, 2014 City Council approves quote from Hosch Appraisal & Consulting for $6,500 for (council meeting) appraisals of school district properties at 42°d/Winnetka. February 17, 2015 Appraisals completed; staff reported that based on the information gathered to date, (work session) working with Wold and the financial consultant, both District 281 and city staff mutually agreed the concept of a joint facility no longer be pursued; council agreed with the recommendation and agreed to let staff form a citizen/stakeholder task force to further study the issue and make a recommendation to council. The following items were noted by the City Council regarding the task force: • Focus should be on the need for a new police facility • The group should determine whether the facility should include gymnastics space • The impact to Civic Center Park should be discussed with the neighborhood • The task force should be led by Wold Architects March/April 2015 Task force formed and staff met with Wold to outline goals and objectives for each meeting. G:/CityManager/Reports/Space Needs Analysis Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager June 15, 2015 Work Session Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 1 By: Kirk McDonald 11.8 Update on police/city hall facility space needs task force q Requested Action Staff requests to present a brief update on the police/city hall facility space needs task force to keep the council informed. Wold Architects will not be in attendance. Policy/Past Practice Staff presents updates to the city council on projects on an as needed basis for informational purposes. Background At the February 17, 2015, work session, staff reported that based on the information that was reviewed by both Wold Architects and Ehlers, both District 281 and city staff mutually agreed the concept of a joint city/school district facility no longer be pursued. The city council agreed with the recommendation and agreed to let staff form a citizen/stakeholder task force to further study the issue and make a recommendation to the city council. In March/April city staff reached out to city commissioners, business owners, community groups, and stakeholders including Crime Prevention Board, Police Reserves, and gymnastics to form a task force. The recommended task force committee list was submitted to the council and no negative feedback was received, so staff proceeded with the formation of the group. Please see attached task force list. In April, staff worked with Wold Architects to develop a game plan for the task force determining a recommended number of meetings, topics for each meeting, and a recommended schedule (attached). The plan is for the task force to meet four times over the course of the summer (May, June July, and August), and present a recommendation to the city council in September. After a recommendation is presented, public open houses for resident/business feedback can be conducted before any decisions are made. The first meeting of the task force was held on May 27 and was well attended. The attached history of steps taken over the past several years was reviewed with the task force and the directives and expectations of the city council were explained, The power point presentation showing the facility and programmatic deficiencies, previously reviewed with the council, was reviewed with the group, and a tour was provided of the existing police department and city hall building. Motion by Second by To: I:/RFA/CityManager/2015/Q-UpdateSpace Needs 061515 Request for Action, Page 2 June 15, 2015 The next meeting will be held on June 16 and will include a bus trip to Richfield to tour their facility along with a video tour of the Cottage Grove facility, which staff saw previously. Wold Architects was involved with both of those projects. In July the group will meet to discuss various options and review costs and financing, and in August they will formulate a recommendation to the city council. The city council will be kept updated throughout the process. Attachments Task force members Planning agenda History of steps taken to date May 27, 2015 task force agenda/minutes Police Facility/City Hall Space Needs Task Force 2015 Name Contact info I. Arnold, Mary marnoldmn@yahoo.com 2. Bender, Greg gbender@nhcpf.org 3. Burkstrand, Teri ttpburk@yahoo.com 4. Garbers, Kent kentgarbers@yahoo.com 5. 1 Hudson, Mary mnhudson@gmail.com 6. Isenberg, Michael Misenbergl3@yahoo.com 7. Landy, Roger rjlandy@aol.com 8. Lewis, Kim jnklewis@msn.com 9. 1 Riley, Rick 10. Schmeltzer, Todd 11. Slatto, Michelle 12. Svendsen, Steve 13. Wills, Bill Rrileygirls4@comcast.net todd@setsdesign.com Michelle.westberg@comcast.net svendsen@c}.com Wjw9416@msn.com I:\Space Needs Study\committee names & contact info.docx Kepreseniing Personnel Board (resident) Crime Prevention Board and Business Owner of New Hope Bowl (non- resident) Gymnastics parent (resident) Business Network Group/Lions and Business Owner of Frankies Pizza (non- resident) Women of Today (resident) CERT Team (resident) Planning Commission (resident) Business Apartment Building Owner (non-resident) Citizen Advisory Commission (resident) Police Reserves and Business Owner of Sets Design (resident) Human Rights Commission (resident) Planning Commission (resident) Citizen Advisory Commission and Shingle Creek Watershed rep (resident) Meeting 1— Existing Conditions — Two hours • Introduce Team • Introduce Process • Project Goals / Expectations • Review Video/ Powerpoint of Facility Deficiencies • Tour New Hope Police/ City Hall • Review Programmatic Deficiencies • Tour Planning Meeting 2 — Tours • Richfield • Inver Grove Cottage Grove • Tour Discussion Meeting 3— Options for New Hope — Two hours • Sites o Impact to neighborhood o Include gymnastics? • New vs. Addition • Review Costs and Financing Options Meeting 4— Develop Citizen Recommendation — Two hours • Review Draft report to City Council Meeting 5 — City Council Presentation Minnesota MH/Promo/CI—New Hope/crsp/apm Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa designers and researchers for public environments memorandum To: Kirk McDonald architects From: Joel Dunning J ILD engineers Date: April 13, 2015 www.woldae.com Comm, No: 9999 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 ...............................:................w gie'...i.rltyK•n...wyu+A�l�'^`KiNf.�4R"wii+.gif.«i.'H.Nsy ni'. Subject: City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting Schedule tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 C to �arOU mail@woldae,com Planning Meeting — AprIIX 2015 • Review Current Status • Establish Goal for Public Meetings • Set Meeting Schedule • Strategy/Implementation for Selecting Citizens Cltlzen Advisor `roup Meeting 1— Existing Conditions — Two hours • Introduce Team • Introduce Process • Project Goals / Expectations • Review Video/ Powerpoint of Facility Deficiencies • Tour New Hope Police/ City Hall • Review Programmatic Deficiencies • Tour Planning Meeting 2 — Tours • Richfield • Inver Grove Cottage Grove • Tour Discussion Meeting 3— Options for New Hope — Two hours • Sites o Impact to neighborhood o Include gymnastics? • New vs. Addition • Review Costs and Financing Options Meeting 4— Develop Citizen Recommendation — Two hours • Review Draft report to City Council Meeting 5 — City Council Presentation Minnesota MH/Promo/CI—New Hope/crsp/apm Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa designers and researchers for public environments PUBLIC SAFETY/CITY HALL FACILITY SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS HISTORY The City Council has been discussing the potential need to upgrade or replace the current facility over the past 21/2 years. A brief recap of actions taken is outlined below: January 22, 2013 City Council discusses conducting a space needs analysis as part of the city center (work session) redevelopment and also discussing with District 281. March 18, 2013 City Council discusses quotes obtained for space needs analysis from Stantec and Wold (work session) Architects; Wold quote lower than Stantec, they have designed many city facilities including Richfield and Cottage Grove, and they are the school district's architect. Council acknowledges space issues especially in police department, and express support for study to gain better understanding and for long term planning purposes; joint meeting with District 281 scheduled for end of April. March 25, 2013 City Council approves contract with Wold for facilities space needs assessment for (council meeting) maximum amount of $9,400. April 15, 2013 Council reviews/approves proposed agenda for joint meeting with District 281 including (work session) update on city center redevelopment, city space needs study, and discussion regarding District 281 facility needs and possible joint facility with city. April 29, 2013 Work session conducted with District 281. District responded that a joint building concept (joint work session) was an interesting idea and the Board would discuss further and report back to the city in the fall. August 18, 2013 Wold presents update to council. Over the summer they had met city staff to discuss (work session) current and future operations and discussed the deficiencies with the current building. Sept. 25 & 30, 2013 City staff and mayor tour city hall/police facilities with Wold: Richfield, Prior Lake, (tours) Cottage Gove, Inver Grove Heights. January 9, 2014 Staff committee meets with Wold to further refine space needs analysis. (committee meeting) January 21, 2014 Progress report presented to City Council. Three concepts presented: existing city hall (work session) building site, Civic Center Park area, and an offsite area such as city center. Amenities such as community room and gym discussed. Estimated cost for 57,000 square foot building is $18 million. February 3, 2014 Council agrees a new city facility should not be included in phase 1 of city center (work session) redevelopment; another joint meeting with District 281 to be scheduled to determine their interest in joint facility. March 12, 2014 City staff committee meets with Wold to update study, discuss gymnastics space, etc. (committee meeting) April 21, 2014 Wold presents update to City Council with three proposed options: addition/remodel at (work session) existing site, park site option with tuck under garage or school district shared facility site option near bus garage. Savings in square footage through joint facility were discussed; agenda for joint meeting with District 281 also discussed. May 13, 2014 Information provided to District 281 regarding options being considered by city, and 281 (joint work session) provided space needs information for administration building; it was agreed District 281 and city administration officials would continue to meet with Wold and the financial consultant to better define cost savings and financing options for a shared facility and report back to their respective bodies. July 30, 2014 Staff committee meets with Wold to work on presentation describing the need for a new (committee meeting) city facility. August 18, 2014 Staff and Wold provides draft presentation to City Council for feedback; presentation (work session) intended to be shared with public to identify need for new facility if Council decides to proceed. Council also updated on discussions with District 281; they would like a proposal from the city to purchase the school district property; council agrees to solicit quotes for appraisals of school district property. October 13, 2014 City Council approves quote from Hosch Appraisal & Consulting for $6,500 for (council meeting) appraisals of school district properties at 42nd/Winnetka. February 17, 2015 Appraisals completed; staff reported that based on the information gathered to date, (work session) working with Wold and the financial consultant, both District 281 and city staff mutually agreed the concept of a joint facility no longer be pursued; council agreed with the recommendation and agreed to let staff form a citizen/stakeholder task force to further study the issue and make a recommendation to council. The following items were noted by the City Council regarding the task force: • Focus should be on the need for a new police facility • The group should determine whether the facility should include gymnastics space • The impact to Civic Center Park should be discussed with the neighborhood • The task force should be led by Wold Architects March/April 2015 Task force formed and staff met with Wold to outline goals and objectives for each meeting. G:/CityManager/Reports/Space Needs Analysis SPACE NEEDS TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE Meeting #1 May 27, 2015 Exit Conditions • Introductions • Review Process • Project Goals/Expectations • Video/PowerPoint of facility deficiencies • Tour of New Hope City Hall and Police Dept • Review programmatic deficiencies • Tour Planning Meeting #2 June 16, 2015 Tour(s) • Tour of Richfield city hall ■ Tour discussion Meeting #3 July 21, 2015 Options for New Hope • Sites o Impact to neighborhood o Inclusion of gymnasium + New versus addition • Review costs and financing options Meeting #4 Meeting #5 Task Force Mary Arnold Greg Bender Teri Burkstrand Kent Garbers Mary Hudson Michael Isenberg Roger Landy Kim Lewis Rick Riley Todd Schmeltzer Michelle Slatto Steve Svendsen Bill Wills Aug. 18, 2015 Develop Citizen Recommendation • Review draft report to City Council Sept. 21, 2015 City Council Presentation City staff Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coord Tim Fournier, Dir of Police Rich Johnson, Dir of HR/Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Dir of Parks & Rec Jeff Sargent, Dir of Comm Dev Wold Architects Joel Dunning Ben Beery Orb architects engineers www.woldae.com 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 mail@woldae.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa To: Attendees From: Ben Beery 1 Date: June 4, 2015 Comm. No: 9999 Subject: City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting #1 May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes Attendees: Task Force Mary Arnold Greg Bender Teri Burkstrand Kent Garbers Mary Hudson Michael Isenberg Roger Landy Kim Lewis Rick Riley Todd Schmeltzer Michelle Slatto Steve Svendsen Bill Wills City taff Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Police Chief Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Wold Architects and EpginPars Joel Dunning Ben Beery memorandum marnoldmn@yahoo.com gjbender1950@gmai1,com ttpburk@yahoo.com kentgarbers@yahoo.com mnhudson@gmail.com misenberg13@gmail.com rjlandy@aol.com jnklewis@msn.com rriIeygirIs4@comcast.net told@setdesigns.com micheIle.westberg@comcast.net svendsen@q.com wjw9416@msn,com khemken@ci.new-hope.mn.us kmcdonaId@ci,new-hope.mn,us jbeck@ci,new-hope.mn.us tfourn1er@ci.new-Inope.mn.us rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us vIeone@ci.new-hope.mn.us srader@ci.new-hope,mn.us jsargent@ci.new-hope.mn.us jdunning@woldae.com bbeery@woldae.com Discussion Topics A. Introductions were made, B. Kirk McDonald, City Manager, distributed a document titled 'Public Safety/City Hall Facility Space Needs Analysis History.' C. Highlights of the document are as follows: 1. January 2013 — City Council discusses a conducting a space needs analysis as part of the City Center Redevelopment and the possibility of a joint facility with District 281. 2. August 2013 — Wold Architects presents an update to City Council, The update included the results of meetings with City Staff on current and future operations as well as deficiencies with the current building. designers and researchers for public environments 121P architects engineers www.woldae.com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado Iowa City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting #1 May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page Two 3. January 2014 — Progress report presented to City Council, Three site concepts were presented: Existing City Hall Building Site, Civic Center Park Area Site and City Center Site. 4. February 2014 — City Council agrees that Phase 1 of the City Center redevelopment should not include a new city facility, In addition, a joint meeting with District 281 should occur to gauge their interest in a joint facility. 5. April 2014 — Wold presents an updated to the City Council, Three sites were discussed: Existing City Hall Site, Civic Center Park Site and a District 281 site (near bus garage) for a joint facility. 6. February 2015 — After study was completed on a joint facility, both District 281 and the City mutually agreed that the concept of a joint facility should no longer be pursued. City Council asked City Staff to form a citizen/stakeholder task force to further study a new city facility. The City Council noted the following items regarding the task force: a. Focus should be on the need for a new Police Facility. b. The group should determine whether the facility should include a gymnastics space, c. The impact to the City Park should be discussed. d. The task force should be led by Wold Architects, D. Wold Architects and Engineers explained the process the task force will go through: 1. Meeting 1: Identify the Need 2. Meeting 2: Building Tours/Build a Common Language of Modern Police Facilities 3. Meeting 3: Options for New Hope; Review sites and cost estimates 4. Meeting 4: Review a draft report to City Council, E. Wold Architects and Engineers, in conjunction with the City Staff, presented a power point of building deficiencies. F. The group discussed the power point: 1. The group would like a digital copy of the power point, (Jerry Beck to distribute, after editing content related to safety with Chief Fournier). 2. One group member stated that they were horrified by some of the conditions. 3. The question was asked, has Xcel Energy conducted an Energy Audit? The answer was that several years ago they did, The City will find the report and distribute its conclusions. 4. Wold noted that the basic upgrades that are needed in the existing building for maintenance would total approximately $1.5 million dollars, This would only address the maintenance aspects but not the space needs, 5. One member of the group stated that a Cost/Benefit analysis of new vs. existing would be useful, 6. The group asked if there is potential in a new facility to have revenue generating programs? The answer is yes, although this concept has not been completely explored. Gymnastics, Kitchenette, Meeting rooms all have the potential to have rental fees attached to them. 7. One group member asked if the dance program could use the proposed gymnastics space. The answer was no. Gymnastics needs a dedicated space because of the difficulty of setting up and tearing down equipment. 8. The group would like to see a cost analysis of gymnastics program. For example, what would be the cost to build new vs. renting vs, potential revenue etc. Susan Rader will work on gathering this information, 9. The group asked if there is a potential need to add additional staff? a. Police: Likely to add 5 to 10 officers/staff in the future. However it was noted that the police station does not have the space for current staff let alone future staff. b. City: Likely stable in staffing as population is fairly stable. 10. The question was asked: Does City Hall need to be attached to the Police Station? a. The group agreed that it needs to be studied. b. It is partly about culture and past experience. c. The Police Chief routinely meets with City Staff. d. Current location of the police station is ideal in terms of location within the City. 11. The group toured the existing Police Station and City Hall facility. designers and researchers for public environments City of New Hope Space Needs Task Force Meeting #1 May 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes ID R Page Three a r c h i t e c t s 12. After reconvening from the tour, the group discussed programmatic deficiencies, Wold presented some of the missing or vastly undersized spaces from the existing facility. This information was gathered with input from engineers City staff. www.woldae.com 13. Some of the spaces highlighted were: a. Police: 1) Lobby/Interview Room 2) Community Room/Emergency Operations Center 3) Future Staff Workstations (Clerical, IT, Reserve Officer) 4) Copy/Supply/Workroom 5) Sergeants Shared Area 6) Roll Call Area 7) CSO/Reserve Storage 8) Soft Interview Room 9) Case Management/Conference Room 10) Juvenile Holding Cell 11) Booking/Intox 12) Evidence Entry/Process Lab 13) Evidence Storage 14) Vault Storage 15) Evidence Garage 16) Armory 17) Ammunition Room 18) Fitness Room/ Defensive Tactics Room 19) Break Room 20) Parking Garage b. City Hall: 1) Public/After Hours Conference/ Training 2) Mayor/Council Workspace 3) Cash Handling/ Safe room 4) I.T. Storage/ Workstation 5) Loading Dock 6) Staff Toilets 7) Community Development Parking Garage 14, The group stated that the Police and City Staff have done a good job working within the existing space. 15. However, based on the building deficiencies and programmatic deficiencies, they agree that there is a facility need for a Public Safety/City Hall project. 16. Tours were discussed: a. The next meeting, on June 16, 2015 will be a building tour. The group will meet at New Hope City Hall and travel at 5:15 p.m,, via bus, to Richfield Municipal Center. Valerie Leone will send out more details as the date approaches. Next Meetings: June 16, 2015 (Tours) — 5:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m, July 21, 2015 — 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. August 18, 2015 - 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. September 21, 2015 (City Council) — 6:30 p.m. Minnesota cc: Mike Cox, Wold Illinois Michigan MH/Promo/CI_NewHope/min/5.27,15 Colorado Iowa designers and researchers for public environments Leone Valerie From: Leone Valerie Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:48 AM To: Irichard@smdcompanies.com' Subject: committee Richard, Finally getting back to you on the police/city hall facility needs committee... Appreciate your interest, but at this time it appears the committee member maximum has been reached (trying to keep the group around a dozen so it's manageable while maintaining gender balance). In fact when I sent Bonnie the original email we were looking for female members. If we have drop outs, I will certainly contact you. I'm sure the SunPost will be reporting on the progress; you might want to keep an eye on the city website for updates, too. Thanks, again! Valerie Leone City of New Hope I City Clerk 4401 Xylon Ave N I New Hope, MN 55428 Office: 763-531-5117 1 Fax: 763-53]-5136 v I e onefti_ n ew- hope. mmus Leone Valerie From: Leone Valerie Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:04 AM To: McDonald Kirk Subject: FW: Interested in serving on the committee. Kirk, I had contacted Bonnie Lieberman (head election judge); and she in turn shared the invitation to serve on the space needs study committee with her husband, Richard Lieberman. He was a candidate for state representative. If it turns out that you do not need him on the committee, let me know, and I'll communicate with him so that he's not wondering what happened (I told him meetings would likely start in May)... Valerie Leone City of New Hope I City Clerk 4401 Xylon Ave N I New Hope, MN 55428 O ffi ce: 763-531-5117 1 .Fax: 1/63-531-5136 v leoneCWci. new-hgp4. rn n.us P -- From: Richard Lieberman [mailto:richard n@smdcompanies.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:00 AM To: Leone Valerie Subject: Interested in serving on the committee. Hi Valerie, Good to talk with you again. I am very interested in serving on the committee to study the needs for a new police facility / city hall. Now that I am not running for State Representative, I can volunteer my time for our community needs. I have been a resident of New Hope for 26 years. My experience is helping to run our family office machine business for the last 30 years. I do have my evenings open and look forward to being able to serve our community. Here's my contact information: Richard Lieberman 7819 48th Ave. N. New Hope, Mn. 55428 Cell 612-618-6111 --------------- Richard Lieberman Senior Account Executive SMD Copy Systems Phone: 952-929-0888 Fax: 952-929-7970 Cell: 612-618-6111 richard smdcom anies.com 0� Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald, Request for Action Approved for Agenda I Agenda Section February 17, 2015 Work Session Item No. Kirk McDonald 11.5 Update on police station/city hall space needs study (projecKno. 926) Requested Action Staff requests to present an update on the police station/city hall space needs study. This issue was last discussed at the August 18, 2014, city council work session, and a number of items have been completed since that time. Representatives from Wold Architects, Ehlers, and AEM will be present to assist with the discussion. Based on the information outlined below, staff is recommending the City Council authorize the establishment of a citizens task force that would include a variety of stakeholders to further study and analyze the concept of a new facility for the city at the existing city hall/Civic Center Park site. The task force could then assist the City Council and staff with public informational meetings on this issue in the future to gather public input on the topic. Policy/Past Practice Staff provides updates to, and seeks direction from the City Council on a number of projects. The City Council previously approved a police department/city hall space needs analysis study with Wold Architects, and several work sessions have also been held with the District 281 Board regarding a potential joint facility. Background 1. Identify need for new olice department/city hall facility Per City Council direction, staff has been working with Wold to better define the need for a new police department/city hall facility. A committee of city staff representing all departments met with Wold on June 23, 2614 to develop a plan to gather data related to the current facility needs. The group met again at the end of July, and Wold presented an outline of facility infrastructure deficiencies and programmatic deficiencies. The communications coordinator prepared a power point presentation to coordinate with the Wold outline, and staff reviewed the presentation with the Council at the August work session to see if we were on the right track and get your feedback. Per the meeting outline prepared, we will need to include community members and conduct open houses in the future if a new facility will be constructed, so staff was considering the presentation as a start to that process. 2. Potential joint facility with District 281. At the August work session, staff reported that city staff had met several times with a representative from District 281 and representatives from Wold Architects, representing both the city and District 281, in follow up to the direction provided at the May 13, 2014, joint work session between the two entities. The concept of a joint facility Motion by To: I:/RFA/CityManager/2015/Q-UpdateSpaceNeedsStudy 021715 Second by Request for Action, page 2 February 17, 2015 was also discussed at a July work session of the District 281 Board. The feedback received from that meeting was as follows: • The District was agreeable and interested in continuing discussions with the city regarding the potential of a joint facility. • The District wants the city to make a proposal to purchase the school District property. • The District was interested in the city building the joint facility with the District leasing their portion of the building. • The bus garage would either be relocated or discontinued. That decision would be up to the District. If the garage was relocated, the city would assist in identifying potential relocation sites. • If the city purchased the entire site, and the bus garage was relocated, and a new joint facility constructed on the south portion of the property, the current administration building could be demolished, with that corner location available for redevelopment. Wold Architects prepared the attached correspondence for the August work session outlining the benefits of a joint facility, and the potential cost savings that could be achieved. 1. Wold estimated that approximately $1 million to $2 million could be saved with the construction of a combined facility over the two buildings being built as standalone facilities in the following areas: • Redundant spaces (council chambers, board rooms, conference and training rooms, reception lobbies, and mechanical/electrical rooms) that could be shared in lieu of being built twice, therefore, reducing the building area by up to 6% over standalone options. • Although the facility size would increase, only one job site trailer, job site superintendent, and one mobilization would be needed, reducing construction costs by up to 2%. • The average cost of construction of a joint facility could be reduced by up to 2% over a standalong facility because it would include mostly office/administrative space which is easier and more repetitive to construct than specialized space. • There may also be additional longer term operational savings if the two organizations provided joint facility maintenance, information technology, building security, and reception functions. Since the August 18 work session, the following additional steps have been taken: August/September Ehlers and Wold communicated regarding cost of a new facility, construction timetable and financing. November: Wold completed the attached project budgets for both a standalone facility on the park site ($18,615,000) with gymnastics gym and expanded kitchen) and a joint facility on the school site ($40,000,000 including acquisition of the school district property and demolition of the bus garage). December Appraisals for the District 281 office building and bus transportation facility/excess land were completed (attached) with the following results: Office building estimated market value $1,105,000 Bus transportation facility/excess land estimated market value $3,035,000 Request for Action, page 3 February 17, 2015 The completed appraisals were forwarded electronically to the city council, District 281, Ehlers, and Wold. The city has not received appraisals from the district. Former Council Member Stauner responded the appraisals did not take environmental issues into consideration in making the value estimate. January Ehlers prepares attached memo regarding the financial feasibility and impact to the city of undertaking the construction of a joint facility with the school district. February Staff from the city and school district meet with Wold and Ehlers to review all the information and mutually agree that based on the facts gathered to date, both staffs would recommend to their respective boards/councils that the concept of a joint facility no longer be pursued. This same recommendation is being presented to the District 281 Board on February 17. Next steps If the Council is in agreement with the recommendation, staff recommends the city continue to study the idea of a new police facility and city hall with a gymnastics gym and community room space at the current city hall/Civic Center Park location. Staff is recommending the formation of a citizens/stakeholder task force to further study the issue. The task force could include representatives from all city commissions, other stakeholder groups (gymnastics/dance program, police reserves, crime prevention board), businesses and citizens. The task force could then assist with open houses to gather public input later this year. Attachments January 23 Ehlers correspondence November 3 Wold budget Appraisals August 7 Wold correspondence August 18 Space needs assessment presentation April 21 Wold facility concepts Too Kirk McDonald — City Manager From: Stacie Kvilvang - Ehlers Date: January 23, 2015 Subject: Joint Facility With School District You requested Ehlers to review the financial feasibility and impact to the City of undertaking the construction of a joint facility with the School District. We reviewed the costs and impacts for a new City Hall by itself on the existing site and a joint facility to be constructed on the existing School District site where the bus garage is currently located. For the stand alone +City Karl on the existing site, following were our assumptions: 1. 57,000 sq/ft facility 2. Total development costs of $18,616,000 (includes gymnastics gym and expanded kitchen area) 3. City would issue general obligation capital improvement plan (CIP) bonds for a 20 - year term (total of $18.910 million in bonds) 4. Bonds would be issued over 2 years to allow the City to stay under bank qualification on the bonds (maximum of $10 million/year) Based upon these assumptions, the True Interest Costs (TIC) of the bonds is approximately 3.49% and the annual debt service would be approximately $1.4 million. For the joint facility with the School District on the bus garage site, following were our assumptions: 1. 57,000 sq/ft City Hall and 54,000 sq/ft District Administrative Building 2. Total development costs of $36,125,000 ($18 million for the District's portion) 3. City would have to buy the bus garage site from the District at appraised value of $3,035,000 4. Land proceeds would not be used by the District to buy down their portion of the debt EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Minnesota Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois www.ehlers-inc.com phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive fax 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 5511 3-11 22 toll free 800-552-1171 Kirk McDonald Joint Facility With School District January 23, 2015 Page 2 5. City would issue 2 different types of bonds (i) general obligation CIP bonds; and (ii) lease revenue bonds (non -general obligation for the District's portion) 6. The security for the lease revenue bonds is derived solely from lease payments from the District which are subject to an annual appropriation 7. Bonds would be issued over 2 years, and neither sets of bonds would be bank qualified debt 8. District would have ability to pay debt service from existing levy funds for capital within their current budgets Based upon these assumptions, the True Interest Costs (TIC) for the City's GO CIP bonds is approximately 3.85% and for the District's lease revenue portion it is approximately 4.45%. The annual debt service for the City's CIP bonds would be approximately $1.443 million and for the District's lease revenue portion would be approximately $1.408 million. If the City were to construct a joint facility with the District, it would cost approximately $43,000 more per year in debt service than if they constructed a standalone facility (approximately $850,000 over the term of the bonds). This does not take into consideration that the expectation would be that the City would pay for the bus garage site, which would deplete the majority of the City's redevelopment funds. The idea of a joint facility and some shared space is a novel one and was worth discussing and analyzing further. However, based upon the increased debt service costs to the City, the use and depletion of the City's redevelopment funds, and that the District's payment on the bonds is not guaranteed, it doesn't make financial sense for the City to continue to pursue this option. In addition, based upon discussions with the District they stated that even if they had the levy capacity within their budgets to pay for a new administrative building, the priority for these funds would be to meet current outstanding student facility needs. Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions. City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY NOVEMBER 3, 2014 PROJECT BUDGET—PARI( SITE_OPTION: PROJECT FUNDING Capital Improvement Bonds $18,615,000 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $18,615.000 PROJECT COSTS New Additions — Police/City Hall 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 New Additions — Gymnastics Gym 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 New Additions — Expanded Kitchen 450 SF x $220 SF = $99,000 Demolition Of Existing City Hall/Police 450 SF x $220 SF = $150,000 Site Developmentlal 50 Stalls x $4_,000/Stall = $200,000 Est. Construction Cost $13,789,000 Est. Miscellaneous Project Costs $13,789,000 05 = $4,826.000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ACTUAL SITE PLAN MAY REQUIRE RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING. THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SITE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WOULD BE COVERED BY MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT COSTS. PROJECT BUDGET —SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE OPTION: PROJECT FUNDING Capital Improvement Bonds $37,000,000 Revenue from former D.O. Redevelopment $3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $40,000,000 PROJECT COSTS New Additions — Police/City Hal I(a) 54,000 SF x $220 SF = $11,880,000 New Additions — ISD 281 Dist. Office(a) 55,000 SF x $200 SF = $11,000,000 New Additions — Gymnastics Gym 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 New Additions —Expanded Kitchen 450 SF x $220 SF = $99,000 Demolition Of Bus Garage $100,000 Contaminated Soil Remediation $450,000 Site Development For City (b) 143 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $572,000 Site Development For Schools() 73 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $292,000 Est. Construction Cost $25,190,000 Est. Miscellaneous Project Costs $25,190,000 x .35 = $8,810,000 Real Estate Purchase of ISD#281 D.O. Campus $6,000,000 1 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $40,000,0001 "a ASSUMES 3000 SF OF PROGRAMMATIC SAVINGS (MEETING ROOMS, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SCHOOL BOARD, MECH/ELEC) ("ASSUMES RE -USE OF ABOUT 40 EXISTING PARKING SPACES. PARKING SPLIT CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: 54,000 SF/300 SF (NEW HOPE ZONING CODE) =183 — (40 REUSE) =143 STALLS FOR CITY 34,000 SF/300 SF (NEW HOPE ZONING CODE) =113 — (40 REUSE) = 73 STALLS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT MH/CI_New Hope/132077/rpts/Space Needs Study Page 1 Commission No. 132077 McDonald Kirk From: Joel Dunning Odunning@woldae.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:54 AM To: McDonald Kirk Subject: Re: City -School District Combined Facility Savings Dear Kirk, I struggled with the desire to list out dollars saved for each item. They are all interrelated by compounding the savings to get to those percentages and are tough to show broken out for each of the three ideas. Also, I always have a fear that when three numbers are listed, people will assume that they are additive, which is not necessarily correct. I would be comfortable adding the fact that construction of a combined facility could save between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 over the two buildings being built as stand-alone facilities. Sincerely, Wold Architects and Engineers Joel L. Dunning // AIA, LEED AP Partner 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 www.woldae.com Comm. No.: 132077 On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:36 AM, McDonald Kirk Ekmcdonald ci.new-ho e,mn.us3 wrote: I think your letter looks good. What would you think about estimating the $ savings along with your percentages? Like 2% or approximately $150,000, etc. So the bottom line is when you add everything up we could save 10% (6+2+2=10), or approximately $1,000,000 (just using that as an example)? Otherwise your letter looks good, please take draft off and resend. Thank you. Kirk From: Joel Dunning [mailto:idunning@wcldae.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 5:23 PM To: McDonald Kirk Subject: City -School District Combined Facility Savings Dear Kirk, I have attached a draft of a letter explaining the greatest savings that can be achieved from pursuing a combined City/School District facility. Let me know if this is the content that you are looking to emphasize or if this is missing the point you wanted me to make. I will finalize it once I get your feedback. Sincerely, Wold Architects and Engineers Joel L. Dunning // AIA, LEED AP Partner 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 www.woldae.com Comm. No.: 132077 Kirk McDonald New Hope City Manager 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 architects B ni Re: New Hope Space Needs Study ,"18 0 i 5 Commission No.:132077 www.woldae.com 305 Saint Peter Street Dear Kirk: Saint Paul, MI; 55102 As the City of Now Dope has been working to define the space needs that are required by the operations of its Police, fel 651 227 7773 Parks & Rec, Community Development and Administrative functions, several options have surfaced regarding how and fax 651 223 5646 Where those space needs might be accommodated. One recently proposed solution to this challenge is to utilize the site mail@woldae.cnm of the current independent School District 1281 Education Service Center and Bus Garage at the southeast corner of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Winnetka Avenue North to construct a facility that not only accommodates the New Hope Police and Clty Hall, but is also expanded to accommodate space for the Education Service Center. This potential expansion of the project scope offers several benefits over the possibility of developing a stand-alone facility. • Redundant spaces {such as Council Chambers and Board Rooms, large conference and training rooms, reception lobbies, and mechanical and electrical rooms) could be shared in lieu of being built twice, therefore reducing building area by up to 6% over stand-alone options. . The facility size might increase by 80%, but the construction time frame and general conditions required by construction won't change slgnlfieantly by that increase. For example, despite nearly doubling the building sire, anly one Jobsite trailer, Jobsite superintendent and one mobilization would be needed, spreading those costs out over a larger building. This can reduce the construcllon cost by up to 2% over stand-alone options. ■ The. -expansion is assumed to include mostly office/administrative space, which is easier and more repetitive to construct than the specialized construction of Council/Board Rooms and Pollee Department space, therefore reducing the average cost of construction of the entire facility. This can reduce the construction cost by up to 2% over stand-alone options. We believe that the combined effects of these factors could result In initial construction cost savings ranging from $1,000,000 to $2,000,00o to build a combined facility in lieu of considering separate standalone facilities. In addition to the first cost savings, there may be additional longer term operational savings available as well. Considerations should include one of the two organizations providing facility maintenance, Information technology management, building security and/or reception functions for the entire building. In addition, collocation may bring greater coordination between the School District and the City's programs, resulting In less overlap and more effectiveness in delivering services to the public. We are excited to assist the City of New Hope in exploring these potential opportunities further. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Joel L. Dunning //AIA, LEED-AP.6 Partner ��ii cc: Ben Beery, Wold Illinoti, s Minsmta Paul Aplikowski, Wold Mich i g r SS/CI—New Hope/132077/aug14 Colorarla designers and researchers for public environments APPRAISAL REPORT Bus Transportation Facility and Excess Land 4124 Winnetka Avenue New Hope, Minnesota December 1, 2014 HAC 14064-00 Copyright 0 2005-2014 by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. December 17, 2014 Ms. Valerie Leone, City Clerk City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE BUS TRANSPORTATION FACILITY AND EXCESS LAND LOCATED AT 4124 WINNETKA AVENUE IN NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA Dear Ms. Leone: As requested by you, we are providing you with an appraisal of the above -referenced property to arrive at a reliable estimate of the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property. The following Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under within the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. This appraisal report has been written for the intended use of the City of New Hope and its authorized representatives, for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. has not previously provided any services, appraisal or otherwise, on the subject property within the three years prior to the acceptance of this assignment. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of this client and for the intended use only. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the unauthorized or improper use of this report. We have made a complete inspection of the subject property and have fully identified the real estate in our written report. Additional supporting information may also be supplied within the Addenda of this report. After careful consideration of the many factors influencing value, it is our opinion that the subject property has an estimated market value, as of the December 1, 2014, of: THREE MILLION THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ---------$3,035,000` * We are aware a lease exists on the subject property between School District #281 and First Student, Inc. through June 30, 2016 for $1.00 per year; however, we have been instructed to appraise the fee simple interest in the subject property. As a result, our estimated market value places no consideration on the existing lease. 11172 Zealand Avenue North Phone 612/331-1688 Fax. 7631208-1670 Minneapolis, MN 55316 www.hoschappraisal.com Ms. Valerie Leone December 17, 2014 Page Two This appraisal does not include personal property, equipment, fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property nor does this appraisal take into consideration any going concern value. It is our opinion that a reasonable exposure time of up to 12 months is appropriate for the subject real estate at our estimated market value. Please refer to the Reasonable Exposure Time section of this appraisal for details. This report is written with the intent of meeting the reporting requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2014-2015 Edition (effective January 1, 2014). The appraisal has also been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The undersigned appraisers certify that they have investigated information believed to be pertinent to the valuation of the property, and to the best of their knowledge and belief the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. Very truly yours, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. pe Nathan J. Brooberg Senior Appraiser Certified General Real Property Appraiser MN License #20249946 � - _ - - - - - Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Certified General Real Property Appraiser President Minnesota License #4002903 CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. I have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value under continued use in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have not provided services, appraisal or otherwise, regarding the subject property within the three years immediately preceding the acceptance of this report. 4. 1 have no current or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 5. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 6. I performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were approved and published by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation in 2014 effective January 1, 2014. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I have developed is consistent with the market. 7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 8. Nathan J. Brooberg and Stephen T. Hosch have both made a personal inspection of the site and improvements that are the subject of this report. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person(s) signing this report. 10. As of the date of this report, Stephen T. Hosch has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 11. This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation or specific valuation for approval of a loan. Appraisal fees are in no way contingent upon values concluded by the appraisal firm. 12. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. and/or the appraisers of the subject property have previously prepared appraisal reports of bus transportation facilities and excess land. Therefore, I have the knowledge and experience to meet the competency provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. 13. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Nathan J. Brooberg Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Certified General Real Property Appraiser President MN License #20249946 MN License #4002903 Copyright 0 2005-2014 by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. CO gTINGENT AND LEWITING CONDITIONS The value estimates and conclusions in the appraisal are made subject to these assumptions and conditions: This appraisal report has been written for the intended use of the City of New Hope, for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication (either in whole or in part), nor may it be used for any purpose other than the one stated in the Letter of Transmittal and the Purpose of the Report, without the express, written consent of the appraiser and client. Authorized copies of this report will be signed in blue ink by the appraiser(s). Unsigned copies or copies not signed in blue ink should be considered incomplete. All unauthorized or incomplete copies of this report should also be considered confidential, and as such, must be returned, in their entirety, to Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 2. This property is appraised in fee simple, assuming responsible ownership and management, unless otherwise indicated. This appraisal recognizes that available financing is a major consideration by typical purchasers of income-producing real estate in the market, and the appraisal assumes availability of financing to responsible and sufficiently substantial purchasers of the property in amounts similar to those indicated or implied in this report. 3. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. and/or its employees are not qualified to render expert opinions regarding structural issues, water damage, environmental assessments (such as mold), engineering/mechanical issues, ADA and/or building code compliance, land planning, architectural expertise or soil conditions. If requested, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. will recommend qualified experts in these fields to assist the client and/or the appraisal process. 4. The property has been appraised as free and clear of all indebtedness, under responsible ownership and good management unless otherwise set forth in the appraisal. 5. No title search has been made, and the reader should consult an appropriate attorney or title insurance company for accurate ownership data. Unless title problems are specifically brought to our attention, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. assumes that the title is good and marketable and therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. 6. The information contained in this report is not guaranteed, but it has been gathered from reliable sources. The appraiser certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, the statements, information, and materials contained in the appraisal are correct. 7. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature. It is assumed (without survey) that the improvements are located within the legally described property and that the buildings comply with all ordinances except as noted. The furnished legal description is assumed to be correct. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. 8. No analysis of soil conditions was required and none has been made. Unless specifically brought to our attention, all value estimates in this report assume stable soil, and that any necessary soil corrections are to be made at the seller's expense. ii Contingent and Limiting Conditions - Continued 9. Estimates herein are based on the present status of the national business economy and the current purchasing power of the dollar. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based upon current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes in fixture conditions. 10. A plat map or site survey may have been provided in this report to assist the reader in visualizing the general location and boundaries of the property. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility for its accuracy. We may have provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of any improvements to assist the reader of the report in visualizing them and understanding our determination of their size. Surveys, plans and sketches provided may not be complete or drawn exactly to scale. 11. The market value herein assigned is based on conditions which were applicable at the time the property was inspected and may vary at a later date. 12. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. employees shall not be required to prepare for or appear in court or before any board or governmental body by reason of the completion of this assignment without pre -determined arrangements and agreements. 11 Information in the appraisal relating to comparable market data is more fully documented in the confidential file in the office of the appraiser. All studies and field notes will be secured in our files for fixture reference. 14. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 15. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 16. We are assuming: 1) that any asbestos or urea -formaldehyde that may have been used in the building materials in the property are in compliance with current statutes and regulations and do not present a health hazard to the public; 2) that lead-based paint has not been used in a manner that would cause health problems for the public using the property; and 3) that the property has not been the site for the dumping of hazardous substances nor is subject to radon gas. If any or all of the above conditions exist, this could have a bearing on the market value of the property. 17. We have noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property (or learned of) during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, we have no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and have assumed that there are no such conditions. We make no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. (Rosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. will not be responsible for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.) Because we are not experts in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. Hi Cankin ent and Limitin Conditions -Continued 18. The value indication provided in this appraisal report is not contingent upon this building complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which became effective January 26, 1992. A handicap analysis has not been completed for this building and has not been considered in the overall value conclusion. The market value of the property could change substantially if alterations are required to comply with ADA regulations. 19. The client agrees that Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. does not by performing the services rendered, assume, abridge, abrogate, or undertake to discharge any duty of client to any other entity. 20. Any use of the appraisal report, by the client, is conditioned upon payment of all fees in accordance with the agreed terms. 21. In consideration for performing the services rendered at the fee charged, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. expressly limits its liability to five (5) times the amount of the fee paid or $50,000, whichever is less. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting., Inc. expressly disclaims liability as an insurer or guarantor. Any persons seeking greater protection from loss or damage than is provided for herein, should obtain appropriate insurance. The client shall indemnify and hold harmless the appraisal firm and its employees, against all claims by any third party or any judgement for loss or damage relating to the performance or non-performance of any services by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 22. Unless specifically brought to the appraiser's attention, we will assume that there are no hidden or unexpected conditions of the asset to be appraised that would adversely affect or enhance the value. 23. In the future, if Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. is compelled to produce documents or testify with regard to work performed, the client shall reimburse us for all costs and expenses incurred. 24. In the event of a dispute involving interpretation or application of this agreement, the parties agree that this agreement shall be governed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 25. The conclusion of value reached by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. is based upon the assumption that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property that might have an impact upon buildability. It is recommended that due diligence be conducted through the local building department or municipality to investigate buildability and whether the property is suitable for development into its highest and best use. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. makes no representations, guarantees or warranties. iv SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Type of Property: Bus Transportation Facility with excess land Location: 4124 Winnetka Avenue, New Hope, Minnesota Zoning: CC - City Center Date of Inspection: December 1, 2014, with subsequent informal inspections Effective Date of Appraisal: December 1, 2014 Date of the Report: December 17, 2014 Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple Interest Land Size: 8.0 acres (348,688 square feet) total with approximately 244,188 square feet considered as the Bus Transportation Facility and 104,500 square feet considered excess land per estimates by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. Gross Building Size: 48,843 square feet (per Bissell, Belair & Green) Date of Construction: 1966 Final Value Estimate: $3,035,000 Reasonable Exposure Time: Up to 12 months MA TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page iia• Letter of Transmittal Certification........ . Contingent and Limiting Conditions ............ ii . ......... . ..... . .. . . ..... Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions . ...................... . . . . . .. . General Location Map ............................................ v Purpose of the Appraisal ................................ . .. . ............. 2 Intended Use of the Appraisal ........................................... 2 Intended User(s) of the Appraisal ......... . ............... . ......... . .. . .. 2 Scope of the Appraisal ............................................... 2 Property Rights Appraised .................................... . ........ 3 Definition of Market Value .................... . . ......... . ....... . . . . .. .....4 4 Dates of Importance .................................................. Brief Area Analysis........................................................ 5 Legal Description .......................................................... Ownerof Record...................................................7 7 Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments Analysis ..... . ........... . 8 Zoning.......................................... Flood Hazard Information ..... . ... . . . .. . . . . ....... . . . . . ..... . . ..... . ... 9 Property History ....................................... Subject Property Description...... 9 , ... , .... , ....................... . . . . . .... Subject Photographs 10 .................................:.....................15 Highest and Best Use ............... . ............ . . . . . . . . . . , , The Valuation Process....... , , ....... ....................... . 19 22 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Excess Parcel ............ . .. . . . ... .. 24 Sales Comparison Approach to Value . ...................................... 28 Reasonable Exposure Time ........................................... 35 Qualifications of the Appraisers ......................................... . ... 36 _ _ wsr�z�.naa!i,,, e3f�., ra�:.arr�;,f•.'s,.� f _ + %cacaoo ••• _, - '^� - me rOvui � ADNnrrfl � eu assn � uar 9(rr01 \ja.m�.wo J �•�• �- .wnFcrFw { ar41F10 wlLar 1 9y" ` •IICOV[IF PW ' SbLFILI�II� � fdf9r f 1 f1, MOM�H •,_ 1 w� +.. l (, '•w, ; aNAi � r"t".o� i71 ' FATftl. I` yR— rwuww GODN 7A1 I INkDVIR onamp0 tglCdl.LL wDair rfL ;� M 11 .M. c { MIIFr � .vwrw � � • •� � � d rw>frNau Lw4Ltllrrµ' \1 r �OWhFt101 y�aFr}5� 1 ��. f' � yrDDOMr � vi NMtAS MOP MULL MAN"�•`� rM Iqy J1 .rrou' t y � r T 1rF►4WeL •-c- - + �Of •« vlyasr�J! � NJNILDw XNr�wuFr FWKu re }IIr, IApK�iWs w GENERAL LOCATION MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 1 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this report is to arrive at a reliable estimate of the market value of the fee simple interest in the real estate for the sole use of our client, the City of New Hope as well as authorized representatives for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. INTENDED USE OF THE A P PRA I SAL The intended use of the appraisal is for internal decision making and possible purchase of the subject real estate by the City of New Hope. INTENDED USERS OF THE APPRAISAL The intended user of this appraisal report is our client, the City of New Hope, as well as authorized representatives, for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL This appraisal analysis has not been limited in scope, and was based upon, the generally accepted appraisal practices in order to comply with current USPAP Standards. Within this valuation analysis, we have completed the following functions and procedures. (Additional details of our research are included throughout the following pages of this report.) - Made an interior and exterior inspection of the subject property and reviewed building measurements provided by Bissell, Belair & Green; - Familiarized ourselves with the neighborhood and analyzed the surrounding property trends; - Considered and reviewed the historical market, taking into account stability and/or changes; - Based upon our market research and analysis, we have completed the highest and best use analysis for the subject property; - Researched comparable vacant land sales and analyzed their applicability to the subject, as a means of estimating the market value of the excess land via the sales comparison approach to value; - Researched comparable improved sales and analyzed their applicability to the subject, as a means of estimating the market value via the sales comparison approach to value; - Considered market rental rates applicable to the subject property to gain a general understanding of potential annual market rent for the subject property, but did not complete the income capitalization approach to value as credible results can still be obtained by completing the sales comparison approach; HAC14064-0O.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 2 Scope of the Appraisal - Continued - Considered but did not complete the cost approach to value due to the inherent difficulties of estimating functional and economic obsolescence given the age of the building and considering that credible results can still be obtained by completing the sales comparison approach; - Developed an opinion of reasonable exposure time for the subject property to effect a sale at our estimated market value. Sources utilized to obtain this information include the property owner, information contained in our office files, City of New Hope, School District #281 and Hennepin County public records and discussions with other real estate experts, including brokers, buyers, sellers, assessors, and other appraisers. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED We are aware a lease exists on the subject property between School District #281 and First Student, Inc. through June 30, 2016; however, we have been instructed to appraise the fee simple interest in the subject property, so the existing lease will be ignored. The subject real estate will be appraised by estimating the market value of the fee simple interest of the real estate. For use in this report, the market value of the fee simple interest in the real estate is subject to the following defmition contained on Page 78 of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition: A fee simple estate implies absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 3 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE Market value as utilized in this appraisal report conforms to the following definitions obtained from Page 122 of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, published by the Appraisal Institute. The most probable price that the specified property interest should sell for in a competitive market after a reasonable exposure time, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under duress. The corresponding definition, as provided on Page A-75 in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2014 - 2015 Edition, has been agreed upon by agencies that regulate federal financial institutions in the United States and is provided below. The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. We have developed an opinion of reasonable exposure time within this appraisal. Please refer to that section of the report for details. DA'Z'ES OF IMPORTANCE The market value for the subject property is estimated as of December 1, 2014. The date of inspection was December 1, 2014 with subsequent informal visits. The date of the report is December 17, 2014. HAC14064-00.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 4 BRIEF AREA ANALYSIS The subject property is located within the city of New Hope, an inner -ring suburb just northwest of Minneapolis. From its agricultural beginnings in the early 1900's to incorporation as a city in 1953, New Hope has evolved into a community of just over 20,000 residents. The city is located along U.S. Highway #169, which runs along the western border and provides the main access to Interstate Highway #694 to the north and State Highway #55 to the south. Many other county roads and local avenues serve as convenient routes throughout the city as well. After rapid expansion throughout the 1960's, the population of New Hope has dwindled for a number of years, decreasing by 2.6% between 2000 and 2010, with a slight increase predicted through 2012. The median age of the city's residents is 39. The number of households also declined by 2.7% between 2000 and 2010. Median household income increased by 6.5% to $49,833 in that time period, suggesting a sufficient supply of employment opportunities within New Hope and the nearby metropolitan area. The city is home to 420 businesses which provide employment opportunities to local residents. Public School District #281 is the largest employer in the city, providing 2,200 jobs. In addition, there are numerous jobs available in health care, distribution and manufacturing, and ample employment opportunities within commuting distance in the Twin Cities area. A summary of New Hope's demographic statistics is displayed in the chart below. NEW HOPE DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS -1990 TO 2012 % Change 1990 2000 2010 2000-2010 Estimated 2012 Population 21,853 20,873 20,339 -2.6% 20,436 Households 8,507 8,665 8,427 -2.7% 8,437 Median Household Income $36,096 $46,795 $49,833 6.5% $51,593 Source: U.S. Census 2010 Estimated Income from the 2010 American Community Survey, 2012 Esdinates from the 2012 American Community Survey The subject neighborhood is predominately commercial in nature with some office and quasi - industrial development as well. Businesses/uses located in the subject neighborhood include: Applebee's, McDonald's, Taco Johns, Life Time Fitness, Pioneer Dental, GNC, Walgreen's, Caribou Coffee, Country Kitchen, Goodyear Tire and School District #281 offices/bus garage. The neighborhood appears stable with limited land remaining for development. The neighborhood can be most conveniently accessed by 42nd Avenue North from the east or west and Winnetka Avenue from the north or south. HAC14064-0O..wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. . F CITY MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Basch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. UAL Lmv OrnoklVn bSrdAvL-W L 84., C.;w Ad 57M AV, N t LL, 14#'Rd T, 4W4 A4-1 UN % •ti D7 k" Hopekr 4601A. N M 4 11h A.. 13L Crystal Robbinsdale, N LOU WiP cu COW JE Ffflft* N 544, A,� Ni uxnrg Avg It Ith), 37.d A.,W It02 11 LLS�3. cuth North M!emorial L13": LfOj Medical center L2 _j AV .dzway Am N Golden Valley Toth ASN Got, C9W*e CITY MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Basch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The following legal description was provided to us by Hennepin County: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 8 thence East to a point a distance of 5 feet West of the Southeast Corner of Lot 7 thence South to the North line of South 611.5 feet of Lot 9, thence East to a line drawn parallel and a distance of 125 feet Westerly of line a said line as being described as beginning at a point on a North line of Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance 653.3 feet East from the Northwest corner thereof to a point on the South line of Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance of 650.6 feet East from the Southwest comer thereof thence Southerly along said parallel line to Northern line of South 211.5 feet thence West to a West line thereof North to the beginning, except the roadway. OWNER OF RECORD According to public records, the subject property is currently owned by Independent School District #281. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 7 REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ANALYSIS Real estate taxes in Minnesota are payable either in one lump -sum payment or can be paid in two installments which are due on May 15 and October 15. The annual real estate tax charge is based on the assessor's estimated market value as of January 2 of the prior year. The following sections will provide current real estate taxes and assessor's estimated market value(s) for the subject property which we have identified by property identification number (PID). Ilea] Estate Tax Data Real :Estate Tax Data (Payable 2014) PIDs Base Tax Specials TotATax17-118-21-23-0018 $0.00 $0.00 $0 The subject real estate is considered tax-exempt. Assessor's Estimated Market Value Assessor's Estimated Market Value (Payable 2014) PIDs Land Value Building Value TotalValue 17-118-21-23-0018 $0 $0 $0 The subject property is considered tax-exempt. The assessor has not placed an Assessor's Estimated Market Value on the subject. Special Assessment Information There were no special assessments found in the course of this analysis. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 8 ZONING The subject property is located within the CC - City Center in the city of New Hope. The purpose of this district "is to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial, office and civic uses in the city center area to enhance its function as the heart of the community." General permitted uses in the CC - City Center include: mixed-use residential and commercial, community centers, government buildings, essential services, public parks, recreation facilities, clinics, financial services, grocery, hospitality businesses, hotel, office, personal service, restaurant, retail, service and auto parking among other uses. The current use of the subject property as a bus transportation facility is not a permitted use in the CC District in the city of New Hope. The subject does not have a conditional use permit allowing for use as a bus transportation facility according to Aaron Chirtich, Community Development Specialist for New Hope. The subject's use as a bus transportation facility with outdoor storage is a legally non -conforming use according to Mr. Chirtich. The subject is guided for mixed use in the comprehensive plan with the City open to a number of potential uses of the subject site if vacant in the future according to the Community Development Specialist for New Hope with an emphasis on higher density and commercial and/or multi -family development. A portion of the subject, approximately 104,500 square feet, is currently underutilized as a vacant field of grass. According to a discussion with Mr. Chirtich, the City would allow the subdivision of this grassy area from the remainder of the bus transportation facility. The bus transportation facility would still meet all setback and impervious surface requirements. The City would prefer the same uses for this excess land parcel as described above. We assume that the current zoning will exist into the foreseeable future, and at this time no major changes are anticipated for the subject property's area. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the subject property is located in Zone X. Zone X corresponds to an area of minimal flooding. This information is found on Community -Panel Numbers 27053CO192E and 27053C0194E, dated September 2, 2004. HAC 14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 9 PROPERTY HISTORY According to public records, the subject property is currently owned by Independent School District #281. The subject is encumbered with a lease. The terms of the lease, which began in 2012 between Independent School District #281 (lessor) and First Student, Inc. (lessee), call for a rent of $1 per year for any year the District pays the Contractor for the services and Contractor uses the Facility. The District is responsible for any maintenance, repair and replacement of all the exterior and structural elements of the facility. The Contractor is responsible for routine repairs and maintenance. The District pays for all utilities throughout the year and is reimbursed for actual costs by First Student, Inc. The lease concludes June 30, 2016. Since we have been instructed to appraise the fee simple interest in the subject property, no consideration will be given to this lease within this appraisal. We are not aware of any other material property history items that have occurred in the five years preceding the date of valuation. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 10 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The entire subject property consists of a rectangular 8.0 acre land parcel that is developed with a bus transportation facility. The site is located at 4124 Winnetka Avenue which is one property south of the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue North. The site has good visibility from Winnetka Avenue and average visibility from 42nd Avenue North. Direct access to the site is provided by two full -movement access points along Winnetka Avenue. The site is generally level, at grade with adjacent roadways and soils are assumed stable. The parking lot appears in average condition. A large portion of the parcel (approximately 104,500 square feet) is underutilized and covered in grass while the remaining portion of the parcel (244,188 square feet) is either paved or supports the improvements. The improvements constructed on the subject property consist of a bus transportation facility with a gross building area of 48,843 square feet. The office portion accounts for approximately 3,000 square feet (6.1 %) and includes office areas, restrooms and a break room. The bulk of the improvements are utilized as bus storage, with dedicated areas for bus maintenance and washing. The building was originally constructed in 1966. The improvements are in average condition overall with no items of deferred maintenance observed or brought to our attention during the inspection. The improvements consist of concrete block construction with a steel roof and a rubber membrane. External walls are brick and exposed aggregate. Internal finishing includes: tiled and concrete flooring, 2x2 acoustical tile ceiling in the office areas with exposed steel and steel decking in the storage and repair areas, painted sheetrock walls and exposed fluorescent lighting in the office areas with painted concrete block walls in the storage and repair areas. Windows are limited to near the gas pumps and above the service doors. The clear height is generally eleven feet throughout with a vault of approximately 14 feet in the maintenance area. The interior is heated by roof -mounted, gas-fired forced air units with the office area also cooled by central air conditioning, all distributed though ducts. The maintenance area includes three 13 -ton lifts, lines running oil, grease, differential fluid, compressed air, anti -freeze and transmission fluid. Outside the western side of the improvements are four pumps for gasoline (three diesel, one unleaded). The pumps are inspected annually. HAC 14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. I I HAC14064-OO.wpd 79- -4� "0 BIRDSEYE MAP Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 14 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Exterior view of the subject facing northwesterly from the southeastern portion of the improvements. View of the exterior of the subject, facing southeasterly from the northwestern corner. HAC14064-0O.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 15 Subbed Photographs - Continued View of office area. View of the wash bay. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 16 IL ' �' �,.,-�"'• - �r%r -.yam lk �,-:k� i"Y. f r. +� ww:rt Sub'eet Photo ra hs - Continued View of the storage area. View of the storage area. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 18 HIGHEST AND BEST USE The highest and best use of the subject real estate as it will be regarded in this appraisal report will conform to the following definition found on Page 277 of The APJ2raisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition: Highest and best use is the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported and financially feasible and that results in the highest value. In order to determine the highest and best use of the subject property, a three-step process is followed, which we have defined as follows: 1. The highest and best use of the site as though vacant is determined. Three options are available to owners of vacant sites: (1) leaving the property vacant; (2) holding the site for a future use, or (3) developing the site. The recommended option must be legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. 2. If development is concluded as the highest and best use of the site as though vacant, the second step would be to determine the ideal improvement. The ideal improvement would reflect state-of-the-art design techniques, legal conformance, and provide the highest value. 3. If the property is currently improved, the final step would be to determine the highest and best use of the property as improved. A comparison is made between the existing improvement and the ideal improvement in order to identify differences. To modify the existing improvements for any differences from the ideal, one of the following five options should be recommended to the owner: A. Leave the property in its current state. B. Remodel C. Renovate D. Convert E. Demolish to clear the site for redevelopment. The recommended option must be legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. HAC14064-0O.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 19 Highest and Best Use - Continued Highest and Best Use of the Property as Vacant The highest and best use of the property as vacant would be for mixed-use development including multi -family residential and retail/commercial uses taking advantage of the subject's location one property removed from the corner of Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue North as conforming to zoning or the comprehensive plan. The reasons for our opinion are as follows: 1. Compatibility of these uses with the current zoning and surrounding land uses. 2. Suitability of the shape, topography, and location of the site. 3. Close proximity to a growing economic base. 4. Average accessibility to major roadways. 5. Good visibility of the site and access via Winnetka Avenue. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 20 Highest and Best Use - Continued Highest and Best Use of the Property as Improved The subject improvements have been designed for use as a bus transportation facility with outdoor storage. The improvements were constructed in 1966 and they remain functional for their current use overall. The existing improvements will provide a higher return to the underlying land than any other potential uses for the property at this time. Approximately 244,188 square feet of land supports the bus transportation facility with 104,500 square feet underutilized as a vacant field. Considering the location of this parcel in the southern portion of the subject property, with some visibility from 42nd Avenue North and full visibility from Winnetka Avenue, this portion of the property could be independently developed with a commercial and/or multi -family use as indicated by the City of New Hope in discussions and within the Comprehensive Plan. The highest and best use of the property as improved is for continued use as a bus transportation facility for the northern portion of the parcel with development of the southern 104,500 square feet into a commercial and/or multi -family use as market conditions warrant. The reasons for our opinion are as follows: Legally non -conforming current use of the building and proposed use of the excess land parcel with the current zoning and surrounding land uses. 2. Suitability of the northern building and the southern excess land portion with the shape, topography, and location of the site. 3. Close proximity to a significant residential and growing economic base. 4. Good accessibility and visibility from Winnetka Avenue. The current use of the northern 244,188 square feet of the site as a bus transportation facility and the proposed use of the southern 104,500 square feet of the site as a development with a commercial and/or multi -family residential use as market conditions warrant, is the only use of the subject property that provides the highest return on the underlying land while meeting the tests of being legally permissible, physically possible and financially feasible. HAC]4064-0O.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 21 THE VALUATION PROCESS The valuation process contains many facets. A wide variety of data, including the previously discussed Area Analysis, Subject Site and Improvements Descriptions, and Highest and Best Use Analysis, is compiled and utilized to value the property based upon three methods of valuation which are referred to as "approaches". These approaches to value are briefly described as follows: Cost Approach In the cost approach, an estimated reproduction or replacement cost of the building and land improvements as of the date of valuation is developed together with an estimate of the losses in value that have taken place due to wear and tear, design and plan, or neighborhood influences. To the depreciated building cost estimate, the estimated value of the land is added. The total represents the value indicated by the cost approach. Sales Comparison A roach In the sales comparison approach, the subject property is compared to similar properties that have been sold or for which listing prices or offering figures are known. Data for generally comparable properties is used, and comparisons are made to demonstrate a probable price at which the subject property would be sold if offered on the market. Income Capitalization Approach In the income capitalization approach, the rental income to the property is shown with deductions for vacancy and collection loss and expenses. The net operating income of the property is estimated. To support this estimate, operating statements for previous years and comparable properties maybe reviewed, along with available operating cost estimates. An applicable capitalization method and appropriate capitalization rates are developed and used in computations that lead to an indication of value. Other methods may also be applied, such as a gross rent multiplier, which reveals the relationship between gross rental income and the sale price of a given income-producing property. Gross rent multipliers are extracted from comparable sales and analyzed, with a reconciled gross rent multiplier applied to the subject's gross rent to render an indication of market value. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 22 The Valuation Process - Continued Inherent within the previous three approaches to value are some basic appraisal principles, which include anticipation, balance, change, externalities, substitution, and also supply and demand. These principles are briefly described below. (These definitions are derived from The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, pages 35-43.) - Anticipation: The perception that value is created by the expectation of benefits to be derived in the future. - Balance: The principle that real property value is created and sustained when contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements are in a state of equilibrium. - Change: The result of the cause and effect relationship among the forces that influence real property value. - Externalities: The principle that economies outside a property have a positive effect on its value while diseconomies outside a property have a negative effect upon its value. - Substitl tion: The appraisal principle that states that when several similar or commensurate commodities, goods, or services are available, the one with the lowest price will attract the greatest demand and widest distribution. This is the primary principle upon which the cost and sales comparison approaches are based. - Supply and Demand: In economic theory, the principle that states that the price of a commodity, good, or service varies directly, but not necessarily proportionately, with demand, and inversely, but not necessarily proportionately, with supply. In a real estate appraisal context, the principle of supply and demand states that the price of real property varies directly, but not necessarily proportionately, with demand and inversely, but not necessarily proportionately, with supply. Explanation of the Reconciliation Process An appraisal is composed of a number of integrated, interrelated, and inseparable procedures that have a common objective -- a condensed, reliable estimate of value. Although the three approaches are seldom completely independent, it is important to note that in certain cases, greater emphasis is placed on a particular approach. The reasons for this are as varied as the properties themselves, and each appraisal must be addressed individually. The appraiser discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each of the approaches to value, and concludes to a final value which reflects the most applicable approaches. Summary In this case, the subject property is a bus transportation facility with excess land located in New Hope, Minnesota. As discussed in the previous sections of the report, the area surrounding the subject property is developed and exhibits a significant residential and economic base. After reviewing the pertinent information within our office, and having various discussions with other real estate experts, we have completed the sales comparison approach to value in the analysis of the subject property. The comparable information and our findings are further detailed and reconciled in the following section. HAC]4064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 23 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE - EXCESS LAND PARCEL The sales comparison approach to value is defined as: The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing market information for similar properties with the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making qualitative comparisons with or quantitative adjustments to the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, market -derived elements of comparison. he Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, Page 175.) The major premise within this approach is that the market value of the subject property is directly related to the prices of comparable, competitive properties. Furthermore, this valuation method not only assumes that both buyer and seller are fully informed about the property, but also that both have general knowledge of the market for that type of property and that the property has been exposed in the open market for a reasonable time. Based upon the previously discussed highest and best use analysis of the subject property, comparable property sales with similar highest and best uses were gathered and analyzed from the metropolitan area. We believe these comparable sales best represent the subject property with respect to location, age, size, design, amenities, and other major characteristics. The comparable market data which is submitted in this report, in our opinion, suggests that the best unit of comparison for the subject real estate should be sale price per square foot of land area. The application of this unit of comparison produces an estimate of value for a property by comparing it with similar properties of the same type and class which have sold recently in the same or competing areas. The analytical processes utilized in determining the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment as to their similarity with respect to many value factors such as location, date of sale, physical characteristics, and terms of sale. The sale price of those properties deemed most comparable tends to set the value range for the subject property. Further consideration of the comparative data indicates a figure representing the value of the subject property, that is, the probable price at which it could be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer as of the date of the appraisal. The data involved in the application of this process concerns these comparable properties as well as the subject property, and this data will vary with the type of property. Four categories of data, however, are basic and apply regardless of the type of property. They are: Sales prices of comparable properties. 2. Conditions influencing each sale. 3. Location of each property. 4. Description of land and improvements of each comparable property. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 24 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Excess Land Parcel - Continued The selected land sales which were useful in this site valuation are individually described in the chart below. Comparable real estate transactions which were useful in estimating this land value are individually described below. Characteristic differences between a comparable sale and the subject might require adjustments to increase the reliableness of a given sale as an indicator of value for the subject. Elements of comparison which may warrant adjustments include real property rights, financing, conditions of sale, buyer expenditures immediately after purchase, market conditions (time), and various physical characteristics, such as location, zoning, development stage, size, shape, topography/soils and others. An explanation of adjustments, a comparable sales location map, and a chart demonstrating our adjustment analysis are provided on the following pages. HAC14064-00.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 25 COMPARABLE LAND SALES FACT CHART Sale 2013 Size in Price/ Sale Traffic Sale Intended S.F. Square No. Location Counts Date Use Zoning (Acres) Foot 1. 7601 62nd Avenue North 10,200 7/14 Multi- PUD 72,745 $4.18 New Hope, MN Family (1.67) 2. Louisiana Avenue/south of N/A 2/14 Retail CB 22,651 $3.97 Bass Lake Road (0.52) New Hope, MN 3. 5256 West Broadway 23,500 4/14 Commercial 1-1 35,720 $8.96 Crystal, MN (0.82) 4. 4200 Xylon Avenue 19,100 11/14 Hy -Vee CC 579,348 $6.43 New Hope, MN (13.30) Sub- 2124 Winnetka Avenue 12,700 1211.4 Mixed CC 104,500 77 ject New Hope, MN (date of Use (2.40) value) Characteristic differences between a comparable sale and the subject might require adjustments to increase the reliableness of a given sale as an indicator of value for the subject. Elements of comparison which may warrant adjustments include real property rights, financing, conditions of sale, buyer expenditures immediately after purchase, market conditions (time), and various physical characteristics, such as location, zoning, development stage, size, shape, topography/soils and others. An explanation of adjustments, a comparable sales location map, and a chart demonstrating our adjustment analysis are provided on the following pages. HAC14064-00.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 25 COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal& Consulting, Inc. 26 h Nigh Sd" P LL4 C Lm- IM dic N..th lft- * Wtb Wt. Kth "w A" 14 Old A. N WA.14 63,d A. N uk =AM* . 1W 0 C— Ampw LIL P— W� FW LL61 U..LA.Rd LWL R—LAWAW Lei 4%Av.N F— AwN Lm ilm 44 4m It Ad"t RW.d Rd LL Y N.iW. LH01 uk lk N 'Wh 4 VA N �7 I% COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal& Consulting, Inc. 26 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Excess Land Parcel - Continued Before adjustments for differences, the aforementioned sales indicate a range of $3.97 per square foot to $8.96 per square foot for the subject land. Sales #2 and #3 are significantly smaller parcels when compared to the subject excess land. Sale #3 is located in Crystal and was given little weight in this analysis. Sale #1 is located at the southwest corner of West Broadway Avenue and 62nd Avenue North. This parcel formerly held three residential four-plexes as well as a gas station/convenience store. The improvements were all removed prior to the sale. The site was purchased for the development of a 68 -unit multi -family residential apartment building. Sale #1 has slightly lower direct traffic counts when compared to the subject and is slightly smaller in size. Overall, Sale #1 is slightly inferior to the subject. Sale #2 is located one property removed from Bass Lake Road. As such, its traffic counts are not measured. This parcel is significantly smaller when compared to the subject and has an inferior zoning district which does not allow for multi -family residential or mixed-use developments. Sale #2 is inferior to the subject. Sale #4 is the purchase of 579,348 square feet adjacent to the city center shopping area for the construction of a Hy -Vee grocery store. This site has a superior location along 42nd Avenue North and is adjacent to additional retail to the east. While this parcel is significantly larger than the subject, it still must be considered in our analysis as a function of its location relative to the subject. All of the transactions have been considered within our analysis of the subject property and have contributed to a value indication. We have also placed the least weight on Sale #3. The subject excess land parcel is located along Winnetka Avenue, two "parcels" removed from the more highly - traveled 42nd Avenue North. Furthermore, the adjacent land use of a bus transportation facility is a further drag on its locational attributes. Taking into account the smaller sizes of parcels #1 and #2, the larger size of Sale #4 and the locational attributes of all, and recognizing other differences, these sales indicate a range of approximately $4.00 to $5.00 per square foot for the subject property. After reconciling the adjustment process, it is our opinion that the subject excess land parcel has a market value of approximately $4.50 per square foot of land, calculated as follows. 104,500 square feet @ $4.50 per square foot $470,250 Rounded to: $470,000 HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 27 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE The sales comparison approach to value is defined as: The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing market information for similar properties with the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making qualitative comparisons with or quantitative adjustments to the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, market -derived elements of comparison. (The Dictionary of heal Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, Page 175.) The major premise within this approach is that the market value of the subject property is directly related to the prices of comparable, competitive properties. Furthermore, this valuation method not only assumes that both buyer and seller are fully informed about the property, but also that both have general knowledge of the market for that type of property and that the property has been exposed in the open market for a reasonable time. Based upon the previously discussed highest and best use analysis of the subject property, comparable property sales with similar highest and best uses were gathered and analyzed from the metropolitan area. We believe these comparable sales best represent the subject property with respect to location, age, size, design, amenities, and other major characteristics. The comparable market data which is submitted in this report, in our opinion, suggests that the best unit of comparison for the subject real estate should be sale price per foot of gross building area. The application of this unit of comparison produces an estimate of value for a property by comparing it with similar properties of the same type and class which have sold recently in the same or competing areas. The analytical processes utilized in determining the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment as to their similarity with respect to many value factors such as location, date of sale, physical characteristics, and terms of sale. The sale price of those properties deemed most comparable tends to set the value range for the subject property. Further consideration of the comparative data indicates a figure representing the value of the subject property, that is, the probable price at which it could be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer as of the date of the appraisal. The data involved in the application of this process concerns these comparable properties as well as the subject property, and this data will vary with the type of property. Four categories of data, however, are basic and apply regardless of the type of property. They are: Sales prices of comparable properties. 2. Conditions influencing each sale. I Location of each property. 4. Description of land and improvements of each comparable property. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 28 Sales Com arison Approach to Value - Continued Research revealed a number of real estate transactions in the area available for comparison to the improved north portion of subject real estate. Property sales we regard as most pertinent for estimating the subject's value are summarized in the fact chart below. Characteristic differences between a given comparable sale and the subject might require adjustments to increase the reliableness of that sale as an indicator of value for the subject. Elements of comparison which may warrant adjustments include real property rights, financing, conditions of sale, buyer expenditures immediately after purchase, market conditions (time), and various physical characteristics, such as location, zoning, age and condition, building quality/amenities, size, land -to -building ratio, and others. An explanation of adjustments, a comparable sales location map, and a chart demonstrating our adjustment analysis are provided on the following pages. HAC14064-OO.wpd Aosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 29 COMPARABLE BUILDING SALES FACT CHART Warehouse Sale Price Land -to- Clear Height/ Per S.F. Sale Location Sale Total GBA Gross Bldg. (Outdoor Total No. (Land Size) Date Age (Office) Ratio Storage?) GBA 1 261 Chester Street, 11/14 1988 34,180 2.97:1 16 ft. $40.96 St. Paul, MN (4,560) (No) (101,495 s.f.) 2 22098 Canton Ct. 7/14 2000 15,329 12.16:1 20 ft. $68.50 Farmington, MN (2,405) (Yes) (186,436 s.f) 3 32611 Northfield Blvd. 12/11 1972/ 31,137 8.56:1 11 ft. $20.71 Northfield, MN 1986 (1,783) (Yes) (266,587 s.f) 4 6298 Hodgson Road 12/12 1966/ 19,840 18.77:1 11 ft. $66.53 Lino Lakes, MN 1975 (2,005) (Yes) (372,438 s.f.) Sub- 4.124 Winnetka Avenue 12/14 1966 48,843 5.00:1 11 ft. ?? jest New Hope, MN (date of (3,000) (Yes) (assumed 244,188 s.f.) value) Characteristic differences between a given comparable sale and the subject might require adjustments to increase the reliableness of that sale as an indicator of value for the subject. Elements of comparison which may warrant adjustments include real property rights, financing, conditions of sale, buyer expenditures immediately after purchase, market conditions (time), and various physical characteristics, such as location, zoning, age and condition, building quality/amenities, size, land -to -building ratio, and others. An explanation of adjustments, a comparable sales location map, and a chart demonstrating our adjustment analysis are provided on the following pages. HAC14064-OO.wpd Aosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 29 Mes Comparison Approach to Vague o Continued Sale #1 - 261 Chester Street, St. Paul, MN i Sale #2 - 22098 Canton Court, Farmington, MN HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 30 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Sale #3 - 32611 Northfield Boulevard, Northfield, MN Sale #4 - 6298 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN HAC14064-0O.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 31 COMPARABLE IMPROVEMENT SALES MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 32 aan aro.t Cww MaJ s � e 4Mannebe CMdlea rCf' f1.a+ kk PWer Caal lltlPll � Say �, v , Lehi , mlw.dab Ow" Fs*w 4laJJ Ramey - , �Abamlle r . afym�l S (p >. Sl Michel AIMOJtlA MAN • . W{lelC ., °° Caon l4plds 4 ' E cam'. ffi '' talo NnwM4ke nod,rt.a k &aa111pePaak vft" ., 9a M Ie iitollarw FlsJley Sho=..cn ' 'EearLue GIV • CCchn�es 4po.v.rr .� Oels� An]J„Pds J!Ahla Ileadlle e' �a�t �' L� r St An�lvry lade GgalA �, tw. ea , #taeKlk t+min Sf Wol1 Pn a Wsltna lGi1 IS waleavAn as anw MinylSajf0lls �a� PM-6Flok - - � daldtoM Ls R 8; Wpk mod J `: Mmo,olarlke w Waoduaty C -:.a L: laky VAral4, s+Kve*vnJ 1 U! Avon C�i .. nkeAd' Cj, lirp'atn ..xEden ce !� tit.rora. � d 4-I Plakir emw Gaasr Paertaps _ Momingtan J EapOn L' alef erJ Natmoa 11.11,x fIM, Clslul,a� ._ �IJF{♦ V' � (�, AmtJica ,{ Snea7e �IId CIJ'llllC - i((f••/ �� 'L Apple Val4y PaanwM I Limbdb to—tl Yarratt+VWM WIn11Al K,4iiM FMILpe 1>,.a[ale! 'NN Famdnglm L BCAePbale '� MaktbY p xl • ' � � N, Salem � 19. a L' � ya1k,1 i ter L.. el• *� • tr'f.. i9 la U fix' Nta PIAQae t i Ly A'P 'AGMron 6�. Fad {I�1 .. Le Rlltln S Qe: Q� ; y`I 11' Mpnlatlney E T D. •. a C S1 P.Kg U ` 46 '��� 'p[g A," • , yR}..` (m.. Cp, zwNaau _. kgJF� COMPARABLE IMPROVEMENT SALES MAP HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 32 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Adiustments - Continued Before adjustments for differences, the aforementioned sales indicate a range $20.71 to $68.50 per square foot of gross building area for the subject property. Each of the sales is used as a bus transportation facility, with several sales also including outdoor storage. Sale #1 is a former FedEx ship center that is located along Chester Street, just removed from U.S. Highway #52 in St. Paul. This property is located just south of downtown St. Paul and approximately one block west of the St. Paul downtown airport. The improvements are concrete construction and include approximately 13.3% office space. The improvements were used as a former FedEx ship center and were purchased by the St. Paul School District as a bus transportation facility. The interior does not have dedicated repair or wash areas, but multi-purpose work areas. The building was constructed in 1988 and it was in average to good condition on the sale date. Sale #2 is a 15,329 square foot building (15.7% office) that is located in an industrial area of southeastern Farmington. The steel and brick exterior building was constructed in 2000 and it was in good condition on the sale date. This parcel was formerly used as a truck repair facility. The site contains outdoor storage but does not have dedicated wash areas. Sale #3 is a 31,137 square foot facility comprised of three buildings that are located along Northfield Boulevard in Northfield. The real estate has historically been used as a bus transportation facility, including storage, repair, wash and offices. The office portion includes 1,783 square feet or 5.7% of the building area. The steel buildings were constructed in 1972 and 1986, and it was in fair condition on the sale date. Sale #4 is a 19,840 square foot building located along Hodgson Road in Lino Lakes. The real estate has historically been used as bus transportation facility, and it includes repair, wash and storage areas as well as outdoor storage and 10.1 % office finish. The two buildings were constructed in 1966 and 1975 and were in average condition on the sale date. The sales had prices of $40.96, $68.50, $20.71 and $66.53 per square foot for Sales #1, #2, #3 and #4 respectively. Overall, Sales #1, #2 and #4 are most similar to the subject property in use, age, building quality and amenities and location. Sales #2 and #4 also include outdoor storage yards, with Sale #2 having a similar amount of storage to the subject property and Sale #4 having significantly more storage than the subject property. The majority of the subject's storage area is paved which is similar to Sale #4. The storage area of Sale #2 is gravel. Before adjustments, Sales #1, #2 and #4 fall in the narrowed range of $40.96 to $68.50 per square foot of gross building area. HAC14064-0O.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 33 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Adiustments - Continued When considering specific adjustments that would apply to Sale #1, the sale indicates a market value for the subject property that is above the price of Sale #1 of $40.96 per square foot. Sale #1 is of a similar building quality, but Sale #1 does not have the outdoor storage component, has a significantly lower land -to -building ratio when compared to the subject and does not have dedicated repair or wash areas. Sale #2 indicates a market value for the subject propertythat is lower than the price of Sale #2 of $68.50 per square foot. Despite the inferior location of this sale, Sale #2 has a generally similar quality of construction; however, this building was constructed in 2000 and is approximately 34 years newer than the subject which is a vastly superior trait. Sale #4 indicates a market value for the subject property that is below the price of Sale #4 of $66.53 per square foot. Sale #4 has an inferior age and quality of improvements when compared to the subject, but the land - to -building ratio of Sale #4 is significantly higher when compared to the subject with the majority of this area paved for outdoor storage. Sales #1, #2 and #4 are smaller in size when compared to the subject. Smaller buildings tend to sell for higher prices per square foot when compared to larger buildings. Therefore, after reconciling the adjustment process, it is our opinion that the subject property has a market value between $50 and $55 per square foot of building area, say $52.50 per square foot, which is slightly below the middle of the range of Sales #1, #2 and #4, calculated as follows: 48,843 square feet @ $52.50 per square foot $2,564,258 Plus Excess Land: $470,000 Total Estimated Value via the Sales Comparison Approach to Value, Including Excess Land: $3,034,258 Rounded to: $3,035,000 HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 34 REAS0NABLE EXPOSURE TIME Exposure time can be defined as the estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective opinion based on an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Reasonable exposure time can differ from actual exposure time. For example, a property may have been exposed at $1,000,000 for two years, which informed market participants considered unreasonable. Then the owner lowered the price to $900,000 and began receiving offers, resulting in a transaction at $800,000 six months later. Although the actual exposure time was 2.5 years, the reasonable exposure time at a value range of $800,000 to $900,000 would be six months. We have researched exposure time for properties similar to the subject property by reviewing information gathered through sales verification and having discussions with various market participants (such as brokers, buyers, sellers, etc.). Summary After reviewing the national and local data, and having discussions with brokers in the marketplace, it is our opinion that a reasonable exposure time for the subject property at our estimated market value would be up to 12 months. HAC14064-OO.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 35 QUALIFICATIONS OF NATHAN J. BROOBERG Biographical Data and Education Raised in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Graduated from Fergus Falls Senior High School. Bachelor of Arts degree, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. peter, Minnesota, in Biology and Geography. Successfully completed the following real estate courses and seminars: Eminent Domain and Condemnation Business Practices and Ethics Real Estate Principles Real Estate Practices Standards of Professional Practice General Applications Professional Qualifications or Associations 14th Annual Real Estate Trends Seminar Residential Construction Case Studies in Highest and Best Use Income Capitalization Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches 2012-13 National USPAP Update Course Certified General Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser — State of Minnesota, License #20249946, Expires August 31, 2016 Professional Experience Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota Real Estate Appraiser March 2005 — present Shenehon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Real Estate Appraiser February 2001 — March 2005 Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate, business enterprises, and intangible property rights. Appraisal assignments have involved numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial, and special purpose properties. These assignments have included mortgage Financing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, charitable donations, internal management decisions, allocation of purchase price, and insurance indemnification. Partial Client List Accent Homes Allina Hospitals and Clinics Ames Construction Anchor Bank Babcock Neilson Mannela & Klint Bankwest Boundary Waters Bank BPK&Z Bremer Bank Briggs and Morgan Builders Development & Finance Capmark Finance, Inc. City of Maplewood City of New Hope City of Shoreview Ducks Unlimited Garith Anderson Trucking Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC Henson & Efron Lindquist & Vennum Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP Messerli & Kramer P.A. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources (DNR) Minnesota Dept. of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Minnwest Bank Moss & Barnett MPCA North Haven Church Oppenheimer Donnelly & Wolff LLP Osceola Medical Center Peterson, Peterson & Associates, PLC Pheasants Forever Pipestone County Rosemount National Bank Roseville Area Schools Sioux Steel Company Sovereign Bank State Bank of Hamel Swift County The Business Bank Three Rivers Park District URS Corporation U.S. Bank U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Small Business Association Vic's Crane & Heavy Haul Wells Fargo/RETECHS Wiley Enterprises 36 QUALIFICATIONS OF STEPHEN T. HOSCH, MAI BjograjRhical Data and Education Born and raised in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and graduated from Columbia Heights High School. Attended St. Cloud State University and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Real Estate with an emphasis in appraisal. Successfully completed numerous real estate appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute, as well as attended several seminars covering specialized appraisal topics, some of the more recent of which are highlighted below: IREM - 2013 Annual Forecast - January 2013 13`h Annual Real Estate Trends Seminar - May 2011 7`h Annual Land Development Conference - May 2011 IREM - 2010 Annual Forecast - January 2010 Annual RERC - Industry Forecast: 2009 - January 2009 4" Annual Minnesota Land Development Conference - May 2008 10`s Annual Real Estate Trends Seminar - May 2008 Professional Qualifications or Associations Annual RERC - Industry Forecast: 2007 - January 2007 Eminent Domain - November 2006 Land Development & Redevelopment Conference - May 2006 Annual RERC-Industry Forecast: 2006 - January 2006 22"d Annual Real Estate Institute - November 2004 Mortgage Foreclosures in Minnesota - March 2004 Certified General Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser - State of Minnesota, License #4002903, Expires August 31, 2015 Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) Holding MAI Designation The MAI membership designation is held by appraisers who are experienced in the valuation and evaluation of commercial, industrial, residential and other types of properties, and who advise clients on real estate investment decisions. MAI members are the preferred choice among lawyers to serve as expert witnesses in trials, hearings, and other litigation matters. The Appraisal Institute conducts a mandatory program of continuing education for its designated members and also requires that they comply with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. I am currently certified under the Appraisal Institute education program through December 31, 2016. Member - Institute of Business Appraisers (IBA) Qualified as a court-appointed commissioner in Wright County and Hennepin County Professional )experience Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota President, February 2005 - present Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate, businesses and intangible property rights. Real estate assignments involve numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial, and special purpose properties as well as land subdivisions, bulk acreage and proposed developments. Business valuation and consulting assignments have included both operating and holding companies. The specific purposes of these assignments have included highest and best use studies, mortgage financing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, special assessment appeals, gift tax, and allocation of purchase price. Court experience involves testifying at commissioner hearings, depositions and trials, preparation of affidavits, and providing litigation support. Qualified as a court-appointed commissioner in Hennepin and Wright Counties. Shenehon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Senior Vice President - Director of Real Estate, November 2003 - January 2005; Shareholder Senior Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, September 2002 - November 2003; Shareholder Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, April 2001 - September 2002; Shareholder Appraiser/Analyst from June 1991 to March 2001 37 QUALIFICATIONS OF STEPHEN T. HOSCH, MAI - CONTINUED Author/Co-Author or Guest S esker of: "Appraisal Issues in Litigation," Various Minneapolis Law Firms, December 2007 "Creative Opportunities in the Current Real Estate Market," Valuation Viewpoint, Summer 2004 "Business Components and the Valuation of Real Estate," Valuation Viewpoint, Winter 2004 "Challenging Issues in Commercial and Industrial Valuation," Commercial Real Estate Financing Conference, March 13, 2002 "Market Valuation & Appraisals," Minnesota Commercial Association of Realtors, January 22, 2002 "Fundamentals of Special Assessments in Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Spring 1999 "A Perspective on Subdivision Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Winter 1997 Partial Client List Accent Homes Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP Allied Waste Industries McGrann Shea Anderson Carnival Straughn & Lamb Allina Hospitals & Clinics Merchants Bank, N.A. Ames Construction Messerli & Kramer P.A. Anchor Bank Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) BANKWEST Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Bard and Bard, Ltd. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) BPK&Z Minnwest Bank Best & Flanagan, LLP Moss & Barnett Bremer Bank MPCA Bridgewater Bank Olympic Steel, Inc. Briggs and Morgan Boundary Waters Bank Oppenheimer Donnelly & Wolff LLP Builders Development & Finance Pace Realty Advisors, LLC Capmark Finance, Inc. Peterson, Fram & Bergman, P.A. City of Arden Hills Peterson, Peterson & Associates, PLC City of Eagan Pheasants Forever City of Fargo Pinnacle Commercial Capital City of Maplewood Pipestone County City of New Hope Premier Bank City of Osseo Ramsey County City of Shoreview Rosemount National Bank City of Victoria Roseville Area Schools Fabyanske, Westra & Hart Sherburne County Falcon National Bank Sioux Steel Company Fargo Public School District No. 1 SouthWest Transit Sovereign Bank First National Bank of Elk River Speedway SuperAmerica First Resource Bank State Bank of Hamel Fredrikson & Byron P.A. Stearns Bank Gopher Resources Swift County Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. The Business Bank Grossman Investments, LLC Three Rivers Park District Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC United Prairie Bank Harstad Development Hennepin County University of Minnesota Henson & Efron U.S. Bank Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP U.S. Small Business Administration Home Federal Savings Bank Village Bank James M. Neilson, Attorney at Law Warchol Law Office Kraus -Anderson Realty Co. Wells Fargo/RETECHS Larkin Hofflnan Daly & Lindgren White Castle System, Inc. LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A. Wiley Enterprises Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. Winthrop & Weinstine Lindquist & Vennum APPRAISAL REPORT Office Building 4148 Winnetka Avenue New Hope, Minnesota December 1, 2014 HAC 14064-01 Copyright 0 2005-2014 by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. December 17, 2014 Ms. Valerie Leone, City Clerk City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 4148 WINNETKA AVENUE IN NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA Dear Ms. Leone: As requested by you, we are providing you with an appraisal of the above -referenced property to arrive at a reliable estimate of the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property. The following Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under within the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. This appraisal report has been written for the intended use of the City of New Hope and its authorized representatives, for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. has not previously provided any services, appraisal or otherwise, on the subject property within the three years prior to the acceptance of this assignment. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of this client and for the intended use only. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the unauthorized or improper use of this report. We have made a complete inspection of the subject property and have fully identified the real estate in our written report. Additional supporting information may also be supplied within the Addenda of this report. After careful consideration of the many factors influencing value, it is our opinion that the subject property has an estimated market value, as of the December 1, 2014, of: ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ---------$1,105,000 11172 Zealand Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55316 Phone 612/331-1688 Fax 763/208-1670 www hoschappraisal. coin Ms. Valerie Leone December 17, 2014 Page Two This appraisal does not include personal property, equipment, fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property nor does this appraisal take into consideration any going concern value. It is our opinion that a reasonable exposure time of up to 12 months is appropriate for the subject real estate at our estimated market value. Please refer to the Reasonable Exposure Time section of this appraisal for details. This report is written with the intent of meeting the reporting requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2014-2015 Edition (effective January 1, 2014). The appraisal has also been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The undersigned appraisers certify that they have investigated information believed to be pertinent to the valuation of the property, and to the best of their knowledge and belief the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. Very truly yours, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. Nathan J. Brooberg Senior Appraiser Certified General Real Property Appraiser MN License #20249946 Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Certified General Real Property Appraiser President Minnesota License #4002903 CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. I have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value under continued use in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have not provided services, appraisal or otherwise, regarding the subject property within the three years immediately preceding the acceptance of this report. 4. I have no current or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 5. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 6. I performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were approved and published by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation in 2014 effective January 1, 2014. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I have developed is consistent with the market. 7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 8. Nathan J. Brooberg and Stephen T. Hosch have both made a personal inspection of the site and improvements that are the subject of this report. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person(s) signing this report. 10. As of the date of this report, Stephen T. Hosch has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 11, This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation or specific valuation for approval of a loan. Appraisal fees are in no way contingent upon values concluded by the appraisal firm. 12. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. and/or the appraisers of the subject property have previously prepared appraisal reports of office properties. Therefore, I have the knowledge and experience to meet the competency provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. 13. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Nathan J. Brooberg Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Certified General Real Property Appraiser President MN License #20249946 MN License #4002903 Copyright © 2005-2014 by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. CONTINGENT AND LBUTING CONDITIONS The value estimates and conclusions in the appraisal are made subject to these assumptions and conditions: This appraisal report has been written for the intended use of the City of New Hope, for purposes of internal decision malting and potential purchase. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication (either in whole or in part), nor may it be used for any purpose other than the one stated in the Letter of Transmittal and the Purpose of the Report, without the express, written consent of the appraiser and client. Authorized copies of this report will be signed in blue ink by the appraiser(s). Unsigned copies or copies not signed in blue ink should be considered incomplete. All unauthorized or incomplete copies of this report should also be considered confidential, and as such, must be returned, in their entirety, to Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 2. This property is appraised in fee simple, assuming responsible ownership and management, unless otherwise indicated. This appraisal recognizes that available financing is a major consideration by typical purchasers of income-producing real estate in the market, and the appraisal assumes availability of financing to responsible and sufficiently substantial purchasers of the property in amounts similar to those indicated or implied in this report. 3. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. and/or its employees are not qualified to render expert opinions regarding structural issues, water damage, environmental assessments (such as mold), engineering/mechanical issues, ADA and/or building code compliance, land planning, architectural expertise or soil conditions. If requested, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. will recommend qualified experts in these fields to assist the client and/or the appraisal process. 4. The property has been appraised as free and clear of all indebtedness, under responsible ownership and good management unless otherwise set forth in the appraisal. 5. No title search has been made, and the reader should consult an appropriate attorney or title insurance company for accurate ownership data. Unless title problems are specifically brought to our attention, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. assumes that the title is good and marketable and therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. 6. The information contained in this report is not guaranteed, but it has been gathered from reliable sources. The appraiser certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, the statements, information, and materials contained in the appraisal are correct. 7. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature. It is assumed (without survey) that the improvements are located within the legally described property and that the buildings comply with all ordinances except as noted. The furnished legal description is assumed to be correct. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. 8. No analysis of soil conditions was required and none has been made. Unless specifically brought to our attention, all value estimates in this report assume stable soil, and that any necessary soil corrections are to be made at the seller's expense. ii Contingent and Limiting Conditions - Continued Estimates herein are based on the present status of the national business economy and the current purchasing power of the dollar. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based upon current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes in future conditions. 10. A plat map or site survey may have been provided in this report to assist the reader in visualizing the general location and boundaries of the property. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility for its accuracy. We may have provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of any improvements to assist the reader of the report in visualizing them and understanding our determination of their size. Surveys, plans and sketches provided may not be complete or drawn exactly to scale. 11. The market value herein assigned is based on conditions which were applicable at the time the property was inspected and may vary at a later date. 12. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. employees shall not be required to prepare for or appear in court or before any board or governmental body by reason of the completion of this assignment without pre -determined arrangements and agreements. 13. Information in the appraisal relating to comparable market data is more fully documented in the confidential file in the office of the appraiser. All studies and field notes will be secured in our files for future reference. 14. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 15. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 16. We are assuming: 1) that any asbestos or urea -formaldehyde that may have been used in the building materials in the property are in compliance with current statutes and regulations and do not present a health hazard to the public; 2) that lead-based paint has not been used in a manner that would cause health problems for the public using the property; and 3) that the property has not been the site for the dumping of hazardous substances nor is subject to radon gas. If any or all of the above conditions exist, this could have a bearing on the market value of the property. 17. We have noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property (or learned of) during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, we have no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and have assumed that there are no such conditions. We make no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. (Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. will not be responsible for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.) Because we are not experts in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. iii Contingent and Liplifigg Conditions - Continued 18. The value indication provided in this appraisal report is not contingent upon this building complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which became effective January 26, 1992. A handicap analysis has not been completed for this building and has not been considered in the overall value conclusion. The market value of the property could change substantially if alterations are required to comply with ADA regulations. 19. The client agrees that Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. does not by performing the services rendered, assume, abridge, abrogate, or undertake to discharge any duty of client to any other entity. 20. Any use of the appraisal report, by the client, is conditioned upon payment of all fees in accordance with the agreed terms. 21. In consideration for performing the services rendered at the fee charged, Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. expressly limits its liability to five (5) times the amount of the fee paid or $50,000, whichever is less. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. expressly disclaims liability as an insurer or guarantor. Any persons seeking greater protection from loss or damage than is provided for herein, should obtain appropriate insurance. The client shall indemnify and hold harmless the appraisal firm and its employees, against all claims by any third party or any judgement for loss or damage relating to the performance or non-performance of any services by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 22. Unless specifically brought to the appraiser's attention, we will assume that there are no hidden or unexpected conditions of the asset to be appraised that would adversely affect or enhance the value. 23. In the future, if Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. is compelled to produce documents or testify with regard to work performed, the client shall reimburse us for all costs and expenses incurred. 24. In the event of a dispute involving interpretation or application of this agreement, the parties agree that this agreement shall be governed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 25. The conclusion of value reached by Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. is based upon the assumption that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property that might have an impact upon buildability. It is recommended that due diligence be conducted through the local building department or municipality to investigate buildability and whether the property is suitable for development into its highest and best use. Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. makes no representations, guarantees or warranties. 1V SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Type of Property: Location: Zoning: Date of Inspection: Effective Date of Appraisal: Date of the Report: Property Rights Appraised: Land Size: Gross Building Size: Date of Construction: Final Value Estimate: Reasonable Exposure Time: Office 4148 Winnetka Avenue, New Hope, Minnesota CC - City Center December 1, 2014, with subsequent informal inspections December 1, 2014 December 17, 2014 Fee Simple Interest 1.83 acres (79,748 square feet) Per Public Records 205100 square feet (per Ekberg -Petri, Inc.) 1968 $1,105,000 Up to 12 months v TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No. Letter of Transmittal Certification........... . Contingent and Limiting Conditions ........................................... Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions ii ......................... . General Location Map......................................................1 . ...... . . v Purpose of the Appraisal .................................................... Intended Use of the Appraisal 2 ................................................ 2 Intended User(s) of the Appraisal ............................................. 2 Scope of the Appraisal .......... ......................................... ... 2 Property Rights Appraised ............................................... ... 3 Definition of Market Value .................................................. 4 Dates of Importance........................................................4 Brief Area Analysis........................................................ 5 Legal Description..................................................... 7 Ownerof Record.......................................................... 7 Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments Analysis .............................. 8 Zoning................................................................. 9 Flood Hazard Information ................ . ....... . ........... . .............. 9 Property History ................................. ........................9 Subject Property Description ..................................... . .......... 10 Subject Photographs.......................................................13 Highest and Best Use......................................................18 The Valuation Process .................................................... 20 Sales Comparison Approach to Value .................................. . ...... 22 Reasonable Exposure Time.................................................30 Qualifications of the Appraisers ............................................. 31 A;1'IN. 4.1 .IA\ r il.°. i "Al I p41RIV V9 , 1• {+ jf%%cwE■ne •••• -•_ Ete •-, ELK IIIVEII. .-_._'••'•� 01N fMOYR 1�[AR Mrxir .�1YYOYYV / tr"' -• �- • . 44[f _W 'L,N ' mm- � MMEIr � eCEMIM ■IOEVEP WY EMYMEUE 00-01 v D■ROY MEFi � i11NC0 I r flMgw /6 o+■,w<Nr r f.-Z+,`..,'..�r�;' �,Yrta+� � _ +� - � i IocNrPw EIQYIWO .MEMKk ■eEri ..n� Ei IP' l fi P y•i `IYEIEWLL - a ...... eax, ` , �s i `E': 9 i eYi nrxi EsuwP ! `� 3i i •E4c G G' f�ii4+ W at Yru Emws �'�� Y•...+w nrweaw.r, auruNn f.a+EUE�•C Sl 5 / �' { . C Y,IiTN r FAOAX 5 - 1 ura�u +i V r■PIgN MK EY�..r..a GENERAL LOCATION MAP HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 1 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this report is to arrive at a reliable estimate of the market value of the fee simple interest in the real estate for the sole use of our client, the City of New Hope as well as authorized representatives for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL The intended use of the appraisal is for internal decision making and possible purchase of the subject real estate by the City of New Hope. INTENDED USERS OF THE APPRAISAL The intended user of this appraisal report is our client, the City of New Hope, as well as authorized representatives, for purposes of internal decision making and potential purchase. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL This appraisal analysis has not been limited in scope, and was based upon the generally accepted appraisal practices in order to comply with current USPAP Standards. Within this valuation analysis, we have completed the following functions and procedures. (Additional details of our research are included throughout the following pages of this report.) - Made an interior and exterior inspection of the subject property and reviewed building measurements provided by Ekberg -Petri, Inc.; - Familiarized ourselves with the neighborhood and analyzed the surrounding property trends; - Considered and reviewed the historical market, taking into account stability and/or changes; - Based upon our market research and analysis, we have completed the highest and best use analysis for the subject property; - Researched comparable improved sales and analyzed their applicability to the subject, as a means of estimating the market value via the sales comparison approach to value; - Considered market rental rates applicable to the subject property to gain a general understanding of potential annual market rent for the subject property, but did not complete the income capitalization approach to value as credible results can still be obtained by completing the sales comparison approach; HAC14064-Ol."d Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 2 Scope of the Appraisal - Continued - Considered but did not complete the cost approach to value due to the inherent difficulties of estimating functional and economic obsolescence given the age of the building and considering that credible results can still be obtained by completing the sales comparison approach; - Developed an opinion of reasonable exposure time for the subject property to effect a sale at our estimated market value. Sources utilized to obtain this information include the property owner, information contained in our office files, City of New Hope, School District #281 and Hennepin County public records and discussions with other real estate experts, including brokers, buyers, sellers, assessors, and other appraisers. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The subject real estate will be appraised by estimating the market value of the fee simple interest of the real estate. For use in this report, the market value of the fee simple interest in the real estate is subject to the following definition contained on Page 78 of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition: A fee simple estate implies absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE Market value as utilized in this appraisal report conforms to the following definitions obtained from Page 122 of The DictionM of Real EstateLk Fifth Edition, published by the Appraisal Institute. The most probable price that the specified property interest should sell for in a competitive market after a reasonable exposure time, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under duress. The corresponding definition, as provided on Page A-75 in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2014 - 2015 Edition, has been agreed upon by agencies that regulate federal financial institutions in the United States and is provided below. The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. We have developed an opinion of reasonable exposure time within this appraisal. Please refer to that section of the report for details. DATES OF IMPORTANCE The market value for the subject property is estimated as of December 1, 2014. The date of inspection was December 1, 2014 with subsequent informal visits. The date of the report is December 17, 2014. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 4 BRIEF AREA ANALYSIS The subject property is located within the city of New Hope, an inner -ring suburb just northwest of Minneapolis. From its agricultural beginnings in the early 1900's to incorporation as a city in 1953, New Hope has evolved into a community of just over 20,000 residents. The city is located along U.S. Highway #169, which runs along the western border and provides the main access to Interstate Highway #694 to the north and State Highway #55 to the south. Many other county roads and local avenues serve as convenient routes throughout the city as well. After rapid expansion throughout the 1960's, the population of New Hope has dwindled for a number of years, decreasing by 2.6% between 2000 and 2010, with a slight increase predicted through 2012. The median age of the city's residents is 39. The number of households also declined by 2.7% between 2000 and 2010. Median household income increased by 6.5% to $49,833 in that time period, suggesting a sufficient supply of employment opportunities within New Hope and the nearby metropolitan area. The city is home to 420 businesses which provide employment opportunities to local residents. Public School District #281 is the largest employer in the city, providing 2,200 jobs. In addition, there are numerous jobs available in health care, distribution and manufacturing, and ample employment opportunities within commuting distance in the Twin Cities area. A summary of New Hope's demographic statistics is displayed in the chart below. NEW HOPE DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS -1990 TO 2012 Change 1990 2000 2010 2000-2010 Estimated 2012 _Population 21,853 20,873 20,339 -2.6% 20,436 Households 8,507 8,665 8,427 -2.7% 8,437 Median Household Income $36,096 $46,795 $49,833 6.5% $51,593 Source U.S. Census *-2010 Estimated Income from the 2010 American Community Survey, 2012 Estimates from the 2012 American Community Survey The subject neighborhood is predominately commercial in nature with some office and quasi - industrial development as well. Businesses/uses located in the subject neighborhood include: Applebee's, McDonald's, Taco Johns, Life Time Fitness, Pioneer Dental, GNC, Walgreen's, Caribou Coffee, Country Kitchen, Goodyear Tire and School District #281 offices/bus garage. The neighborhood appears stable with limited land remaining for development. The neighborhood can be most conveniently accessed by 42nd Avenue North from the east or west and Winnetka Avenue from the north or south. HAC14064-01.wpd Rosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. CITY MAP HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. ILI Cqmal LE-- W, LIMP 12-0 (9: BAL w C Grove Lfli [SL.' 374,1 A.4 Outh I ILI A 9- molth me"aiel Ph A. Al Pkdm Cmm A Sri- Qgt iA ULT Win W/hn 4y AW Now HWv Golden Valley ei :'LAK 101E A� 14 L 01h A, N tl 444-,: A,, CITY MAP HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. Cqmal LE-- W, LIMP (9: [SL.' 374,1 A.4 Outh 9- molth me"aiel Pkdm Cmm L Md W/hn 4y AW mays of Golden Valley ei :'LAK 101E A� 14 CITY MAP HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The following legal description was provided to us by Hennepin County: Lot 8 Auditor's Subdivision No. 324 Hennepin County, MN OWNER OF RECORD According to public records, the subject property is currently owned by Independent School District #281. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 7 REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ANALYSIS Real estate taxes in Minnesota are payable either in one lump -sum payment or can be paid in two installments which are due on May 15 and October 15. The annual real estate tax charge is based on the assessor's estimated market value as of January 2 of the prior year. The following sections will provide current real estate taxes and assessor's estimated market value(s) for the subject property which we have identified by property identification number (PID). Real Estate Tax Data Real Estate Tax Data (Payable 2014) PLDs Base Tax Specials Total Tax 17-118-21-23-0002 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The subject real estate is considered tax-exempt. Assessor's Estimated Market Value Assessor's Estimated .Market ValL (Payable 2014} PIDs Land Value Building Valuee17-118-21-23-0002 $0 $o The subject property is considered tax-exempt. The assessor has not placed an Assessor's Estimated Market Value on the subject. Special Assessment Information There were no special assessments found in the course of this analysis. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. ZONING The subject property is located within the CC - City Center in the city of New Hope. The purpose of this district "is to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial, office and civic uses in the city center area to enhance its function as the heart of the community." General permitted uses in the CC - City Center include: mixed-use residential and commercial, community centers, government buildings, essential services, public parks, recreation facilities, clinics, financial services, grocery, hospitality businesses, hotel, office, personal service, restaurant, retail, service and auto parking among other uses. The current use of the subject property as an office is a permitted use in the city of New Hope. The subject is guided for mixed use in the comprehensive plan with the City open to a number of potential uses of the subject site if vacant in the future according to the Community Development Specialist for New Hope with an emphasis on higher density and commercial and/or multi -family development. We assume that the current zoning will exist into the foreseeable future, and at this time no major changes are anticipated for the subject property's area. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the subject property is located in Zone X. Zone X corresponds to an area of minimal flooding. This information is found on Community -Panel Numbers 27053CO192E and 27053C0194E, dated September 2, 2004. PROPERTY HISTORY According to public records, the subject property is currently owned by Independent School District #281. There is not a lease in place on the subject property as it is owned and occupied by Independent School District #281. We are not aware of any other material property history items that have occurred in the five years preceding the date of valuation. HAC 14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 9 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of a generally rectangular 1.83 acre land parcel that is developed with a three-story office building. The site is located at 4148 Winnetka Avenue which is on the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue North. The site has good visibility from both roadways. Direct access to the site is provided by full -movement access points along both roadways. The site is generally level, at grade with adjacent roadways and soils are assumed stable. The parking lot appears to be in average condition. The improvements constructed on the subject property consist of a single -tenant office with an above ground building area of 20,100 square feet per Ekberg -Petri, Inc. as well as an additional basement area consisting of approximately 17,632 square feet. An elevator provides access to all floors. The office includes a reception/waiting area, office areas, conference areas, substantial basement storage, mechanical room, kitchen and break room. A separate receiving dock/loading area is located south of the main improvements. This receiving dock/loading area is attached to the main building via the basement with a freight elevator running between the main floor and basement. The building was originally constructed in 1968 by Independent School District #281 with limited renovation of the improvements since. The improvements are in average condition overall with no items of deferred maintenance observed or brought to our attention during the inspection. The improvements consist of poured in place and concrete block construction with a built-up rubber membrane roof covered in rock. External walls are brick and exposed aggregate. Internal finishing of the office areas includes: carpeted and tiled floor, 2x2 acoustical tile ceiling, painted sheetrock walls and recessed fluorescent lighting. The reception area includes wainscoting and painted sheetrock walls, exposed concrete ceiling and tile flooring. The basement finishing includes painted exposed concrete walls, some painted sheetrock walls, exposed and recessed fluorescent lighting, and tile flooring. Ceiling heights of the main and upper levels are generally seven to eight feet with the basement height generally ten feet. Windows are limited to the four corners of each floor (except basement) and are narrow, double -pane and aluminum -framed and appear to be original. The interior is heated by electric rooftop units and cooled by rooftop chiller units, all distributed though ducts. Baseboard electric heating units are located on the floor adjacent to each window. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 10 ' 8ri �rr�rr�lr�i AERIAL MAP HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 11 BIRDSEYE MAP HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 12 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Exterior view of the improvements facing northerly. Exterior view of the receiving dock facing southeasterly. HAC14064-01.wpd Basch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 13 Sub'ect Phota ra hs - Continues! View of the entrance/reception area. View of the reception area/elevator. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 14 Subject Photographs - Continued View of typical office finish. View of the typical office hallway. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 15 Sahirect Phatagranhs - Continued View of internal office area. View of a conference room. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 16 Subject Photographs - Continued View of basement storage area. Internal view of the receiving dock area. HAC14064-O1.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 17 HIGHEST AND BEST USE The highest and best use of the subject real estate as it will be regarded in this appraisal report will conform to the following definition found on Page 277 of The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition: Highest and best use is the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported and financially feasible and that results in the highest value. In order to determine the highest and best use of the subject property, a three-step process is followed, which we have defined as follows: 1. The highest and best use of the site as though vacant is determined. Three options are available to owners of vacant sites: (1) leaving the property vacant; (2) holding the site for a future use, or (3) developing the site. The recommended option must be legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. 2. If development is concluded as the highest and best use of the site as though vacant, the second step would be to determine the ideal improvement. The ideal improvement would reflect state-of-the-art design techniques, legal conformance, and provide the highest value. 3. If the property is currently improved, the final step would be to determine the highest and best use of the property as improved. A comparison is made between the existing improvement and the ideal improvement in order to identify differences. To modify the existing improvements for any differences from the ideal, one of the following five options should pe recommended to the owner: A. Leave the property in its current state. B. Remodel C. Renovate D. Convert E. Demolish to clear the site for redevelopment The recommended option must be legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 18 Highest and Best Use - Continued Highest and Best Use of the Property as Vacant The highest and best use of the property as vacant would be for mixed-use development including multi -family residential and retail/commercial uses taking advantage of the subject's location on the corner of Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue North as conforming to zoning or the comprehensive plan. The reasons for our opinion are as follows: 1. Compatibility of these uses with the current zoning and surrounding land uses. 2. Suitability of the shape, topography, and location of the site. 3. Close proximity to a growing economic base. 4. Average accessibility to major roadways. 5. Good visibility of the site and access via Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue North. Highest and Best Use of the Property as Improved The highest and best use of the property as improved is for continued use as an office building. The reasons for our opinion are as follows: 1. Compatibility of an office building with the current zoning and surrounding land uses. 2. Suitability of the building with the shape, topography, and location of the site. 3. Close proximity to a large residential and growing economic base. 4. Good accessibility and visibility from Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue North. The current use of the property as an office building is the only use of the subject property that provides the highest return on the underlying land while meeting the tests of being legally permissible, physically possible and financially feasible. Our review of comparable improved sales ranging between $53.09 and $107.09 per square foot of above ground building versus the potential land value of the site considering the substantial cost to demolish the improvements indicates the existing office use is still financially feasible as of the date of valuation. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 19 THE VVALUATION PROCESS The valuation process contains many facets. A wide variety of data, including the previously discussed Area Analysis, Subject Site and Improvements Descriptions, and Highest and Best use Analysis, is compiled and utilized to value the property based upon three methods of valuation which are referred to as "approaches". These approaches to value are briefly described as follows: Cost Apnroach In the cost approach, an estimated reproduction or replacement cost of the building and land improvements as of the date of valuation is developed together with an estimate of the losses in value that have taken place due to wear and tear, design and plan, or neighborhood influences. To the depreciated building cost estimate, the estimated value of the land is added. The total represents the value indicated by the cost approach. Sales Comparison ADProach In the sales comparison approach, the subject property is compared to similar properties that have been sold or for which listing prices or offering figures are known, Data for generally comparable properties is used, and comparisons are made to demonstrate a probable price at which the subject property would be sold if offered on the market. Income Capitalization Approach In the income capitalization approach, the rental income to the property is shown with deductions for vacancy and collection loss and expenses. The net operating income of the property is estimated. To support this estimate, operating statements for previous years and comparable properties may be reviewed, along with available operating cost estimates. An applicable capitalization method and appropriate capitalization rates are developed and used in computations that lead to an indication of value. Other methods may also be applied, such as a gross rent multiplier, which reveals the relationship between gross rental income and the sale price of a given income-producing property. Gross rent multipliers are extracted from comparable sales and analyzed, with a reconciled gross rent multiplier applied to the subject's gross rent to render an indication of market value. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 20 The Valuation Process - Continued Inherent within the previous three approaches to value are some basic appraisal principles, which include anticipation, balance, change, externalities, substitution, and also supply and demand. These principles are briefly described below. (These definitions are derived from The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, pages 35-43.) - Anticipation: The perception that value is created by the expectation of benefits to be derived in the future. - Balance: The principle that real property value is created and sustained when contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements are in a state of equilibrium. Change: The result of the cause and effect relationship among the forces that influence real property value. Externalities: The principle that economies outside a property have a positive effect on its value while diseconomies outside a property have a negative effect upon its value. Substitution: The appraisal principle that states that when several similar or commensurate commodities, goods, or services are available, the one with the lowest price will attract the greatest demand and widest distribution. This is the primary principle upon which the cost and sales comparison approaches are based. Supply and Demand: In economic theory, the principle that states that the price of a commodity, good, or service varies directly, but not necessarily proportionately, with demand, and inversely, but not necessarily proportionately, with supply. In a real estate appraisal context, the principle of supply and demand states that the price of real property varies directly, but not necessarily proportionately, with demand and inversely, but not necessarily proportionately, with supply. Explanation of the Reconciliation Process An appraisal is composed of a number of integrated, interrelated, and inseparable procedures that have a common objective -- a condensed, reliable estimate of value. Although the three approaches are seldom completely independent, it is important to note that in certain cases, greater emphasis is placed on a particular approach. The reasons for this are as varied as the properties themselves, and each appraisal must be addressed individually. The appraiser discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each of the approaches to value, and concludes to a final value which reflects the most applicable approaches. Summary In this case, the subject property is an office located in New Hope, Minnesota. As discussed in the previous sections of the report, the area surrounding the subject property is developed and exhibits a substantial residential and growing economic base. After reviewing the pertinent information within our office, and having various discussions with other real estate experts, we have completed the sales comparison approach to value in the analysis of the subject property. The comparable information and our findings are further detailed and reconciled in the following section. HAC14064-O1.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 21 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE The sales comparison approach to value is defined as: The process of deriving a value indication for the subject property by comparing market infonnation for similar properties with the property being appraised, identifying appropriate units of comparison, and making qualitative comparisons with or quantitative adjustments to the sale prices (or unit prices, as appropriate) of the comparable properties based on relevant, market -derived elements of comparison. (The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, Page 175.) The major premise within this approach is that the market value of the subject property is directly related to the prices of comparable, competitive properties. Furthermore, this valuation method not only assumes that both buyer and seller are fully informed about the property, but also that both have general knowledge of the market for that type of property and that the property has been exposed in the open market for a reasonable time. Based upon the previously discussed highest and best use analysis of the subject property, comparable property sales with similar highest and best uses were gathered and analyzed from the metropolitan area. We believe these comparable sales best represent the subject property with respect to location, age, size, design, amenities, and other major characteristics. The comparable market data which is submitted in this report, in our opinion, suggests that the best unit of comparison for the subject real estate should be sale price per foot of above ground gross building area. The application of this unit of comparison produces an estimate of value for a property by comparing it with similar properties of the same type and class which have sold recently in the same or competing areas. The analytical processes utilized in determining the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment as to their similarity with respect to many value factors such as location, date of sale, physical characteristics, and terms of sale. The sale price of those properties deemed most comparable tends to set the value range for the subject property. Further consideration of the comparative data indicates a figure representing the value of the subject property, that is, the probable price at which it could be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer as of the date of the appraisal. The data involved in the application of this process concerns these comparable properties as well as the subject property, and this data will vary with the type of property. Four categories of data, however, are basic and apply regardless of the type of property. They are: 1. Sales prices of comparable properties. 2. Conditions influencing each sale. 3. Location of each property. 4. Description of land and improvements of each comparable property. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 22 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Research revealed a number of real estate transactions in the area available for comparison to the subject real estate. Property sales we regard as most pertinent for estimating the subject's value are summarized in the fact chart below. Characteristic differences between a given comparable sale and the subject might require adjustments to increase the reliableness of that sale as an indicator of value for the subject. Elements of comparison which may warrant adjustments include real property rights, financing, conditions of sale, buyer expenditures immediately after purchase, market conditions (time), and various physical characteristics, such as location, zoning, age and condition, building quality/amenities, size, land -to -building ratio, and others. An explanation of adjustments, a comparable sales location map, and a chart demonstrating our adjustment analysis are provided on the following pages. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 23 COMPARABLE BUILDING SALES FACT CHART Above Ground Sale Price Building Land -to- Per S.F. Sale Location Sale Land Size Building Sale Above No. (Traffic Counts) Date Age Size (Basement?) Ratio Price Ground 1 7777 Washington Ave. S 9/14 1972 146,362 13,660 10.71:1 $889,000 $65.08 Edina, MN (Yes) (46,500) 2 5810 78th St. W 6/14 1981 43,666 17,598 2.48:1 $1,884,542 $107.09 Bloomington, MN (Yes) (11,400) 3 5300 Glenwood Ave. 1/13 1969 50,530 20,700 2.44:1 $1,300,000 $62.80 Golden Valley, MN (No) (113,500) 4 2801 Wayzata Blvd. 5/12 1959 18,005 8,000 2.25:1 $787,500 $98.44 Minneapolis, MN (Yes) (132,000) 5 2151 Hamline Ave. N 7/11 1966 26,136 9,888 2.64:1 $525,000 $53.09 Roseville, MN (No) (24,900) Sub- 4148 Winnetka Avenue 12/14 1%8 79,748 20,100 3.97:1 ?? ?? jeet New Hope, MN (date of (Yes) (33,200) value) Characteristic differences between a given comparable sale and the subject might require adjustments to increase the reliableness of that sale as an indicator of value for the subject. Elements of comparison which may warrant adjustments include real property rights, financing, conditions of sale, buyer expenditures immediately after purchase, market conditions (time), and various physical characteristics, such as location, zoning, age and condition, building quality/amenities, size, land -to -building ratio, and others. An explanation of adjustments, a comparable sales location map, and a chart demonstrating our adjustment analysis are provided on the following pages. HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 23 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Sale #1 - 7777 Washington Avenue South, Edina, MN Sale #2 - 5810 78th Street West, Bloomington, MN HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 24 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Sale #3 - 5300 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, MN Sale #4 - 2801 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 25 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Sale #5 - 2151 Hamlin Avenue North, Roseville, MN HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 26 • � � 'd1: fiZUIYY.I I'\\` tiall'Y' 1'AI'1 A'iT\F'gl,I:,P' .W1ti1f11gH0 , � � 1 •�' Ft'1�9W1 r r-�,R'."._'.- � �.. � ' •' ��v..\ •• � { VfS ' - �I..i � tl__ I FOGit0I1P: r oo[mnRn - 9CMpOMIIi • �. �"� -, _ �� ' wukea�. ' � _ renal � `."""°' `.t .'[„ •�'. � � . ' �' -! 'D '}��..:a. odea . a..+law.�'ti.--+:i'.� . s - i:_.� .4° � rlf �OM+ _ • � - p„W 1 r •ter/ R . e= Q ' � `µ cauaewmra+r �A, pf uolw.• "�' < .aeon - � uuirkes .w n... COMPARABLE BUILDING SALES MAP HAC14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 27 Sales +Com arison Approach to Value - Continued Ad'ustments - Continued Before adjustments for differences, the aforementioned sales indicate a range $53.09 to $107.09 per square foot of above ground building area for the subject property. Each of the sales is used as an office. Sale #1 is the sale of an office building located with high visibility along the west side of U.S. Highway #169 just north of Interstate Highway #494 with access via Washington Avenue South in Edina. The improvements are concrete construction with a brick and stucco exterior and include a walkout basement with windows which has some office function. The property was sold without a tenant in place. The interior was constructed in 1972 and appeared in below average condition on the date of sale. Sale #2 is a 17,598 square foot building that is located in Bloomington along 78th Street West between East Bush Lake Road and State Highway #100 and just north of Interstate Highway #494. The improvements do not have visibility from Interstate Highway #494 or State Highway # 100. The concrete building with a brick and stucco exterior was constructed in 1981. The three level building also has a basement which is used for mechanicals as well as 16 heating parking stalls. The interior has been recently updated. Sale #3 is a 20,700 square foot office located at the southwestern corner of State Highway #100 and Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley. This building has good visibility from State Highway # 100. The real estate has historically been used as a single -tenant office building. The building was purchased with a lease in place as the seller will lease the entire building from the buyer for a period of three years. The brick exterior building was constructed in 1969 and was in average condition at the time of sale. A portion of the main floor is used as heated parking. Sale #4 is a 8,000 square foot building located along Wayzata Boulevard in Minneapolis. The real estate has historically been used as a two-story with basement multi -tenant office building. A portion of the basement contains offices (with windows). The concrete block building was constructed in 1959 and was in average condition on the sale date. Approximately 33% of the building was occupied at the time of sale. The roof, mechanicals and windows had been replaced prior to the sale. This building has visibility from Interstate Highway #394. Sale #5 is a 9,888 square foot building with a brick exterior. This two-story office was constructed in 1966. The improvements were leased at the time of sale to a number of tenants. This property is located three blocks south of State Highway #36 at the southwestern corner of Hamline Avenue North and County Road B West in Roseville. The improvements do not contain a basement. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 28 Sales Comparison Approach to Value - Continued Adjustments - Continued The sales had prices of $65.08, $107.09, $62.80, $98.44 and $53.09 per square foot for Sales #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 respectively. Overall, Sales #1, #3 and #5 are most similar to the subject property in terms of use, age and condition of the improvements at the time of sale. Sales #1 and #5 are smaller in size when compared to the subject while Sale #3 is generally the same size. Before adjustments, Sales #1, #3 and #5 fall in the narrowed range of $53.09 to $65.08 per square foot of gross building area. When considering specific adjustments that would apply to Sale #1, the sale indicates a market value for the subject property that is below the price of Sale #1 of $65.08 per square foot. Sale #1 is of a similar building quality, but Sale #1 has a significantly higher land -to -building ratio and a walkout basement with windows which is superior to the subject. Sale #1 is located in Edina near the junction of U.S. Highway #169/Interstate Highway #494 which is a superior location when compared to the subject. Sale #2, located in Bloomington, north of Interstate Highway #494 and west of State Highway #100, indicates a market value for the subject property that is significantly lower than the price of Sale #2 of $107.09 per square foot. Despite the superior location of this sale, Sale #2 has a generally similar quality of construction; however, this building was constructed in 1981, is newer than the subject and has been recently updated which is a vastly superior trait. This building also has heated basement parking. Sale #3 is located in Golden Valley with good visibility from State Highway #100 (113,500 vehicles per day) and has a similar building size. The improvements were purchased with a single tenant in place for an additional three years. This building does not include a basement. The sale indicates a market value of the subject which is below the price of Sale #3. Sale #4 indicates a market value for the subject property that is significantly below the price of Sale #4 of $98.44 per square foot. Sale #4 has an inferior age but had major items such as roof, windows and mechanicals replaced and upgraded prior to the sale. The basement of this building includes a portion of office space with windows. The improvements of Sale #4 enjoy good visibility from Interstate Highway #394. Sale #5 has the most similar locational characteristics when compared to the subject as it is located at the intersection of two well -traveled roadways. Sale #5 is a concrete block building with a brick exterior. Sale #5 also shares the relatively small windows of the subject. Therefore, after reconciling the adjustment process, it is our opinion that the subject property has a market value between $50 and $60 per square foot of building area, say $55.00 per square foot, which is slightly below the middle of the range of Sales #1, #3 and #5, calculated as follows: 20,100 square feet @ $55.00 per square foot $1,105,500 Rounded to: $1,105,000 HAC 14064-01.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 29 REASONABLE EXPOSURE TIME Exposure time can be defined as the estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective opinion based on an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Reasonable exposure time can differ from actual exposure time. For example, a property may have been exposed at $1,000,000 for two years, which informed market participants considered unreasonable. Then the owner lowered the price to $900,000 and began receiving offers, resulting in a transaction at $800,000 six months later. Although the actual exposure time was 2.5 years, the reasonable exposure time at a value range of $800,000 to $900,000 would be six months. We have researched exposure time for properties similar to the subject property by reviewing information gathered through sales verification and having discussions with various market participants (such as brokers, buyers, sellers, etc.). Summary After reviewing the national and local data, and having discussions with brokers in the marketplace, it is our opinion that a reasonable exposure time for the subject property at our estimated market value would be up to 12 months. HAC14064-Ol.wpd Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 30 QUALIFICATIONS OF NATHAN J. BROOBERG Bio ra hical Data and Education Raised in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Graduated from Fergus Falls Senior High School. Bachelor of Arts degree, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota, in Biology and Geography. Successfully completed the following real estate courses and seminars: Eminent Domain and Condemnation Business Practices and Ethics Real Estate Principles Real Estate Practices Standards of Professional Practice General Applications Professional Qualifications or Associations 14th Annual Real Estate Trends Seminar Residential Construction Case Studies in Highest and Best Use Income Capitalization Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches 2012-13 National USPAP Update Course Certified General Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser — State of Minnesota, License #20249946, Expires August 31, 2016 Professional Experience Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota Real Estate Appraiser March 2005 — present Shenehon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Real Estate Appraiser February 2001 — March 2005 Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate, business enterprises, and intangible property rights. Appraisal assignments have involved numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial, and special purpose properties. These assignments have included mortgage financing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, charitable donations, internal management decisions, allocation of purchase price, and insurance indemnification. Partial Client List Accent Homes Allina Hospitals and Clinics Ames Construction Anchor Bank Babcock Neilson Mannela & Klint Bankwest Boundary Waters Bank BPK&Z Bremer Bank Briggs and Morgan Builders Development & Finance Capmark Finance, Inc. City of Maplewood City of New Hope City of Shoreview Ducks Unlimited Garith Anderson Trucking Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC Henson & Efron Lindquist & Vennum Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP Messerli & Kramer P.A. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources (DNR) Minnesota Dept. of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Minnwest Bank Moss & Barnett MPCA North Haven Church Oppenheimer Donnelly & Wolff LLP Osceola Medical Center Peterson, Peterson & Associates, PLC Pheasants Forever Pipestone County Rosemount National Bank Roseville Area Schools Sioux Steel Company Sovereign Bank State Bank of Hamel Swift County The Business Bank Three Rivers Park District URS Corporation U.S. Bank U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Small Business Association Vic's Crane & Heavy Haul Wells Fargo/RETECHS Wiley Enterprises 31 QUALIFICATIONS OF STEPHEN T. HOSCH, MAI Biographical Data and Education Born and raised in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and graduated from Columbia Heights High School. Attended St. Cloud State University and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Real Estate with an emphasis in appraisal. Successfully completed numerous real estate appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute, as well as attended several seminars covering specialized appraisal topics, some of the more recent of which are highlighted below: IREM - 2013 Annual Forecast - January 2013 13" Annual Real Estate Trends Seminar - May 2011 7"' Annual Land Development Conference - May 2011 IREM - 2010 Annual Forecast - January 2010 Annual RERC - Industry Forecast. 2009 - January 2009 4'b Annual Minnesota Land Development Conference - May 2008 10" Annual Real Estate Trends Seminar - May 2008 Professional Qualifications or Associations Annual RERC - Industry Forecast: 2007 - January 2007 Eminent Domain - November 2006 Land Development & Redevelopment Conference - May 2006 Annual RERC-Industry Forecast: 2006 - January 2006 22"" Annual Deal Estate Institute - November 2004 Mortgage Foreclosures in Minnesota - March 2004 Certified General Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser - State of Minnesota, License #4002903, Expires August 31, 2015 Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) Holding MAI Designation The MAI membership designation is held by appraisers who are experienced in the valuation and evaluation of commercial, industrial, residential and other types of properties, and who advise clients on real estate investment decisions. MAI members are the preferred choice among lawyers to serve as expert witnesses in trials, hearings, and other litigation matters. The Appraisal Institute conducts a mandatory program of continuing education for its designated members and also requires that they comply with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. I am currently certified under the Appraisal Institute education program through December 31, 2016. Member - Institute of Business Appraisers (IBA) Qualified as a court-appointed commissioner in Wright County and Hennepin County Professio ial Experience Hosch Appraisal & Consulting, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota President, February 2005 - present Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate, businesses and intangible property rights. Real estate assignments involve numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial, and special purpose properties as well as land subdivisions, bulk acreage and proposed developments. Business valuation and consulting assignments have included both operating and holding companies. The specific purposes of these assignments have included highest and best use studies, mortgage financing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, special assessment appeals, gift tax, and allocation of purchase price. Court experience involves testifying at commissioner hearings, depositions and trials, preparation of affidavits, and providing litigation support. Qualified as a court-appointed commissioner in Hennepin and Wright Counties. Shenehon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Senior Vice President - Director of Real Estate, November 2003 - January 2005; Shareholder Senior Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, September 2002 - November 2003; Shareholder Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, April 2001 - September 2002; Shareholder Appraiser/Analyst from June 1991 to March 2001. 32 QUALIFICATIONS OF STEPHEN T. HOSCH, MAI - CONTINUED Author/Co-Autlior or Guest Speaker of: "Appraisal Issues in Litigation," Various Minneapolis Law Firms, December 2007 "Creative Opportunities in the Current Real Estate Market," Valuation Viewpoint, Summer 2004 "Business Components and the Valuation of Real Estate," Valuation Viewpoint, Winter 2004 "Challenging Issues in Commercial and Industrial Valuation," Commercial Real Estate Financing Conference, March 13, 2002 "Market Valuation & Appraisals," Minnesota Commercial Association of Realtors, January 22, 2002 "Fundamentals of Special Assessments in Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Spring 1999 "A Perspective on Subdivision Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Winter 1997 Partial Client List Accent Homes Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP Allied Waste Industries McGrann Shea Anderson Carnival Straughn & Lamb Allina Hospitals &.Clinics Merchants Bank, N.A. Ames Construction Messerli & Kramer P.A. Anchor Bank Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) BANKWEST Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Bard and Bard, Ltd. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) BPK&Z Minnwest Bank Best & Flanagan, LLP Moss & Barnett Bremer Bank MPCA Bridgewater Bank Olympic Steel, Inc. Briggs and Morgan Oppenheimer Donnelly & Wolff LLP Boundary Waters Bank Pace Realty Advisors, LLC Builders Development & Finance Peterson, Fram & Bergman, P.A. Capmark Finance, Inc. Peterson, Peterson & Associates, PLC City of Arden Hills Pheasants Forever City of Eagan Pinnacle Commercial Capital City of Fargo Pipestone County City of Maplewood Premier Bank City of New Hope Ramsey County City of Osseo Rosemount National Bank City of Shoreview Roseville Area Schools City of Victoria Sherburne County Fabyanske, Westra & Hart Sioux Steel Company Falcon National Bank SouthWest Transit Fargo Public School District No. 1 Sovereign Bank First National Bank of Elk River Speedway SuperAmerica First Resource Bank State Bank of Hamel Fredrikson & Byron P.A. Stearns Bank Gopher Resources Swift County Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. The Business Bank Grossman Investments, LLC Three Rivers Park District Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC United Prairie Bank Harstad Development University of Minnesota Hennepin County U.S. Bank Henson & Efron U.S. Small Business Administration Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Village Bank Home Federal Savings Bank Warchol Law Office James M. Neilson, Attorney at Law Wells Fargo/RETECHS Kraus -Anderson Realty Co. White Castle System, Inc. Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Wiley Enterprises LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A. Winthrop & Weinstine Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. Lindquist & Vennum 33 All stlSf 18, Mil. 1. Facility Infrastructure Deficiences A. General Facts: ■ City Hall was constructed in 1968. ■ Remodeled projects were done in 1973, 1984, 1992 and 1994 B. Exterior Envelope: 1. Aging/deteriorating roof. JIV_ - ��: Mr, {d 4k AnnII S ; - iii X � }� ` }�,� ': � • B. Exterior- Envelope: -°,• 'I. Aging/deteriorating roof. Rvt *00 , -�� •� �+ ��i �. M1�,k .•@ �.ir��!E� 1 -.\^1~ w �.w .a -fit B. Exterior Envelope: - 2. Exterior walls are poorly insulated. Brick mortar.is_+due for tuckpointing. ~- B. Exterior Envelope: 3. Basement has had water seepage into storage areas. �,, B. Exterior Envelope: A. Inefficient windows are original to the building. B. Exterior Envelope:-.:.�—, 5. Sliding front doors Frequently breaks. 4401 OIL rV _�� C. Mechanical Systems: 1. Boilers lack code -required shu switch. Replaced in 2010. OW C. Mechanical Systems: t 2. Original chillers operate on outdated R-22 refrigerant, Piping leaks. Sprinkler used to avoid overheating. �� ,1 C. Mechanical Systems: 3. Ventilation — Rooftop units are beyond life expectancy. Ductwork volume limited. Temperature regulation is poor. C. Mechanical Systems: a 4. Maintenance/Custodial — Honeywell called 13 times in two years with nearly $80,000 in repair costs. No centralized custodial storage area D. Electrical Systems: 1. No dedicated electrical room. Clearances around equipment is not adequate. T ;r �. 1). Electrical Systems:- �. 300kw standby generator in location' that disturbs theater. 1). Electrical Systems: 3. Distribution — Branch panel boards are full. Shortage of outlets. �n 4 i A D. Electrical Systems: 4. Lighting — Inefficient light fixtures/ diffusers. Old- style light switches. Inefficient exit signs. Wk. .. I$ D. Electrical Systems: 4. Lighting — Inefficient light fixtures/ diffusers. Old- style light switches. Inefficient exit signs. E. Accessibility: 1. Elevator makes building accessible, but unwelcoming. F 1: F. Information Tedmolo( 1. Server room is Former office. Insufficient cooling. Visible cable runs. G. Energy Usage: 1. Electrical Usage - Average cost of $29,000 per year over last two years. 2. Gas Usage - Average cost of $7,500 L-, per year over last two years. 11. Pro -g -r1 41m tic Defiicicr c" A. Police ■ Lack of separation space in lobby ■ Lack of lobby interview rooms M a A. Police ■ Lack of report writing stations, no home for patrol ■ Not enough space for full shift roll call Eli A. Police ■ Police lockers are too small for modern equipment ■ No duty halstorage A Police ■ Evidence room is too small, overflowing ■ Evidence is. transferred in public hallway ■ Large property is unsecured if000 - - - f �l I_ A. Police ■ Clerks space is small and at capacity B. Police Garage - -- ■ Not enough space to house all vehic es • Small bays cause damage to vehicles ■ Sallyport used as overflow storage C. Public Spikes r111c1 Meetin Rooms: ■ Underutilized lower level entry lobby Multiple service counters are confusing C. Public Spaces and Meeting Rooms ■ Stairway down to police space is a risk ■ Not enough conference rooms For staff and community groups. D. Council Chambers'""—"�" ■ No table/chair storage exists ■ Cable TV control room is too small and 4 inadequately cooled ■ Council dais doesn't seat enough people 1 ,rte E. City Manager ■ Counters are too big to be staffed by one ■ No medium sized conference rooms ■ No workspace for mayor or council �1 i F. Administrative Services ■ Communications office is remote from rest of department ■ No dedicated work bench or storage For ■ , A cash handling and safe room is needei --MAR L r' _ �L G. Community Development ■ Offices are too small For plan reviews ■ No indoor vehicle parking ■ Plan set storage is getting Full El ,, . H. larks and Recreation ■ Public counter is too small For high- volume signups ■ Program storage is upstairs, difficult to move items H. Parks and Recreation ■ Gymnastics gym is rented space outside of the city (2,739 sq: ft plus 100 sq. ft. storage) ■ Rental fee is $14,517, $18,998 and $21,815 over last three years - I WCL QL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 City of New Hope Space Needs Study City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 , 00,0 *_;go 0 RE -MODEL EXISTING BUILDING FOR CITY HALL USE 2 STORY ADDITION FOR POLICE DEMOLITION OF `PARKS AND RECREATION' ADDITION INCLUDING POLICE GARAGE OPTIONAL ADDED PROGRAM OF GYMNASTICS GYM IS POSSIBLE - THIS SITE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR A TENANT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKING WaL MW ADJDMO SITE. OPTION �` rt TF/kifii7, LIFT M1 al "WE rF T 4 ". wy •'�je-al-�-`. 1' ` "t ,._ -.ice JJ w�rr yk ve SP'I� �.'s ti'Ny Y .. _ ,1 ..i 9 .� yf `46 �•L � �• ! �rs 8' EXISTING SUILOIN SITE PLAN 0 120' 240' City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 W= L POLICE 1,100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf Y 200 ADMINISTRATION 2.617 sf ? 300 PATROL 3,647 sf 1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1.456 sf 1600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -17080UIET/MOTHERSRM 108sf -1 709 BEVERAGE STATION 97;f 12,241 sf X12 14,689 sf LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS - 2-10D PUBLIC SPACE 6804 sl 6,804 sl x12 CITY HALL 8116531 2 200 CITY MANAGER 1 S75 sl 2.300 FINANCEIHR 1,910 sl 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1.898sl 5,683 sf x_.1,-2 sf 6,819 sf GARAGE 1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 sf _ A1.2 624 sf -3200POLICE GARAGE 11.1805f POLICE 11,804 sf -1.500HOLDING 2,1845t -1 700 SUPPORT SPACES 5,448 sf 7,632 W 9,159 st CITY HALL - 2500 PARKS AND REC 2.311 sf 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1,527 sl 2.309-12 W sT 4,459 s1 x1-2sf 5,351 sf GARAGE - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 1,1703f OPTION - -- ----- - -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 sf City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 4 fes- �1 PoL10E �X{ rrw Por City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 POLICE GARAGI OPTIONAL GYMNASTICS GYMNASIUM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 2. COSTS BASE PROJECT ADDMON/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS 40,000 SF x $220 SF = $8,800,000 REMODEL AREA 18,000 SF x $80 SF = $1,440,000 DEMOLITION $45,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 MAINTENANCE 18,000 SF x $80 SF = $1,440,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $11,925,000 EST. PROJECT COST $11,295,000 x .35 = $4,175,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $16,100,000" 'PARK FUNCTION RELOCATION COSTS NOT INCLUDED City of New H®pe SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GYMNASTICS GyM ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST. PROJECT COST $800,000 x .35 = $280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,080,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KITCHEN ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS" 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST $99,000 x .35 = $35,000 BASE PROJECT $134,000 TOTAL KITCHEN WOULD BE 600 SF. 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT I ADYANTA GESIDIS.A D VANTAGES ADVANTAGES - UTILIZE EXISTING BUILDING - TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING PARKING - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BUILDINGS - KEEPS PROMINENT FRONTAGE DISADVANTAGES -REQUIRES RELOCATION OF SOME PARK FUNCTIONS (THEATHER ETC.) - SOME DISRUPTION TO CITY DEPARTMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION -SHORT RELOCATION OF CITY HALL DURING REMODEL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 - CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING WITH TWO VIABLE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OPTION A: TUCK UNDER GARAGE OPTION B: TWO LEVEL POLICE - NEW BUILDING WOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF THE EXISTING CITY HALL/POLICE STATION - OPTIONAL ADDED PROGRAM OF GYMNASTICS GYM IS POSSIBLE THIS SITE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR A TENANT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKING F 49 PARK OPTION 51TE PIAN TUrK UNMF-R. GAGM 0 120' 240' City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 7`77,777, 49 PARK OPTION 51TE PIAN TUrK UNMF-R. GAGM 0 120' 240' City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 TUCK UNDER GARAGE STACKING DIAGRAM LAY _ _— Qui;£ —_~_11 LEVEL LEVEL 1 POLICE -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200ADMINISTRATION 2.617sf -1300 PATROL 3.647 sf - 1 400 IWESTIGA11ONS 1,456 sf 1500 HOLDING 2,164 sf,� 1500 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf * a 1700 SUPPORT SPACES 5,654 sr 19,874 sf f r r r r X 1.2 r 23.849 sf lr ne-a�,n LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS 2100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,604 sf 2 600 SHARED SPACE sf 1AL9 8,331 sf 9.997 sf CITY HALL 2.20D CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf 2 300 FlNANCEAT/HR 2,531 sf 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,am sf 2 500 PARKS AND REC sf Mil 8.615 sf X12 14338 sf OPTION _ -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 sf GARAGE 3100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf 1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 s 12,704 sf w r P �• r4r LEVEL_2 44,184 SF LEVEL 1 12,704 SF City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 EARKSM OPTION TUCK UNDER GARAGE MASSING OLKE t -f ~ POLICE GARAGE PUBLIC ENTRY OPTIONAL GYMNASTICS GYMNASIUM i ,l City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ar.r.-+F+..•.a.s&=�::�c GnT MALL5 P PAH9mPti"�i�p} i- � r C { TWATEW it ILAI f ° s Cr3C�T `'► __� a p y1l. { -. «iW Fi e IF yr ,ar r PARK OPTION SITE PLAN - T�NO LEVEL POLICE 0 120` 240' City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 TWO LEVEL POLICE STACKING DIAGRAM POLICE 1 100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf 1200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf 1 300 PATROL 3,847 sf 1400 INVESTIGATIONS 1456sf 6,615 sf 8,7(4 sf A 1.2 13,404 sr — 10,338 sf 10,445 sf LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS 2100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf 2 6D0 SHARED SPACE51. 27 s1 8,331 sf x12 9,997 sf CITY HALL I`t'. P(1LiCE POLIC 2200 CITY MANAGER 1.875 sf 2.300FINANCEATff 2,531 sr -2400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1.898 sf -25MPARKS AND REC 2311 -sf 11.170 sf 6,615 sf x i_2 A 1.2 13,404 sr — 10,338 sf 11,180 s< 320D CITY HALL GARAGE -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 sf POLICE -1500 HOLDING 2.184 sf 1600 EVIDENCE 3.332 sf 1,700 SUPPORT SPACES 654 s 11.170 sf x i_2 -GARAGE.-- 13,404 sr — 3100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 s< 320D CITY HALL GARAGE 900s1 -1 BOD GARAGE SUPPORT 624 s! 12,704 sf LEVEL 2 30,781 SF LEVEL 1 -�.-- - 26,106 SF City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 1 OPTIONAL GYMNASTICS GYMNASIUM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 2. COSTS. "uuk ANltNlIltl THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING -THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SITE DEVELOPMENT ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GyheqASnCS GyM NEW ADDITIONS EST. CONSTRUCTION COST EST. PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDMON/REMODEL SITE 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 x .35 = $280,000 $1,080,000 iUiru, nitUMLIN WVULV BE 600 SF. 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT 3. AD-V-AbUAGESLDISAD-VANTA-GES ADVANTAGES - BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS SMALLER - NO DISRUPTION TO CITY DEPARTMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING PARKING - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BUILDINGS DISADVANTAGES - SOME GRADING TO MAKE WORK - REQUIRES SOME RELOCATION OF PARK FUNCTIONS (THEATHER ETC.) - SITS BACK IN SITE NEAR NEIGHBORHOOD City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 r+ V City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 -OL.. l&QCT. Sr7E ,ON NEW BUILDING OPTION ON SITE OF CURRENT BUS GARAGE. ENOUGH SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE CITY HALL, POLICE, AND DISTRICT OFFICE SHARED PUBLIC MEETING SPACES AND CENTRAL PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE REDUCE COSTS. STACIOTG DIAGRAM POLICE 1 100 PUBLIC SPACES 1200 ADMINISTRATION 1.300 PATROL 1400 INVESTIGATIONS 1.500 HOLDING 1.600 EVIDENCE -1700 SUPPORT SPACES GARAGE... - - - -3.100 POLICE GARAGE -3-200 CITY HALL GARAGE -1.600 GARAGE SUPPORT 784 sf 2.617 sl 3,847 sf 1.456 s1 2.164 sf 3,332 sf 5654 sf 19,874 sf X12 —_23.84951 11,180 sl 900 st 520 x 1.2 sf 12.704 sf City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 DISTRICT OFFICE DISTRICT OFFICE _ ^37,000sf OPTION -GYMNASTICS GYM UODsf MEETING ROOM SUITE 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 4 6,804 sf 2 600 SHARED SPACE 1,527 sf 6,331 sf x12 CITY HALL 9,997 sf 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf 2.300 FWANCF,ATA4R 2,531 sf -2.400 COMM DEVELOPMENT 1,698 sf - 2500 PARKS AND REG 2,311 sf 8.615 sf X 1.2 10.338 sf 2. CASTS CITY HALL/POLICE NEW ADDITIONS" REMODEL AREA DEMOLITION" SITE DEVELOPMENT""" EST. CONSTRUCTION COST EST. PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST ASSUMES 3000 SF OF PROGRAMMATIC SAVINGS 'ASSUMES DEMOLITION OF BUS GARAGE ONLY "`ASSUMES RE -USE OF ABOUT 40 EXISTING PARKING SPACES City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE 54,000 SF x $220 SF = 11,880,000 0 SF x $8o SF = $0 $100,000 143 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $572,000 $12,552,000 $12,552,000 x ,35 = $4,393,000 $16,945,000 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KITCHEN NEW ADDITIONS" EST. CONSTRUCTION COST EST. PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL KITCHEN WOULD BE 60o SF. 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 x .35 = $35,000 $134,000 Request for Action C� Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager August 18, 2014 Work Session Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager By- Kirk McDonald 11.1 Update on space needs study (project 926) Requested Action Staff requests to present an update on the police facility/city hall space needs study and receive feedback and direction from the Council. Staff continues to work with Wold Architects on data to identify the need for a new facility, and have started the preparation of a preliminary presentation which will be reviewed with the Council. Staff has also continued discussions with District 281 and Wold regarding a potential joint city/school district facility, and staff wants to update the Council and seek direction on next steps. Representatives from Wold Architects will be present. Policy/Past Practice Staff provides updates to, and seeks direction from the City Council on a number of projects. The City Council previously approved a police department/city hall space needs analysis study with Wold Architects, and several work sessions have also been held with the District 281 Board regarding a potential joint facility. Background 1. Identify_negd for new police department] city ha[l facility Staff has been working with Wold to better define the need for a new police department/city hall facility. Per the attachments, staff met with Wold on June 23 to develop a plan to gather data related to the current facility needs. The group met again at the end of July, and Wold presented an outline of facility infrastructure deficiencies and programmatic deficiencies. The communications coordinator has prepared a preliminary power point presentation to coordinate with the Wold outline, and staff would like to review the presentation with the Council to see if we are on the right track and get your feedback. Per the meeting outline I prepared, we will need to include community members and conduct open houses in the future if a new facility will be constructed, so we are considering this as a start to that process. 2. Potentia[Join t facility with District 281 Staff has met several times with a representative from District 281 and representatives from Wold Architects, representing both the city and District 281, in follow up to the direction provided at the May 13, 2014, joint work session between the two entities. The concept of a joint facility was also discussed at a July work session of the District 281 Board. The feedback received from that meeting is as follows: Motion by Second by To: i�7- I:/RFA/CityManager/2014/Q-UpdateSpaceNeedsStudy 081814 Request for Action, page 2 August 18, 2014 • The District is agreeable and interested in continuing discussions with the city regarding the potential of a joint facility. • The District wants the city to make a proposal to purchase the school District property. • The District is interested in the city building the joint facility with the District leasing their portion of the building • The bus garage would either be relocated or discontinued. That decision would be up to the District. If the garage was relocated, the city would assist in identifying potential relocation sites. • If the city purchased the entire site, and the bus garage was relocated, and a new joint facility constructed on the south portion of the property, the current administration building could be demolished, with that corner location available for redevelopment. Wold Architects has prepared the attached correspondence outlining the benefits of a joint facility, and the potential cost savings that could be achieved. If the City Council wants to continue to pursue the joint facility alternative, staff recommends the Council provide direction to staff as follows: 1. Seek quotes for appraisals on the school district property and present to the Council at a regular council meeting in the future, or the action to direct staff to seek quotes could be placed on a regular council agenda. Authorize staff to work with Ehlers and Wold on a potential financing plan, based on the feedback received from the District, with the city acquiring the property, building the facility and leasing a portion to the District. Demolition and environmental cleanup costs for both the bus garage and administration building would also need to be taken into consideration. Attachments Wold Architects correspondence Identify Need For New Police Department And City Hall Facility WoL City of New Hope Police Station & City Hall Needs Assessment July 30, 2014 Video Table of Contents I. Facility Infrastructure Deficiencies Photo of RTUs A. General Facts 6" Photo of Ductwork 1. Age of Building: 1968 Original Building Photo of Dedication Plaque 2. Numerous Additions and Remodelings already. Birdseye view showing original bldg. a. 1973 Garage Addition Birdseye view showing 1973 Addn b. 1984 City Hall Renovation Birdseye view showing 1984 Addn c. 1992 Park & Rec Addition Birdseye view showing 1992 Addn d. 1994 City Hall & Police Remodel Birdseye view showing 1994 Remodel B. Exterior Envelope Photo of typical heater 1. Aging/deteriorating roof Photo of roof ballast and patches a. Cost to repair over last 2 years = $5,453.78 Photo of stained ceiling tiles b. Replacement cost of roof estimated at $200,000 2. Exterior walls are poorly insulated. Photo of brick wall at large scale a. Brick mortar is due for tuckpointing. Detailed photo of brick and failing mortar 3. Basement has had water seepage into storage areas Photo of puddles? 4. Inefficient windows are original to the building Close-up photo of windows 5. Sliding Front Door frequently breaks Photo/Video of Entry door a. Repaired 5 times in 2 years = $3,702.23 C. Mechanical Systems 1. Boilers Photo of boiler a. Boiler burners were replaced in 2010 b. No code required shut off switch on the outside of each of the boiler exits Chillers Photo of chiller a. Original 38 ton McQuay air cooled chiller operates on R-22 refrigerant b. Leaks in refrigerant piping = frequent Freon fills c. Sprayed with sprinkler to prevent overheating Photo of chiller sprayed by sprinkler d. Near the end of its useful life e. Two pipe system puts building in either heating or cooling mode with no shoulder season resulting in need for personal temp control: 12 fans, 10 heaters 3. Ventilation a. Two rooftop units are 10 years past their life Photo of RTUs b. Ductwork distributing cool air is mostly limited to 6" Photo of Ductwork due to limited clearance above ceilings c. The pneumatic control system is obsolete and Photo of thermometer/stat requires manual switching d. Thermostats in Park & Rec are not functional e. Temperature regulation in Parks & Rec is poor f. Supplemented by (12) fans in summer Photo of typical fan g. Supplemented by (10) personal heater Photo of typical heater S:/Ci-NewHope/132077/Needs Presentation/Video Table of Confents Page 1 Commission No.132077 City of New Hope w ! Police Station & City Hall Needs Assessment July 30, 2014 4. Maintenance/Custodial a. Honeywell has made repairs 13 times in two years b. Repairs/maintenance over last two years = $79,248.23 c. No centralized maintenance storage area exists Photo of scattered, packed closets D. Electrical Systems 1. Main Electrical Service Photo of main electrical panel. a. Main service disconnect is original. b. No dedicated electrical room exists (against code) c. Clearances around equipment not enough Photo of tight boiler room 2. 300 kw Standby generator Photo of generator a. Located in a position that disturbs the theater 3. Distribution a. Many branch panelboards are full Photo of full panelboard b. A deficiency of outlets has led to prolific use of Photo of extension cords/plug strips extension cords and plug strips 4. Lighting a. Inefficient 2x4 parabolic fixtures in offices Photo of light fixture b. No efficient lighting control (against code) Photo of light switches c. Light levels in Chambers appears to be low d. Exit lights are old, inefficient style Photo of exit lights e. Emergency lighting is old, inefficient style Photo of emergency lighting E. Accessibility 1. Elevator makes building accessible, but unwelcoming Photo of elevator from lobby F. Information Technology 1. Head End Server Room Photo of server room rack a. Former office converted to server room b. Insufficient and not redundant cooling available Photo of server room cooling c. All cabling is CAT 5 d. No structured cable plant = visible cable runs Photo of cable runs in open G. Energy Usage Photo of electric meter spinning 1. Electrical Usage a. 2011: 323,360 kWh costing $30,241 b. 2012: 304,560 kWh costing $27,630 2. Gas Usage Photo of gas meter spinning a. 2011:10,824 therms costing $8,857 b. 2012: 8,570 therms costing $6,078 3. Total Building Energy Usage a. 2011: 82 kBTU/sf/year b. 2012: 71 kBTU/sf/year S:/Ci-NewHope/132077/Needs Presentation/Video Table of Contents Page 2 Commission No.132077 WCL Ill. Programmatic Deficiencies A. Police 1. Lack of separation space in lobby 2. Lack of lobby interview rooms 3. Lack of report writing stations, no home for patrol 4. Not enough space for full shift roll call 5. No duty bag storage 6. No hard interview room brings suspects into office 7. No evidence processing space exists 8. Evidence storage is too small, overflowing 9. (Evidence is transferred in a public hallway) 10. Large property is unsecured 11. No staff training area means travel time, not patrol time 12. Required juvenile separation can't be achieved 13. Clerks space is small and at capacity 14. Police lockers are too small for modern equipment 15. No SWAT storage room exists 16. No armory, gun cleaning room exists B. Police Garage 1. Not enough space to house all high-tech vehicles 2. SWAT truck must park outside 3. Bays that are too small causes damage to vehicles 4. No vehicle exhaust system or make up air unit 5. Sallyport used as overflow storage C. Public Spaces & Meeting Rooms 1. Underutilized lower level entry lobby 2. Multiple public service counters are confusing 3. Exit stair down to staff only (police) space is risk 4. Not enough conference rooms for staff use D. Council Chambers 1. No table/chair storage exists 2. Council dais doesn't seat enough people (9 wanted) 3. Cable TV control room is way too small and not cooled E. City Manager 1. Public service counters are too big to be staffed by one 2. No medium conference room exists for Dept. head mtg 3. No secure ballot storage exists 4. No workspace for Mayor or council members F. Finance/ Human Resources/ Information Technology 1. Communications office is remote from rest of group 2. No dedicated work bench or storage room means parts are left out in the open office area 3. Minimal area to set up/decommission equipment 4. A separate cash handling and safe room is needed City of New Nope Police Station & City Hall Needs Assessment July 30, 2014 Photo of police lobby Photo of report stations Photo of officers standing during roll call Photo of typical duty bag storage cabinet Photo of investigator office with suspect Photo of evidence room Photo of hallway Photo of large evidence Collage of typical training facilities Photo of clerks space Photo comparison of typical lockers to yours Photo of SWAT equipment unsecured Photo of typical armory Photo of garage Graphic of $ saved parking vehicles indoors Photo of SWAT truck Photo of squad pulling in to garage Photo of lower level lobby Photo of counters Photo of control room Photo of chairs stacked in the back of room Photo of council dais Photo of control room Photo of counter Photo of existing small conference room Plan graphic of department locations Photo of IT cubicle S:/Ci-NewHope/132077/Needs Presentation/Video Table of Contents Page 3 Commission No.132077 City of New Hope r Police Station & City Hall Needs Assessment July 30, 2014 G. Community Development 1. Offices are too small for plan reviews to occur Photo of plans laid out in a small office 2. No indoor vehicle parking is available 3. Dual public counter is confusing to public Photo of two public counters 4. Storage of plan sets is getting full Photo of plan storage room H. Parks & Rec 1. Public Counter is too small for high volume sign-ups Photo of public counter a. Minimal space for public to fill out forms b. Public terminal is too remote for staff to help c. Not enough space for program brochure display 2. Program storage is upstairs, difficult to move items Photo of program storage 3. Gymnastics gym is a rented space outside of the city Photo of Sandburg gym a. Ceiling height is too low b. Size is 2,739 sq ft, plus 100 sq ft storage area c. Fees cost $14,517, $18,998 & $21,815 last 3 years S:/Ci-NewHope/132077/Needs Presentation/Video Table of Contents Page 4 Commission No. 132077 WCL City of New Hope Police Station & City Hall Needs Assessment July 30, 2014 Police Station Space Comparisons Municipality Year of Occupancy Population Sworn Staff Civilian Staff (2) Total Staff Facility Size in Square Feet Calls for Service Average Calls/Sworn Apple Valley 1994 45,527 48 14 62 38,700 38,336 618 Blaine (1) 2001 1 45,000 41 15 56 30,000 30,200 736 Brooklyn Center 1999 28,887 43 24 67 31,000 28,303 658 Burnsville 1989 58,700 66 15 81 26,500 28,303 428 Cottage Grove 2010 35,181 48,050 Eagan 1995 62,000 65 30 95 28,000 43,804 673 Edina (1) 2003 47,465 47 19 66 42,500 26,000 468 Inver Grove Hghtsl'I 2010 1 33,800 35 7 42 33,587 23,000 657 Lakeville 2008 55,954 52 35 87 39,000(3) 38,720 445 Minnetonka 1989 53,083 56 21 77 1 23,000 47,128 612 Plymouth (1) 2005 62,549 60 16 76 43,000 47,154 785 Prior Lake 2006 22,796 22 6 28 30,000 10,988 499 Ramsey 111 2006 21,000 30 28 58 38,000 14,000 466 Richfield 2011 35,000 42,241 St. Louis Park 1993 42,700 50 14 64 26,000 N/A N/A Shakopee 2003 22,192 31 7 38 32,000 18,646 601 South St Paul (1) 2007 20,160 27 27 54 17,800 19,000 352 West St Paul 1_969 19,540 30 33 63 11,036 26,110 870 Average 42,787 1 47 19 66 29,292 28,461 526 New Hope 1968 20,339 1 31 16 47 13,414 16,000 516 Notes: 1) Areas include indoor Squad Car parking & storage for partial or complete fleet. 2) Civilian staffing totals include full time supports staff as well as part time chaplains and reserves. 3) Does not include 39,000 SF of underground parking, of which a large portion is squad garage. S:/Ci-NewHope/132077/Needs Presentation/Police Station Comparisons Page 1 Commission No. 132077 Imp architects engineers www.woldae.com 305 Saint r eipr Street Sam[ Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 (773 fax 651 223 5646 rrai19woIIae.coIr Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado memorandum To: Kirk McDonald From: Joel Dunning .1D Date: July 3, 2014 Comm. No: 132077 Subject: City of New Hope Police/City Hall Space Needs Study June 23, 2014 Core Group Meeting Minutes Attendants: Rich Johnson, Director of Human Resources Kirk McDonald, City Manager Tim Fournier, Chief of Police Roger Axel, Building Official Cheryl Skalsky, I.T. Coordinator Susan Rader, Parks and Recreation Jeff Sargent, Community Development Specialist Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers rjohnson@ci.new-hope.mn.us kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us tfo urn ier@ci.new-hope.mn.us raxel@ci,new-hope.mn.us cskalsky@ ci.new-hope.mn.us srader@ci.new-hope.mn,us jsargent®ci.new-hope.mn.us jbeck@ ci,new-hope.mn.us jdunning@woldae,com A meeting was held to discuss the next steps on the study of the City Hatl/Police Space Needs. Discussion Topics: A. Developing a presentation which demonstrates all of the deficiencies of the existing facility (justifying the need by the end of the summer is an objective), B. The goal is a slide show of photos and text. Jerry suggested that a voice over reading providing narration would be effective. C. Departments Heads should contribute ideas of needs. D. Wold should get Cottage Grove and Richfield's presentations. E. Look at fuel savings, fleet savings, carbon footprint savings of garage should be included, F. Code Issues: 1. Exterior envelope has been upgraded. But mechanical system has not, so it is working overtime. 2, Accessibility to back side of Parks and Recreation conference room, 3. Energy Code. G. No building wide paging system. H. An outline should cover what photo is needed and what it is trying to be demonstrated. I. A comparison of similar local police departments square footages per officer could also be informative, J. Wold suggested that photos and data should try to fall into two categories: 1. Where the facility is physically failing. 2. Where effective public service is affected. K. The next steps are to develop an outline of the script of a power point. Departments should send ideas to Wold by July 11. cc: Ben Beery, Wold CV/ci_newhope/132077/mins/6.23.14 Care Group designers and researchers for public environments Memorandum To: Space Needs Study Committee Wold Architects From: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Date: June 23, 2014 Subject: Next steps with city hall/police department space needs study Listed below are some of my ideas on the next steps we need to take with the space needs analysis. These steps will need to be taken regardless of whether we remodel/expand the existing facility, build a new city hall/police department facility with community space and gym facilities on city property, or build a new joint facility with District 281. Some of these ideas are based on feedback that has been provided by the city council and/or city staff. I would recommend the following steps be reviewed and discussed: 1. Develop a presentation that better defines the need for a new city public facility (this summer). 2. Continue discussions with District 281 (ongoing). 3. Share the presentation for the city facility with the city council at a work session and get feedback (end of summer/fall). Provide a tour for the city council and identify the areas with deficiencies. 4. Revise or update the plan. 5. Invite commissioners and other interested stakeholders to be involved in the space needs discussion, provide presentation and tour, similar to Richfield format (fall). 6. Work on a financing plan (ongoing). 7. Conduct open house and make presentation to public (late fall/winter). More specifics on #1 presentation that defines the need: • While Wold has done a great job preparing concept plans and cost estimates, we need specific data to include in a presentation including photos, narrative explanations, possible video, facts and figures on long terms replacement costs, current operational and repair costs, costs to be saved with energy efficiency improvements, etc. This should probably be a joint effort between city staff and Wold. Everyone on the committee can contribute. • Work on gathering photos/data and meet end of July to brainstorm on how information can be presented. • Wold, Jerry, Tim, Val work on final presentation. Areas of DeficienciesINeed • Building code issues — Roger General building components: ✓ Year building built/remodels (Val) ✓ Roof Ages of roof Cost to replace (Wold) ❖ Number of roof leaks last three years (Val) ❖ Cost to have repaired (Val) ✓ Heating/Cooling ❖ Monies spent on Honeywell last three years to turn on/off heat/cooling (add up all Honeywell invoices) Monies spent on last component ($10,000 for compressor) ❖ Cost to replace in future (Wold) Boiler — how old, how much to replace ❖ Fact that many employees use space heaters to stay warm ❖ Fact that many employees use fans to cool off ❖ Energy bills last three years. for city hall ❖ Photos of roof/AC/boiler room, ceiling tiles, etc. ✓ Electronic front door • Gym Space (Susan) ✓ Cost of leasing gym space — last three years ✓ Deficiencies with leased space ❖ Ceiling height ❖ Travel distance ❖ Photos • IT — Cheryl ✓ Cramped working/set up and storage space (photos) ✓ Other • Community Development (Jeff) ✓ Storage of plans ✓ Cramped front office area 0 Page 2 Police Department (Tim) ✓ Cramped police clerk office space ✓ Not enough offices (shared) ✓ Evidence room ✓ Jail space, etc. ✓ Squad garages are too narrow creating difficulty in backing out of garages ❖ Many outside mirrors broken off Increased costs for parts Increased workload for mechanics to repair Other ideas of deficiencies/facts to highlight in needs presentation. 0 Page 3 4. OUR APPROACH Facility Planning Process Long Range Facility turfy: Cour Approach Step 1: Teaming Gather Data Begin collaboration discussion with City project leaders regarding expectations, goals, past findings, political issues, etc. to establish clear understanding and open, clear lines of communication. Confirm DataS#ep 2: Data Gathering m le pre-exis ing ata on building floor plans, building usage, and utility data. Augment data with site visits and documentation of exis_tin conditions as part of our Facility Analysis process. 9 Analyze • Impacts * Costing • Advantages /'disadvantagrr Community Outreach Step 3: Confirm Data / Create Facts Re -check and confirm data, establish baseline facts. Step 4: Analyze Facts / Agreed Upon Need Identify trends, facility, financial or political scenarios which will require a facility response. Develop agreement on size and scope of need. Step 5: Program Development The finite set of space needs will create the facility response options. Step 6: Analyze Impacts to Options and Costing Collaborate with City administration in the analysis of each facility response to related issues: » Operational costs » Stakeholder » Transportation costs » Investments » Construction costs » Municipal impact » Neighborhood impact » Others Step 7: Analyze Advantages and Disadvantages The Wold team and City Leadership collaboration on possible real and perceived advantages and disadvantages to each facility response. Outreach to site-based and/or community with open forum to seek additional advantages/disadvantages input. Step 8: Summarize Findings Summarize and simplify findings into concise, legible reports to allow for easy understanding of facts. » Review with project leader for suitability and context. Step 9: Multi-level Presentation a.Lmmarize» Prepare presentation material(s) for various report needs including City Council, Administration, Web Site, etc. j » Interaction with City Council to further gather input and reaction to findings and options Presentation Step 10: Revisions Based Upon Broader Input Upon further input and confirmation, final report would be drafted to reflect discussions and conclusions, Publish and document final Space Needs Assessment as desired by the City of j New Hope. 10 City of Nen.,'] Hope // Ni micipal FaCihtiot s Space Needs Assessment WSL OUR APPROACH Step 2: Existing Facility Analysis Wold staff can investigate your current facilities physical conditions and deficiencies. From this information we will determine issues and develop solutions that improve conditions and eliminate deficiencies. We do this by spending time in your buildings, visiting with the "users" of the facilities and identifying needs and issues. These needs and issues are prioritized, with your input, costs are assigned and all information is analyzed. The findings are then compiled into a user-friendly tool on which New Hope can rely to develop long-range goals. Our Facilities Assessment explores conditions and deficiencies in twelve important areas: SITE The site and its surroundings including parking areas EXTERIOR The exterior envelope, roof, windows, walls, coping and doors INTERIOR The condition of the interior spaces, components and finishes ACCESSIBILITY ' Analyze and Addresses the overall handicapped accessibility conformance of the facility (ADA Compliance) LIFE SAFETY Explains life safety and code deficiencies as discovered during field observation HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Including the City's records of environmental assessments concerning asbestos materials, lead present and any water issues MECHANICAL SYSTEMS The existing mechanical systems/components and their known and discovered deficiencies ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS The existing electrical systems/components and their known and discovered deficiencies STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS The load-bearing masonry, concrete and steel components and their known and discovered deficiencies Meet with building representatives to understand space and PROGRAM relationship deficiencies relative to current curriculum delivery and ideal settings EXPANDABILITY Addresses the factors involved in any increase in building size or modification of the facilities. TECHNOLOGY Documents the existing non -direct technology systems and components and their known deficiencies 1 % City of Ne%,Pj Hope Winicipal Facilities Space Needs Assessment WCL OUR APPROACH Detailed Facility Analysis Work Plan Wold's understanding and knowledge of your facilities brings added value to your process. We can hit the ground running! Wold will help you achieve your Facilities Assessment goals through the following steps: STEP 1 - Establish Format, Protocols & understanding of issues Applicable Standards » Schedule and coordinate any required testing (e.g. air quality, asbestos, mechanical testing and » Develop "user-friendly" format to suit City needs balancing). __ » Identify City base -line assumptions and minimum City standards STEP 4 - Analyze Issues & Solutions » Identify all City personnel whose input is required or desired » Review existing construction documents to develop » Identify applicable Building Codes and Standards how & why understanding of identified issues per jurisdiction as required » Coordinate as required with in-house architectural, Develop list of City baseline standards as they mechanical and electrical staff to fully understand pertain to program modifications issues Estimate costs to alleviate/repair/replace as required STEP 2 - Preliminary Interviews » Incorporate existing study information and costs to provide a complete analysis, » Identify all City personnel whose input is required or desired » Interview all required City staff by Wold in-house Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical Interior Design staff to identify any known user issues Obtain all existing facility construction documents » Obtain information relating to existing materials, warranties, equipment age, maintenance plans and schedules Obtain asbestos reports, roofing reports, test & balance reports, etc. for incorporation into assessment » Review any current plans for renovation(s)/ addition(s) » Review all existing studies. STEP 3 - Field Investigations & Identify Issues Tour all facilities by Wold Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical staff to identify all deficiencies of all systems from structural through mechanical & electrical Review identified issues as required with maintenance staff to develop complete 14 City of New Hope // Municipal Facilities Space Needs Assessment STEP 5 - Establish Priorities Work with the City to establish priorities and criteria for establishing priority levels Identify any particular areas of concern (high priority items) Review estimated costs and identify cost effective solutions. STEP 6 - Complete Preliminary Draft Document Incorporate comments and priorities » Revisit any identified issues as needed » Provide review period as needed for thorough review by all individual user entities. STEP 7 - Fine -Tune Report & Produce Final Documents » Complete documents are per City approval. Incorporate all issues identified by Wold and/or City staff, and estimate required City expenditures in a prioritized manner. Potential Joint Facility architects engineers www.woldae.com 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul. MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 mail@woldae com Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado August 8, 2014 Kirk McDonald New Hope City Manager 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Re: New Hope Space Needs Study Commission No.: 132077 Dear Kirk: As the City of New Hope has been working to define the space needs that are required by the operations of its Police, Parks & Rec, Community Development and Administrative functions, several options have surfaced regarding how and where those space needs might be accommodated. One recently proposed solution to this challenge is to utilize the site of the current Independent School District 1281 Education Service Center and Bus Garage at the southeast corner of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Winnetka Avenue North to construct a facility that not only accommodates the New Hope Police and City Hall, but is also expanded to accommodate space for the Education Service Center. This potential expansion of the project scope offers several benefits over the possibility of developing a stand-alone facility. • Redundant spaces (such as Council Chambers and Board Rooms, large conference and training rooms, reception lobbies, and mechanical and electrical rooms) could be shared in lieu of being built twice, therefore reducing building area by up to 6% over stand-alone options. • The facility size might increase by 80%, but the construction time frame and general conditions required by construction won't change significantly by that increase. For example, despite nearly doubling the building size, only one jobsite trailer, jobsite superintendent and one mobilization would be needed, spreading those costs out over a larger building. This can reduce the construction cost by up to 2% over stand-alone options. * The expansion is assumed to include mostly office/administrative space, which is easier and more repetitive to construct than the specialized construction of Council/Board Rooms and Police Department space, therefore reducing the average cost of construction of the entire facility. This can reduce the construction cost by up to 2% over stand-alone options, We believe that the combined effects of these factors could result in initial construction cost savings ranging from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 to build a combined facility in lieu of considering separate standalone facilities. In addition to the first cost savings, there may be additional longer term operational savings available as well. Considerations should include one of the two organizations providing facility maintenance, information Technology management, building security and/or reception functions for the entire building. In addilion, collocation may bring greater coordination between the School District and the City's programs, resulting in less overlap and more effectiveness in delivering services to the public, We are excited to assist the City of New Hope in exploring these potential opportunities further. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS kO-_--- Joel L. Dunning // AIA, LEED-AP Partner ti cc: Ben Beery, Wold Paul Aplikowski, Wold SS/Cl—New Hope/132077/aug14 designers and researchers for public environments O � � O N 3 CO N J Z w a qo- Z Q O w WoL SCHO-O D-I.S'TRICT SrTE_ OMON— SCHOOL DISTRICT 5ITE — SITE PLAN 1„ = 200,-0.. 0 Iso, 300, 0 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WoL SICH -M._DDIsnucT SIT£ opTIo STACKING DIAGRAM r s r *. r r, � ■1 �.r'r O15TRiCTi�FFiCE ���'� t � v w. Orr ~% 0 1 �' r 00` r to +'r DMR CT WF'ICE r1 r� 4� fr % r ♦ r V POLICE 1100 PUBLIC SPACI S 1 200 ADMINISTRATON 1300 PATROL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 DISTRICT OFFICE DISTRICT OFFICE 37,003 sl OPTION -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 sf MEETING ROOM SUITE—— 1.455 sl 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf - 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1 527 sf 1 709 SUPPORT SPACES 8,331 sf x 1.2 CITY HALL 9'997 sf 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCFAT7HR 2,531 sf 2,400 COMM DEVELOPMENT 1,698 sf • 14001NVESTIGATIOs, S 1.455 sl .1500 HOLDING 2,184 s1 -1 600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sl 1 709 SUPPORT SPACES 5,654s sf 19.874 sf x12 GARAGE _ 23.1349 sf -3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf - 1800 GARAGE SUPPORT S Ox12sf 12,7D4 sl WCL SCHQSJL. DISTRICT SITE_ OPTION MASSING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WoL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 2. -COSTS `"ASSUMES DEMOLITION OF BUS GARAGE ONLY -ASSUMES RE -USE OF ABOUT 40 EXISTING PARKING SPACES WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM — ISD 281 DIST. OFFICE SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS 34,000 SF x $220 SF = $7,480,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION $0 SITE DEVELOPMENT'S 73 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $292,000" EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $7,772,000 EST. PROJECT COST $7,772,000 x .35 = $2,720,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,492,000 ASSUMES RE -USE OF ABOUT 40 EXISTING PARKING SPACES WQL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GYMNASTICS GYM SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST. PROJECT COST $800,000 x .35 = $280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,080,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KITCHEN SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS" 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST $99,000 x .35 = $35,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $134,000 TOTAL KITCHEN WOULD BE 600 SF. 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT COUNCIL Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development April 21, 2014 Work Session Item No. By: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD BX: Kirk McDonald, City Mana er 11.3 Update on City Hall Space Needs Study by WOLD Architects (projecto. 926) Requested Action The city staff and WOLD Architects propose to provide an update of the progress to date regarding the execution of the Space needs Study. Policy/Past Practice It is a past practice for staff and consultants to provide periodic updates to the City Council. Background The city of New Hope has engaged WOLD Architects and Engineers to conduct a Space Needs Study related to the departments in city hall and the Police Department. Staff has requested that Wold attend the meeting to provide the Council an update of their activity since their last presentation on January 21. Attachment • WOLD PowerPoint Motion by Second by To: I: \ RFA \ COMM DEV \ WS - WOLD Update 4-21-2014.doc WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 City of New Hope Space Needs Study W Q L WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY 1. SUMMARY - RE -MODEL EXISTING BUILDING FOR CITY HALL USE - 2 STORY ADDITION FOR POLICE - DEMOLITION OF `PARKS AND RECREATION' ADDITION INCLUDING POLICE GARAGE - OPTIONAL ADDED PROGRAM OF GYMNASTICS GYM IS POSSIBLE - THIS SITE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR A TENANT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKING APRIL 21, 2014 WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 A17DTIONJREMODELS _0-P-TIQN �1 F-Xl5TING CUIL'DING 51TE PLAN �f 1"= 160'-0" 0 121 221e;' WCL ADDMONIREMODEL SITE OWITDXN STACKING DIAGRAM POLICE 1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf 1200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf 1300 PATROL 3,847 sf 1400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf 1600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -17080UIET/MDTHERSRM 108 sf -1 709 BEVERAGE STATION 9731 -1700 SUPPORT SPACES 12241 sf 7,632 14,689 sf LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS - 2-100 PUBLIC SPACE 6804 sl 6,804 sf Ll -2 8,165 sf CITY HALL -2 200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sl -2.30DFINANCE/HR 1,91031 - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1898 sl 5,683 sl 231 6,819 sl GARAGE 1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 sf x12 624 sf -3 200 POLICE GARAGE 11,1803 11804 sf POLICE -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1700 SUPPORT SPACES 5 448 sf 7,632 9,159 sl CITY HALL -2 ' 50D PARKS AND REC - 2-600 SHARED SPACE -230412 2,311 sf 1,527 sl 621 sf 4,459 sl Lug sl 5,351 sl GARAGE - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 1,170 sf OF ION -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,00031 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WCL ADDMONIREMC7DEL_SITE OPTION 1 t A OOTLTn City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WCL RM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 BASE PROJECT NEW ADDITIONS REMODEL AREA * PARK ADDITION/REMODEL SITE 40,000 SF x $220 SF = 18,000 SF x $80 SF = $8,800,000 $1,440,000 DEMOLITION $45,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 MAINTENANCE EST. CONSTRUCTION COST 18,000 SF x $80 SF = $1,440,000 $11,925,000 EST. PROJECT COST $11,295,000 x .35 = $4,175,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $16,100,000- 16,100,000' "PARK FUNCTION RELOCATION COSTS NOT INCLUDED WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GYMNASTICS GYM ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST. PROJECT COST $800,000 x .35 = $280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $100,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KITCHEN ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS* 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST $99,000 x .35 = $35,000 BASE PROJECT $134,000 TOTAL KITCHEN WOULD BE 600 SF 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT WCL OW1.1►WW"WO 91 W.1:. ADVANTAGES - UTILIZE EXISTING BUILDING - TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING PARKING - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BUILDINGS - KEEPS PROMINENT FRONTAGE DISADVANTAGES -REQUIRES RELOCATION OF SOME PARK FUNCTIONS (THEATHER ETC.) - SOME DISRUPTION TO CITY DEPARTMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION -SHORT RELOCATION OF CITY HALL DURING REMODEL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 PARK SITE OPTION CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING WITH TWO VIABLE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OPTION A: TUCK UNDER GARAGE OPTION B: TWO LEVEL POLICE - NEW BUILDING WOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF THE EXISTING CITY HALL/POLICE STATION - OPTIONAL ADDED PROGRAM OF GYMNASTICS GYM IS POSSIBLE - THIS SITE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR A TENANT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKING WCL I PARK OPTION 51TE PLAN - TUCK UNEMM GARACOM r = 1b0•-0°� 0 120' zoo• City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 1 WCL PARK SITE OPTION TUCK UNDER GARAGE STACKING DIAGRAM POLICE 1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3$17 sf 1.4001NVESTIGATIONS 1,456sf 1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf 1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf 1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5 654 sF 2 300 FINANCEATAHR 19,874 sf -2400 COMM DEVELOPMENT 1,8985f Z 11 sf 23,849 sf LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS 2100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf 2 600 SHARED SPACE51. 27 sF 8,331 sf X12 9,997 sf CITY HALL 2 200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf 2 300 FINANCEATAHR 2,531 sf -2400 COMM DEVELOPMENT 1,8985f - 2.50D PARKS AND REC32 11 sf 8,615 sf Ll. 10,338 sf OPTION -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 sf GARAGE LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf 3200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf 1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf A101011. LEVEL 2 44,184 SF LEVEL 1 12,704 SF City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WCL PARK SITE OPTION TUCK UNDER GARAGE MASSING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 %J r rvIlMmoluivi WCL PARK SITE OPTION P,4RK OPTION 517E PLAN - TWO LEVEL POLICE r' _ 160-0• 0 120' 240' City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WoL W Ill Go 0 TWO LEVEL POLICE STACKING DIAGRAM POLICE 1 100 PUBLIC SPACES 764 sf 1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2.617 sf 1300 PATROL 3.847 sf 1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1455 sf 8.704 sf GARAGE x 1.2 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 10,445 sf LOBBY! COb1F!_CHAMBERS - 2100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf -2.600 SHARED SPACE 1.527 sf 12.704 sl 8,331 sf Ll 2 9,997 sf CITY HALL 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf 2 300 FINANCEATAR 2,531 sr -2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,B98sf -2.500 PARKS AND REC 2.311 s1 8,615 sf Lu 10,338 sf -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 s1 POLICE -1500 HOLDING 2,1 B4 sf 1600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf 1 700 SUPPORT SPACES 5 654 sf 11.170 sf xx12 GARAGE 13,404 sr 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,18031 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 90031 1,800 GARAGE SUPPORT 624 s1 12.704 sl LO86Y � P�Ufitf rr ��r v rrr LEVEL 2 30,781 SF LEVEL 1 26,108 SF City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WoLD PARK SITE OPTION TWO LEVEL POLICE MASSING HALL CHAMBERS MEETING SPACE POLICE OPTIONAL GYMNASTICS GYMNASIUM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 �. POLICE GARAGE WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 �K�I.1�[I►y BASE PROJECT PARK SITE NEW ADDITIONS 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION $150,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT" 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $12,890,000 EST. PROJECT COST $12,890,000 x .35 = $4,512,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $17,402,000 ACTUAL SITE PLAN MAY REQUIRE RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING.THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SITE DEVELOPMENT. WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GYMNASTICS GYM ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST. PROJECT COST $800,000 x .35 = $280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,080,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KITCHEN ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS* 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST $99,000 x .35 = $35,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $134,000 'TOTAL KITCHEN WOULD BE 600 SF. 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT WCL ADVANTAGES - BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS SMALLER - NO DISRUPTION TO CITY DEPARTMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING PARKING - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BUILDINGS DISADVANTAGES - SOME GRADING TO MAKE WORK - REQUIRES SOME RELOCATION OF PARK FUNCTIONS (THEATHER ETC.) - SITS BACK IN SITE NEAR NEIGHBORHOOD City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 •• !CIA•�•�. SUMMARY NEW BUILDING OPTION ON SITE OF CURRENT BUS GARAGE. ENOUGH SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE CITY HALL, POLICE, AND DISTRICT OFFICE SHARED PUBLIC MEETING SPACES AND CENTRAL PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE REDUCE COSTS. WCL SCHO—G -DIST_RC'T_S�-RUON r E1fISim PAFQW • nestr�r , e maI I PUBLIC II 1 Y ,II I I EA[TRY I F I I I YISUOR PARIUNG, t. I I j1AG1 II I ;I I I rCLICE P.b.WNG (50) I I F7 a±� L - DI--) SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE - SITE PLAN 0 Asa soo City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WoL SCHOOL -DISTRICT-SITE OLMON STACKING DIAGRAM s �X PI DISTRICT OFFICE xr'� K` ryI i ►.`r'�M ysfr ` MEETING .t 1` 4-. DISTRICT OFFICE- POLICE 1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sl 1200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 s1 1300 PATROL 3,847 sf 1.4001NVESTIGATIONS 1.456 sf 1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf 1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf 1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5654 sf 19.874 sf 02 GARAGE 23'849 sl 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sl 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 90O sf 1800 GARAGE SUPPORT 52D x 12 s1 2500 PARKS AND REC 121134 sf City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 DISTRICT OFFICE DISTRICT OFFICE 37,000sl OPTION -GYMNASTICS GYM 4,000 sf MEETING ROOM SUITE 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,809 sf 2 600 SHARED SPACE 1527 sf 8,331 sf x12 CITY HALL 9,99731 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf 2 300 FINANCFATIHR 2,531 sf -2.40DOOMM DEVELOPMENT 1,696 sl 2500 PARKS AND REC 2311 s1 �+ 8,615 sf e a� x 1.2 10,338 sl WoL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 MASSING WoL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 2. COSTS CITY HALL/POLICE SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS* 54,000 SF x $220 SF = 11,880,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION— $100,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT" 143 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $572,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $12,552,000 EST. PROJECT COST $12,552,000 x .35 = $4,393,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $16,945,000 -ASSUMES 3000 SF OF PROGRAMMATIC SAVINGS -ASSUMES DEMOLITION OF BUS GARAGE ONLY -ASSUMES RE -USE OF ABOUT 40 EXISTING PARKING SPACES WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM — ISD 281 DIST. OFFICE SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS 34,000 SF x $220 SF = $7,480,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION $0 SITE DEVELOPMENT* 73 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $292,000` EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $7,772,000 EST. PROJECT COST $7,772,000 x .35 = $2,720,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,492,000 "ASSUMES RE -USE OF ABOUT 4o EXISTING PARKING SPACES WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GYMNASTICS GYM SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF = $800,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST. PROJECT COST $800,000 x .35 = $280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,080,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KITCHEN SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS' 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST $99,000 x .35 = $35,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $134,000 TOTAL KITCHEN WOULD BE 600 SF. 150 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE PROJECT Leone Valerie �f- q From: McDonald Kirk Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 9:54 AM To: Aldo Sicoli; 'Priess, Jeff Cc: 'Cebula, Mary'; Leone Valerie Subject: Proposed Agenda for Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Attachments: SKMBT_C65214042309180.pdf Attached is our proposed agenda for the joint meeting we have scheduled for May 13th. The New Hope City Council reviewed this at their work session this past Monday (4/21). The agenda includes a brief update by the city on the redevelopment activities taking place in the city and the city's redevelopment consultant will be in attendance from Ehlers. Wold Architects will also be present and provide an update on the city's space needs study. We are hoping someone from the School District or your representatives from Wold will provide an update on your space needs study and discuss the future of transportation facility needs. We would like to continue to discuss the potential for a shared use facility and Wold has developed a concept plan that I previously provided to Jeff. If the two entities want to continue to pursue that idea one suggestion would be to form a committee with representatives from both entities that could pursue that concept and discuss potential financing and ownership options, etc. (as it is very difficult to find a time to get both groups together that works for everyone). Please advise if you have any problems with the proposed agenda and we are looking forward to the meeting. Thank you. Kirk McDonald City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Mn. 55428 763-531-5112 kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us Leone Valerie From: Cebula, Mary [mary_cebula@rdale.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:56 AM To: McDonald Kirk Cc: Leone Valerie Subject: Re: May 13th Joint Work Session - another attendee Flag Status: Flagged FYI, also attending this meeting will be our Communications Director Latisha Gray. Total in our group is now 11. Mary } Mary Cebula Executive Assistant to the Superintendent and School Board 763-504-8012 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Cebula, Mary <rnary cebula car rdaIe.org wrote: Here is what the Board is planning based on my earlier emails with you - Tuesdav, Mav 13. 2014, 6:00 p,m. Joint Meeting with New Hone City Council (Joint Meeting with New Hope City Council - Meeting will be held at New Hope City Hall - 5:30 p.m. Light Dinner provided by New Hope 6:00 p.m. meeting start time There are 7 board members attending on May 13, and also attending are Superintendent Sicoli, Jeff Priess, and myself. Total in our group is ten. Mary Mary Cebula Executive Assistant to the Superintendent and School Board 763-504-8012 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:02 PM, McDonald Kirk <kmcdonaldc ci.new-ho e.rnn.us> wrote: Mary: I know we are set for a joint work session between the City Council and School Board at the New Hope City Hall on Tuesday, May 13th. We will be providing a light lunch prior to the meeting and I am writing to confirm the best times for the Board, we are flexible. The last time we met (in April, 2013), we had the light dinner at 6:00 p.m. with the meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. does that timeframe still work for your people or would they prefer a 5:30/6:00 p.m. timeframe? We may have discussed this before but I cannot find my notes! Please advise. Thanks. NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION WITH ROBBINSDALE SCHOOL BOARD New Hope City Hall, P & R Conference Room 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:30 p.m. — light dinner 6:00 p.m. — meeting 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Introductions 4. Update by city of New Hope on redevelopment Kmart/Wells Fargo Bank site • Potential future phases (Winnetka Shopping Center and city hall site) • Winnetka Learning Center site — Centra Homes Compass Pointe S. Update by city of New Hope on space needs study • Options for existing site • Options for joint facility 6. Review School District's long -terms administration/transportation facility needs * Update on District 281 space needs study • Transportation facility needs 7. Potential benefit/cost-savings for both entities to consider shared use facility ro joint meetings rooms, public space, mechanical, janitorial, etc. S. Future Steps/Meetings Form a committee with representatives from both entities to further pursue joint facility concept, financing/ownership options, etc. 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment Attachments: Redevelopment site plans/concepts Excerpts of city space needs assessment COUNCIL Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development May 13, 2014 Work Session Item No. By: Jeff Sargent, CD Specialist Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 4 U date on redevelopment projects Requested Action Staff would like to provide the Council and Robbinsdale School Board with an update on current redevelopment projects. Policy/Past Practice It is a past practice of the staff to provide periodic updates to the Council on development/redevelopment projects. Background Cih,l Cerner (Kmart ShMing Center) In January, 2014, three developers presented concepts for the redevelopment of the former Kmart site in New Hope's City Center area. The City Council favored the proposal from Anderson Companies for a grocery store on the site. On March 17, the City Council entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with Hy -Vee, which allowed the city to begin negotiations exclusively with Hy -Vee for a six-month period. On April 17, Hy -Vee conducted an open house for the public to present their site plan, floor plan, and amenities that the store will offer. Some key points include: • A 90,000 square foot building located on the north end of the site. • A 4,500 square foot convenience store, with a major coffee chain, and a gas station located on the south end of the site adjacent to 42nd Avenue. • A 9,200 square foot retail/medical office building along 42nd Avenue. • Some of the store amenities include: Second by To: 4 L- . + 1:\RPA\COMM DEV \Devel ment\Q-U date onredevelopment 5-13-14.doc Request for Action Page 2 May 13, 2014 o 65,000 square feet of conventional grocery shopping o A full-service sit-down restaurant o A full wine and spirits section featuring periodic wine tastings o A deli with a large selection of specialty cheeses o A bakery with artisan breads o A pharmacy o A health and beauty area o A flower shop o A large organic food section The open house was well attended and the city received over 100 completed surveys with a vast majority of residents supporting the Hy -Vee proposal. The city is currently conducting an on-line survey for residents that did not attend the open house. Wt netka Lzarning Center The City's Economic Development Authority purchased the property from Independent School District #281 on November 6, 2013, with the intent of redeveloping the property into single family homes. After hearing proposals from two different housing developers, the City Council chose Centra Homes as the preferred developer for the property. The Centra Homes proposal provides for 34 single family homes and 27 detached townhomes, with a "move -up" housing price point that is not currently offered in New Hope. On January 13, 2014, the City Council awarded Landwehr Construction as the demolition contractor for the site. Complete demolition is anticipated by May 15, 2014, at which time Centra Homes could begin the installation of the streets and utilities. Compass Pointe This project was initially brought to the city in November of 2012; however, the applicant/developer was not funded for the tax credits needed to fund the project. On November 7, 2013, the applicant was awarded tax credits in the current cycle and began the application process with the city. On February 24, 2014 the City Council approved the project for the construction of a 68 -unit apartment building located on the southwest corner of 62^a Avenue and West Broadway. The developer is currently working on site preparations and anticipates construction to begin by late spring. Attachments • Hy -Vee plans • Centra Homes plans • Compass Pointe plans City Center Hy -Vee Proposal MASTER SITE PLAN j P \ R,�a� y R (y®lAmelREmY �: r 1"1'L:: 1 i.:.-_. .R F Paaw @I��IiJFOEF' �, -- F►eI�A/e MI •! SF�.I i`t• ••..'f" F+�Sm ll�ioe�SrM003F ° •. � raa.R.R �.e +.fmxc Faft%*!37 r••!° 4, MYalmta F�IGmS7 7,.F. F%.W s 1kr57 n RIMVG Wn: RPI®5} raar exr70r • ss . - - i RAaRfMles Rilv:M10005F IL I r -- F t R - I it F f�,T",� �F_> a �, Lir_ r 1 ,• � ,•3 M -R. _ Y -.F:. !d' ''. � F _ New Hope Kmart Redevelopment Plan Scale: 1"=60' ANOW «ons N IL ANDERSON COMPANIES t1qVQ().9 0 PI III 44 NIS"- - As Alp JLik- bm.- -if. N., e r I � - ANDERSON COMPANIES FLOOR PLAN! "qVo(?,x NEW `l5A Nor- �.. rte+ � ■w ANDERSON ■ COMPANIES llqv@Qm r'- I f. WELLNESS AREA ANDERSON COMPANIES ■ANDERSON COMPANIES �,, �rli�ilil�i Vtli•1N11i ANDERSON COMPANIES a �' ""• Sprouts Programs .14 60 -mute weeky sessions 9}minute weekly sessions f 1 S,-,m3im w-iude: Organic gardening with a focus on cancer-fightirg �} ( fruits and vegetable! Wki-g healthy choices fun through cook. ng an,: edrE uaionactivities kids�ril enjoy SA • T aching cHdren -o en;cy arrd exp;om fo-d that F w protect., them hearth Folterlrt,, family cormect om with grniw.s-fresh '.. s ' produce sent fame each week with a recipe and the g^ai of-ocking a healthy rerice in the kik:hen tngcther f Ea -h werx, famfies will rxehre an em• -fl with the Sprouts Recipe of the Week along with inform:_ -ion or, that day's program Reeipcs are aLa -,,*sted to th v blug and on Facebook. CTar 10 -week rmmer session ruwt Pom 1!ine to August 0gVee. Wi*nnetka Learning Center Centra Homes Proposal 0 w i U Two-story Single4amily Home Approx. 2, S 8 S FSF 4 Bedrooms 2 !4 Baths 3 -bay Garage CENTRAHOMES uc `• - DINING °fir �Ia7ClTlN "`t\\\ I '• �� frf"y ll'r � GREAT ROOMr BEDROOM iF4 OWREREf'S11RE 10 10-.12r Ji � lsy la ;• ' f r FOYER r• ot— GARAGE 6EDROOM #3 BEDROOM 02 z. ----- ----� Main Level Upper Level k I k E f I FUTURE ° - FU'T'URE BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM MFGU�r[GL �a:: STORAGE UNEXCAVATED Lower Level APPROX. SQUARE FEET Finished 1,813 Unfinished 772 Total 2,585 Ask your, Centra Homes Sales Assodate how to persona ze your new home! CENTRA Hovis U. CentraHomes.com Sells nar. 1. �, ir, s, i. l �..uve.4flkeef p.,.�.,.c y>x:Em�kn. °. �. w In.. aka Kc r,ras �e wipeaw�.oys wlbouroilea 4l�nbn mdw;�.�y�.d L.. *,r m�.lrngp crrw`.w�,n. r. C a w ::k a ,d a er .;, depin dr hr a Ian.. u•s m 1hr, oR bw11 Th . Wke— r dgdd I&W and fads W ne ad and ,d 0- dl I w opkwl hroen m1; br I+ KW a ski&W MI .9 m -b]m a pu, ian�n rtEal p. .I1— Ai d,-, w ", r"%. rl, gyra wrlcned. , i Y OJ �—L it m. —L% -11 wbii Wald in dia peedit Y.alrfnl x{17vy, aendhK a,' d .od l�crt ke Mdr rae i.,e-kekrrmenrra.,,.ueme•b. +... u1 newflµeVkre. u .ay •hh+L.ru.Fn MW lranin drR+un 1W �,WF x•ud udwnaoiic ee.ra Yepiq rwi4.k!Laoow.a ek.n.:arrkys,. rr•tr .+k�"e, kr,h iapt CMu l�.atrdrlrsr Irn11.N. Ik-W-,On-%,,nr Two-story Single-family Home Approx. 2,377 FSF 4 Bedrooms 2 % Baths 2 -bay Garage Elevation A Elevation B CENTRA Homms LLC Elevation C I .ri�ra�ev Main Level i .f DINING FAMILYROOM f GARAGE I F'� J7.tifL• 2,. 221 r-L�x RooM `..j i COV6Ip r0RCH OWNt x1 SUITE b'a7 { � 11^31G' EVA1 Upper Level ,ALwzy ' °P R;�+R" I-lllll' BEDROOMBEDRO]4' VpTONAL,M #� BEDROOM ,52'x 10d'r12P' #� 100 V10` I FUTURE s BEDROOM u FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 13's;1S' � I Th'z1h' i. i UNEXCAVATED APPROX. SQUARE FEET Lower Level Finished 2,377 .-� u ainr trxx 1 iUnfinished 962 Total 3,339 Ask your Centra Homes Sales Associate how to personalize your new home! CENT. Hovis fzr_ CentraHomes.com nq ee •saar .M my m, . - 1 1 do. dx Kann v },xee 1 >4, .rc W A . 9]. w Ohuaa+lmu my :MCk+ .f" -� a.d h Jw as ew abrAni tYn N ham. nAelu,1 kNal. mryir M,hdd x add:xaed eon vx, ac nij,n n �' tpriuSTrr K�.dak d J Al lmett aq.w, fineaFax [fw I.WirI�Ce,Y nly.,tT eKsx4..tt Oarm and'qati�T '.N an'am uc nldd.flG�a R"�k 'alan�aaWn iTa�al[a[ta lq�uA X7.16faoy nel6a a'[.l. 4d lnVhe ,N� Itixchax•I.dff A'WE d. n41I i anvNxal.S..le.id Fa'+rr�trflP�+1>r.eie}y.iyv YiadaY. wladaW �agli®.axiitdnaTdOi .Is:ea uvt;�ia,n},i4 Sirn`I,l�e1.17[�dr5neiw �w..V7,�.11ta�kR&..-jmd e}n uun.wu, Ia�diryv,. �i,ia•wm pvpoaaaiy.TFa ai oe Cn dlrxu�x ycpowt a+7; ndll wl pd dakpleonhan Phase oleo ask wlA�tloe�k Meerapk:adn+ih. t�oypiRlxlofl(5var.9lmra �L`htT76uiidn44<aa,1C611i371�MI1. FpmJ'IIrxY.jO�xla.tr.' r Two-story Single-family Home Approx. 2,119 FSF 2 or 4 Bedrooms (per plan) 2% Baths 3 -baja Garage Elevation A CENTRAHomEs mr- Elevation B Main Level Upper Level Upper Level Option Dual Owners' Suites Ask your Centra Homes Sales Associate how to personalize your new home.► CENTru HOMES f._= CentraHomes.com Wcedm.—df -k..a,rlo., u,�.q.dnwfmn..warei+k twm M M.a MoAnmke Nim=&A@mla 3n". , eewdit. wp 0M mW brAwqft Nd ewrwnrvkmnn Whn COW &0. mem wk Wm.; netwm.ldyagl.l 4.h--whm dr...+ dry n.tom.Thar Ma Wp mWWd.pkr.pd—od(W—d — e...aed„d 0.1i taxa. Ujt6W r nap t.fiwIihd.e.d6*64 caw mW —**j Io n.muneem..t,d�d, dnd9nr. N f.fi.�nw wpa. doa.pras �� !ru aae..y,ry.tu.t.,rke.. om..,i..w s.l y+wfsaeu odai.aw.rc n.d..,kFadwcaanl Nae.ww,nt.a. Nwenir irCy adraArfaeyy.a k i,�w¢k b "IM' d,c.ke-41. 4..td.l a. e.e,md. smnef,.w - lo.rramsdennaonlpaxke.ft.y,wy..),4—c. YAM wewdttoaV.ykay,.phr,6.dr.da6c.w d."il.dtp►y Igiuy ml.TL'ri.d 1. 1b, IIW—Ih. Mo--1y.nd k w pnd. k"I w an-0.L*wk..sooine M m,.pW.&MR.C%V40.M1.1C..+.W.a,,1-W-UN sd4lrLk— NK*UMI t:.rI• Cq.A}t'Aa:.doppMadff. Compass Pointe R� 62nd Avenue to Silo! —.- r Lodscape Buffer 3 1 8' Farce G West +moi SoA Prop" the i ! L fV 62nd Ave N & West Broadway - New Hope, MN • fF MUM -. mTi-- -.4, i MAX, -bmwwm amt 14� A 4. MAX, -bmwwm amt it MOM, WA 4c Jff, ni~W rl& a m.. a;, -; MAX, -bmwwm amt City of New Hope Space Needs Study Update City of New hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 City of New Hope Space Needs Study l WQ? L WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2094 ADDMONIRIEMODEL SM C)Molq SL'MiAARY RE -MODEL F—XISTING BUILDING FOR CITY HALL, USF.. z STORY ADDITION FOR POLICE DFMOL1110N, OF 'PARKS AND RECREATION' ADDITION INCLUDING POLICE GARAGE (nPTIO iAL ADDED PROGRAM OF GlUNASTICS GYM IS POSSIBLE e THIS SITE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR A MANT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKIN'C• 7', ADDMON/KP.MODEL SITE OpTlolq EXIZT114S BUILPNC, SITE PLAN C4 of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WQ-LC I ADDMONIREMODEL SUE OPnO-N STACKING DIAGRAM POLICE MPAM M RIMM'STAMN LOW COW/ CHAMBERS M PA i 4 S RA, a^ ull" ugul CITYNALL 941 7! - 7 = l, -Tl" WJ"R nit 0mamm GARAGE I aw MME SUP -l" vj N POLICE TA32 LU CITY HALL 2 W1 PAWSM W.' Ulle &.,fj :144am CpAa !RINI sf 2W C 7 y "m- DAM Vi�!j OPTION WW" lzs an! 4131 Zf City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 oL Cid of New Nope D MC} TIMMODEL_SPTE„OMON SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 2. COSTS BASF. PROTCT ADDMON1REMODEL SrM NEW AMMON'S .10,000 SF x 5220 SF -- SB1600,000 REr i()n>=,L AREA 18,000 SF x 580 SF = $1,440,000 DEh1OUTION $45,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT 50 Stals x $4,000/Stall.7 $200,000 IviAi 'TE'�3ANCE 18,000 SF x $8v SF = $1,440,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST _ $11,925,000 EST. PROJECT COST $11,295,000 x .35 - $4,775,000 NOTAL. PROJECT COST $16,100,000' "?ARK frUWMON RY10C.ATION f:OM MOT INUU^ED WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM — GYMNAMCS GM AMMONIM MODEL SM NEW ADDITIONS 4.000 SF x $200 SF - $80o,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST. PROJECTCOST $8110.000 x .35 _ $280,000 'TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,080,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - MMANDED xnxmEm AMMONMEMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS' 450 SF x 5200 SF = $991000 EST. CON-STRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST 599.000 x .35 = $35,000 BASE PROJECT I $134,000 *TGTAL KfPCHEN wt� q;LD HE 6,-v SF_ 1:0 SF IS INCLUDED IN THE EASE PROJECT I 3. ADVANTAGES'DISADVAN7AGES ADVANTAGES UTILIZE EXISTING BUILDING TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING PARKING CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BU'ILDI'NGS KEEPS PROMINENT FRONTAGE DISADVANTAGES -REQUIRES RELOCATION OF SOME PARK FUNCTIONS 1THEATHER ETC., - SOME DISRUPTION TO CITY :DEPARTMENTS DURING C0NSTR17C-1 ION -SHORT RELOCATInN of r :IT1- HALL DURING REMODEL City of New mope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 L City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 PARS SITE OMON 1 • SUMMARY CONSTRUCT A NW RELTILDIN'G WITIH TWO VIABLE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OMON A. TUCK UDDER GARAGE OPTION B. TW O LENT POLICE NEV-1 BL'G WOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF THE EXISTING CITY HALLIPOLICE STATION I OPTIONAL ADDED PROGRAM OF G"N ' AMCS Gnt IS POSSIBLE JWS SITE IS NOT R£COMMEIMED FOR A TEN NT DUE TO INSUFFICIILN'T PARKING WCL PAW SITE OMOIT PAR:< OPT[OK SnT PLAN - TUCK UNnzM GAMASE _ ova -o•' C 1w 2AQ' City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 I I TUCK UNDER GARAGE STACIONG DIAGRAM I Impiam. *ACE' '9A 1! -12MABUMMAT01 . r? 11 IU PATFOL I QD;V4SPrArfM 15whmvwl mmmcm WACS 5—Mg Mae LOW CONFJ CHAMBEN 1,9 PLO W WAa LEGt (Arl --AW ALM lily awd MY HALL -2+bRWVVARW 2 sm WWjm.-W -24M,MW DEMMMEW, -2SMFWAWAEC alis Baa -30 OPTION SAMM .A IM Prj!rE Mr.F 11,W7,7 -3 ZW WYNALL SAFAM jr-V, AV"WETi7m LEVEL 2 44,184 SF LEVEL 1 12.704 SF C4 of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 WoL PARK SITE OMON TUCK UNDER GARAGE MASSING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL21, 2014 OPTIONAL GYMNASTICS GYMNASIUM f oL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY t APRIL 21, 2014 PARK SI'Z'E QP1' ON "W. K DP 100 S'T F- PLAkN - iY`�: L- V%-iL POLICE 0 t2D' 2da WCL PAM SUE OPTION TWO UMM POLICE STACKING DIAGF" floua 1NrE1F.- me, ' w{P,' A PAC 'M MOM -,1f-'3r Si:AMM", !.Amu GSE PtCI � Lu X d LOWIME/CKVMM - 7 ka KKtc vcF •?artt ,sr�� !]3 ON? d ,h WV: l amc"MANIMn .AMAJ 2 5W MOM; #0 FJEC MIA r�c•s�w� oE�lt�B�t, ,.�s� SO -10 02 ,r -awmsf"Gym 4=31 POM ISwW.M. 1NrE1F.- ' w{P,' A PAC 1 Y,? GSE screw LEVEL 2 30.M SF LEVEL 1 28.1 W SF City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2414 -- PARK SUE OPTION TWO LEVEL POLICE AMASSING CRY of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2414 OPTIONAL GYMNASTICS GYMNASIUM W City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 3. COSTS "AC'n'Ay, SPQR; PLAN MAY RE4ZUiR$ R£ &.'ILD1tiC r* SCIMF, PARK M EhTIM 'tFiAT ARE EI MAC D BY' TFi� NE9G B�'iLUTLvY:iFac (.XWM ARE NOT INCLUDC? IN Srr. UVELUMCM. MY of Now Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDMONAL PROGRAM — GYMNASTICS GYM ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF s $800,000 Es'll'. CONSTRUCTION COST - $800,000 FST. PROJECT COST $900.000 x .3.5 $280,000 TOTAL FROJ'-';CT COST $1,080,000 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM — EXPANDED KITCHEN ADDITION/REMODEL SITE NEW ADDITION'S' 450 SF x $200 SF = $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 EST. PROJECT COST 599.000 x .35 -` $35,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $134,000 'TOTAL FrrCHEN WOUW BE 600 SF. 1 J SF IS INCLUDED IN rm BASE PROJECT WaL 3.-W.VANT: ,CjESlDISt%DVAiN TAGDS ADVANTAGES - BUILDING FOOTPRINT 1S SMALLER - NO DISRUPTION TO CMM DEPART9rIEN17S DLRING CONSTRUCTION - TAKES ADVAN-: AGE OF EXISTING PARKING CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BUILDINGS DISADVA\'TAGES SOME GRADING TO ]MAKE WORK REQUIRES SOME RELOCA7,ON OF PARK 1`7,14CTIONS (THEATHER FTC.) SITS BACK IN S1TI' NEAR NEIGHBORHOOD City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 pity of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE OPTIOlq NEW BUILDING OPTION O'ti SI'TE OF CURRENT BUS GARAGE. ENOUGH SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE CITY HAIL, POLICE, A\D DISTRICT OFT -ICE SHARED PLMIC -X't=' NG SPACES AND CENTRAL DLANT 21FRASTRUCTURE REDUCE COSTS. WCL SCHOOL D.IS INCT SITE OPTION OK �j uw.� rFaKws �. City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 14 G isa 3,; 6 ` SCHOOL DIS MC T SITE oPTIoN STACKING DIAGRAM r A. rrrrr 'es�� �r � r `vw� rrr Cfty of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL21, 2W TASTITICT OFFICE OPTION TWEETING RDOM SUITE POUCE WA 13P. VIBI'r SaA�f rx a 1 7m r;;1eA•�r ae� 7 a +CQWf.TturpNs OR +`1AMA-1r. 2.1 PA sl I I" n%- Wr.f. 31=.:t 4Wmm mwppwwr a," sr 19,!71 s' Liz GARAGE 216w.I •slit" i`: SArAF -1.10x1 Q�06r:TYFaH.: GAWGE ctp.1 -13rSISWEb'Jf-W i2.`J1 Cfty of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL21, 2W TASTITICT OFFICE OPTION TWEETING RDOM SUITE tn!FaitW7�R:! WA 6,381 CTFY HALL' ••r'e�f_1S'IN1M(1ER ?,6i5iS X, ml N, 3 FF'4 mll3F 4Wmm mwppwwr a," sr 6p7S s# �u WoL SCHOOL DISTRICT STI.'E OPTIOI�T MASSING MEETING ROOM SUITE f DISTRICT OFFICE f PUBLIC EN City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ",kM ,rt City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 2. COSTS "ASSINME DMIO MON OF BILLS GARAGE OKLY —ASSUMES REUSE OF ABOUT ao MS77NG PAWNG SPACES WCL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM — ISD 281 DIST. OFFICE SCHOOL DISPRICT SM tiFXk7 ADDITIONS - 34,000 SF x S22U SF - $7,480,000 S7,480,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF SO DEMOLITION $0 SITE. DEVELOPMENT* EST. CONSTRUCTION COST � :3 S-Als x S4,0001Stall = $292,000' $7,772,000 FST. PROJECT COST $7,7:2,000 x .35 = $2,720,000 TOTAL. PROJECT COST $10,492,000 m u— wr ^w✓ I W CARD] iz%;j rAmul ICa ZNFAC,tb City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY APRIL 21, 2014 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM - GYMNASTICS GYM SCHOOL DISPRICT STTB NEW ADDITIONS 4,000 SF x $200 SF $800,000 ES't. CONSTRUCTION COST $800,000 EST". PROJECT COW 8800,000 x .3;; $280,000 TOTAI PROJEC:'IGi $1,080,000 ADDMONAL PROGRAM - EXPANDED KTTCH>11+I SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE NEW ADDITIONS" 9SU SF x $200 SF =. $99,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $99,000 FSP. PROTECT COST 599,000 x .35:,: $35,000 6 TOTAL PROJEC."I' COST $134,000 `7UTAL KITCHENWM p BE 60rSF' i3O SF!S IN THE BASE PKOJEf:T City Council Work Session With Robbinsdale School Board May 13, 2014 Introductory Notes The City Council and staff want to thank the District 281 School Board for agreeing to meet with us tonight. We feel we have a good working relationship with the District. The two groups met about a year ago and the city presented an update on redevelopment activities, and indicated the city had hired Wold Architects to complete a space needs study for the city hall and police department to look at long term needs. We also suggested the concept of a potential shared joint facility in the future. The District shared some information about your space needs, and both groups agreed the cost savings that could be achieved through a joint facility were definitely something that should be considered. Both groups agreed to meet again to continue the discussion. The purpose of this work session is to continue that discussion. We thought it would be a good idea if both the city and school district provided a brief update on current projects taking place, and then have representatives from Wold Architects provide updates on the space needs analysis. Then we can open up the meeting for a dialogue between the School Board and City Council to discuss future needs, the potential benefit and cost -savings of a shared use facility, and if you have an interest in such a concept, discuss the best way to proceed. J 0 DISTRICT 281 ROBBINSDALE area schools 2074 Facilities Study Planning Update WCL a u a a Study Process WCL The District commissioned a demographic study and 10 year enrollment projection. • Conducted by Hazel Reinhardt Consulting • Looked at factors throughout District • Utilizes factors such as development, birth rates, and school district history • Did 10 year projections District Wide • 5 year projections for each elementary WCL f 5800 5700 5600 5500 5400 5300 5200 5100 5000 4900 4800 Capacity vs. Enrollment K-5 Cap vs Enrollment WoL 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600 2500 2400 Capacity vs. Enrollment 6-8 Cap vs Enrollment tip` -y) N� -A ,y1 ,N� N - Ah,N,ti. N -'W' Capacity -11— Low K / Low Migration Low K / High Migration —�FHigh K / High Migration --Y#-- High K / Low Migration WCL 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 i 3500 3400 Capacity vs. Enrollment 9-12 Cap vs Enrollment tia ,-y? ,tip ,,y y� ,tip fo .yti . ti ,Ia tia' N 11 -VV 11,NI -I ,yo Capacity Low K / Low Migration Low K / High Migration ---X— High K/ High Migration --High K / Low Migration WCL 12800 -- I 12600 12400 12200 12000 11800 11600 — 11400 - 11200 Capacity vs. Enrollment K-12 Cap vs Enrollment ,y[k -, ? ,oto-, �-,% X110 ,y0 ,ti'4 -� , �� ��` Capacity -45—Low K / Low Migration Low K / High Migration -0(—High K / High Migration High K / Low Migration WoL Example: Neill Elementary :Changes from 2013-14 to 2014-15 -TI Tutors -Gifted & Talented -Reading Corp -Music (K Autism) -Orchestra (1 d/wk) Current Facility Use 2013-14 Instructional Coach Instructional Assistant Cultural Laison 2013-2014 Capacity All Day K: 1 x22 = 22 1/2 Day K: 1.5 x 22 x 2 = 66 • Classrooms: 18 x 24 = 432 13-14 Capacity 520 h �I h 5th h All Day K Implementation 1 41h, a 2014-15 4th a re -K f F.,1 o K M� Centgr i -,_I DCD CID - /n _ • • CID CID DCD 3r RsR K WNW< • Classrooms: 19 x 24 = 456 (( _ -Adventure Club -Band (I dayhvk) 14-15 Capacity 544 -RTI -Reaifng Corp Gym I /DAPPEAX.h K .2nd �r (+ day] 1st Instructional Coach Instructional Assistant Cafeteria r = Cultural Laison Cusf. 3rd 3rd • • 2014-2015 Capacity 3r 2. All Day K: 4 x 22 = 88 WNW< • Classrooms: 19 x 24 = 456 3rd ' 2. 14-15 Capacity 544 2nd .2nd �r 1st 1st '•tea 1. r 1st WCL 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2014-15 Utilization vs Capacity o�- s�o �e `oma �P �a e;y �P �a•F a°� �°� �ioo ram ��� e��`c a �e 1,a ar�r pec 5Q Meadow I Zachary I Spanish Engeneerin Forest Lakeview Lake Neill Noble Northport Sonnesyn Lane Immersion g Arts ■ Fall 2014 Projection 637 403 622 502402 610 568 544 777 444 ■ Capacity 592 426 686 544 426 636 592 568 1 732 426 WCL a ►i Study Process Currently Examining Program needs For: •Capacity •Art •Science -Special Ed. Music/Band/Orch •Preschool •Support Staff •ELL •Sped WCL Next Steps Next Steps in District wide facilities study: •Finalize program needs discussion •Determine future planning capacities •Develop long range plan options •Fall 2014 plans are being implemented •Additional steps may be needed in 2015 and beyond J O DISTRICT 281 ROBBINSDALE area schools Educational Service Center Space Needs Study Summary WoL ESC Space Study In the fall of 2013 the District examined the space use of the ESC • Existing building is 37,250 square feet • Analysis determined that the existing functions could be accommodated in approximately the same square footage (37,500 s fl WCL ISD #281 District Office Space Program Summary ESC Space Study Proposed Department Allocation Superintendent Human Resources Business Services Technology Academics and Elementary Schools Integration, Equity and American Indian Ed Marketing and Communications Conference and Board Room Miscellaneous District Office Net Area Total: Net to Gross Factor (Includes sbuilding structure, circulation, mechanical spaces) Total Gross Building Area 400 s.f. 1,150 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 2,440 s.f. 3,410 s.f. 200 s.f. 3,020 s.f. 5,386 s.f. 6,300 s.f. 26,806 s.f. 1.40 37,528 s.f. WoL ESC Space Study Transportation Center • We currently lease the bus garage to our contractor (First Student) • Garage is a single level general purpose building which contains 48,843 sq ft • Garage is situated on a parcel of land containing 348,688 sq ft or 8 acres • We estimate adding between 300k to 450k to our annual transportation contract if the contractor is required to provide a location WCL ESC Space Study Further Study: • Does not include any growth • Does not include any additional centralization of administration • Additional study of best practices should be undertaken before finalizing program • Location and funding solutions for new transportation center Leone Valerie 4 From: Leone Valerie Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:36 PM Cc: NH Council; Fournier Tim; Jacobsen Curtis; Johnson Rich; McDonald Kirk; Rader Susan Subject: space needs study Attachments: space study 4.21.14.pdf I GG= As you may be aware, last year the city contracted with Wold Architects to conduct a space needs analysis for a city hall/police facility. At the April 21 work session Wold representatives presented several preliminary options including remodeling existing building, constructing a new building near current site, or partnering on a joint administration facility with School District 281 on school district owned property. The Council will be conducting a work session with the school board in May, and an open house will be conducted for public input at a later date after additional data is gathered regarding both entities' needs as well as the condition of existing buildings. The City Council requested the attached space needs study information be forwarded to all commissioners to keep you apprised of the study. Thank you for taking the time to review the materials. Valerie Leone, City Clerk City of New Hope (763)531-5117 vleone@ci.new-hope.mn.us CYIT TNC'TT Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development February 3, 2014 Work Session Item No. By: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD By: Kirk McDonald, G ty Mara gel- 11.2 Discuss the city hall space needs study (improvement project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests the Council discuss the information they received from WOLD at the January 21 work session. Policy/Past Practice It is the policy of staff to solicit Council input on this building development on an ongoing basis, Background At the work session on January 21 WOLD presented various potential building configurations and possible locations for a new city hall. The Council should discuss the pros and cons of each proposal and determine if additional locations should be considered. It would be helpful for the first phase of the city center redevelopment if the Council could definitively rule out Phase I as a potential new home for city hall. Additionally, the Council should discuss their position regarding a one, two or three story building concept and if a community center will be added to the planning discussions. It may be advisable to schedule another joint meeting with the school board to further discuss the possibility of a joint facility. If a joint facility is a possibility, that type facility could possibly be 85,000 to 90,000 square feet in size and demand a much larger site than has been considered to date. Again it is advisable that the Council determine if they want a future city hall, school administration building and possibly a community center to be in any phase of the city center project. Motion by Second by To: I:\RFA\COMM DEV \Develo ment\WS-WOLD-Citv-District 2812-3-2014.doc i`(1T TA TlITT VIRZRequest for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development January 21, 2014 Work Session Item No. Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 11.2 Update on the Space Needs Study by WOLD Architects. Requested Action The city staff and WOLD Architects propose to provide an update of the progress to date regarding the execution of the Space needs Study. Policy/Past Practice It is a past practice for staff and consultants to provide periodic updates to the City Council. Background The city of New Hope has engaged WOLD Architects and Engineers to conduct a Space Needs Study related to the departments in city hall and the Police Department. Staff has requested that Wold attend the meeting to provide the Council an update of their activity/progress to date. Attachment • WOLD options for Space needs Study Motion by To: I: \RFA\COMM DEV\ WS - WOLD Update 1-21-2014.doc Second by WCL OPTION A - ONE LEVEL NEW BUILDING - DIAGRAM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 GARAGE - 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf -1,800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf POLICE F 9,997 sf -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3,847 sf -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5 6 4 sf 10,338 sf 19,874 sf x 1.2 23,849 sf LOBBY] CONF/ CHAMBERS - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf - 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1,527 sf 8,331 sf x 1.2 9,997 sf CITY HALL - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCE/IT/HR 2,531 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898 sf - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2.311 sf 8,615 sf x 1.2 10,338 sf 1/10/201411:39:27 AM SACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvt LEVEL 1 56,889 SF Comm No: 132077 City of New Hope • ■ SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 OPTION A - ONE LEVEL - NEW BUILDING SITE OPTION 1 11. = 160'-0" O 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:27 AM SACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludffour Book\Tour Book.M Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION A - ONE LEVEL NEIN BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 2 1" = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:27 AM SACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvt Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION A - ONE LEVEL NEW BULDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 3 1" = 160'-0" 1/10/201411:39:27 AM O 120' 240' S:\CI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvl Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION B - TUCK UNDER GARAGE NEW BUILDING - DIAGRAM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 POLICE -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES -1.200 ADMINISTRATION -1.300 PATROL -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS -1.500 HOLDING -1.600 EVIDENCE -1.700 SUPPORT SPACES LOBBY/ CONF/ Cl - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE - 2.600 SHARED SPACE CITY HALL - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCE/IT/HR 2,531 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898 sf - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2.311 sf 8,615 sf x 1.2 10,338 sf GARAGE - 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf -1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf LIBBY 44,184 SF LEVEL 1 12,704 SF 1/10/201411:39:27 AM SVI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludffour Book\Tour Book.rvt Comm No: 132077 WoL OPTION B - TUCK UNDER GARAGE NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 1 1" = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:27 AM SACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour BookM Comm No: 132077 WoL OPTION B - TUCK UNDER GARAGE NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 2 1" = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:27 AM SACI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs SludyUour Book\Tour Book.rA Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION B - TUCK UNDER GARAGE NEIN BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 3 1 " = 160'-0" 1/10/201411:39:28 AM S.\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.M 0 120' 240' Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION C - TWO LEVEL POLICE NEW BUILDING - DIAGRAM City of New Nope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 POLICE -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3,847 sf -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf 8,704 sf x 1.2 POLICE 10,445 sf LOBBY/ CONT/ CHAMBERS - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf - 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1.527 sf 5,654 sf 8,331 sf 11,170 sf x 1.2 x 1.2 9,997 sf CITY HALL - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCE/IT/HR 2,531 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898 sf - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2 31 sf 8,615 sf xJ2 10,338 sf POLICE -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5,654 sf 11,170 sf x 1.2 13,404 sf GARAGE - 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf -1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf 1/10/201411:39:28 AM SACI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Study\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvl �%�'•,, ( Whh.. LOBBY ' I I I I LEVEL 2 1 30,781 SF I I I I 0%%***%W*dol.0 LEVEL 1 26,108 SF Comm No: 132077 WoL OPTION C - TWO LEVEL POLICE NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 1 1 " = 100'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/2014 11:39:20 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvl Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION C - TWO LEVEL POLICE NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 517E 2 1.1 = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:28 AM SVI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Slu*Tour Book\Tcur Bookrvl Comm No: 132077 WO -LE OPTION C - TWO LEVEL POLICE NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 3 1" = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:28 AM SACI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Tour Book\Tour Book rvt Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION D - THREE LEVEL NEW BUILDING - DIAGRAM City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 CITY HALL - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCE/IT/HR 2,531 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898 sf - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2.311 sf 8,615 sf x 1.2 10,338 sf LOBBY/ CONF/ CHAMBERS - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6,804 sf 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1.527 2 8,331 sf x 1.2 9,997 sf POLICE _ -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3,847 sf -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf -1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5.654 sf 14,358 sf x 1.2 17,230 sf GARAGE - 3.100 POLICE GARAGE 11,180 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 900 sf -1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 x 1.2 sf 12,704 sf 91w erl -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1.600 EVIDENCE 3.332 sf 5,516 x 1.2 6,619 sf 1/10/201411:39:28 AM SVI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour BookUour Book rvl I I � LEVEL 3 20,335 SF LEVEL 2 17,230 SF LEVEL 1 19,323 SF Comm No: 132077 WoL OPTION D - THREE LEVEL NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 1 1" = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:28 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tcur Book\Tour Book. rvl Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION D - THREE LEVEL NEW BUILDING City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 2 1" = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 1/10/201411:39:28 AM SACI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Study\Tour Book\Tour Bookrvt Comm No: 132077 OPTION D - THREE LEVEL NEW BUILDING SITE 3 1" = 200'-0" 150' 300' 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-Newfte\132077 Space Needs Study\Tour Book\Tour Bookot City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 Comm No: 132077 WoL OPTION E - REMODELED/ADDITION - DIAGRAM POLICE -1.100 PUBLIC SPACES 784 sf -1.200 ADMINISTRATION 2,617 sf -1.300 PATROL 3,847 sf -1.400 INVESTIGATIONS 1,456 sf -1.600 EVIDENCE 3,332 sf -1.708 QUIET/MOTHERS RM 108 sf -1.709 BEVERAGE STATION 97 sf 520 sf 12,241 sf x 1.2 x 1.2 624 sf 14,689 sf LOBBY/ CONFI CHAMBERS - 2.100 PUBLIC SPACE 6.804 sf 6,804 sf x 1.2 CITY HALL 8,165 sf - 2.200 CITY MANAGER 1,875 sf - 2.300 FINANCE/HR 1,910 sf - 2.400 COMM. DEVELOPMENT 1,898s 5,683 sf x 1.2 sf 6,819 sf GARAGE -1.800 GARAGE SUPPORT 520 sf x 1.2 624 sf - 3.200 POLICE GARAGE 11.180 sf 11,804 sf POLICE -1.500 HOLDING 2,184 sf -1.700 SUPPORT SPACES 5,448 sf 7,632 x 1.2 9,159 sf CITY HALL - 2.500 PARKS AND REC 2,311 sf - 2.600 SHARED SPACE 1,527 sf -2.309-12 621 sf 4,459 sf x 1.2 sf 5,351 sf - 3.200 CITY HALL GARAGE 1,170 sf 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.M I I I � I I I I I I City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 C] %% vpr, LOBBY +Ab%'J00 � 000 4� 0 POLICE Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION E - MAIN LEVEL DIAGRAM EVIDENCE i City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 wwrwwwrrwriwrwwr CHAMBERS M ' AM . ' ° = AEI.E DEMO i MAIN 1.F.VEL DIAGRAM 1/32" = 1'-0" O 24' 48' Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION E - LOWER LEVEL DIAGRAM 1110/2014 11:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SIudy\Tour Book\Tour Bookrvt City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 C �1 SII DEMO p� li 1� 1� LOJNER LEVEL DIAGRAM 1/32" = 1'-0" 0 24' 48' Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION E - REMODELEDIADDITION City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 SITE 1 1 " = 160'-0" 0 120' 240' 11101201411:39:29 AM SVI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs SIudyATour Book\Tour Book.rvt Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION A - ONE LEVEL NEW BUILDING SUMMARY 1. SUMMARY City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 This option is a one story new building. All functions would be on the same level. One of larger benefits is that there is no vertical circulation however, this option has the largest footprint. This could be built on the existing City Hall/Police Station site, further back into the existing Park or on the K -Mart site. To add a 37,000 square foot tenant to the building, a likely option would be to add a second story. 2. COSTS 'REQUIRES TEMPORARY RE -LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND POLICE, WHICH IS NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST. —REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST, —FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COST TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3. ADVANTAGESIDISADVANTAGES SITE 1 SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 3 NO VERTICAL CIRCULATION NEW SF 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL SF 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 DEMO BUILDINGS $150,000 STATION OPERATIONAL $150,000 THE BUILDING $0.00 SITE 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stal1 = $200,000 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 190 Stalls x $4,000/Stall $760,000 SUBTOTAL $12,890,000 DURING CONSTRUCTION $12,890,000 $13,300,000 EST. CONT. $14,179,000 - LARGEST FOOTPRINT $14,179,000 - DOES NOT TAKE $14,630,000 PROJ. COST $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $17,723,750 $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $17,723,750 $14,630,000 x 1.25 = $18,287,500 TOTAL PROJ. COST DURING CONSTRUCTION $17,723,750* CITY AMENITIES $17,723,750** F $18,287,500*** 'REQUIRES TEMPORARY RE -LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND POLICE, WHICH IS NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST. —REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST, —FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COST TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3. ADVANTAGESIDISADVANTAGES 1/10/2014 11.39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Tour Book\Tour Book.rN Comm No: 132077 DIAGRAM SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 NO VERTICAL CIRCULATION - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF PART OF CITY CENTER - LEAST AMOUNT OF EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING DEVELOPMENT GRADING - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE ADVANTAGES - CLEAN ORGANIZATION TO BUILDINGS BUILDINGS STATION OPERATIONAL THE BUILDING - KEEPS PROMINENT - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE DURING CONSTRUCTION FRONTAGE STATION OPERATIONAL PARK REMAINS AS IS DURING CONSTRUCTION - POSSIBILITY TO RENT OUT EXISTING BUILDING - LARGEST FOOTPRINT - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - DOES NOT TAKE - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF -'PANCAKE' BUILDING CITY HALL AND POLICE SOME PARK FUNCTIONS ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING DURING CONSTRUCTION (FIELDS ETC.) CITY AMENITIES - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - SITS BACK IN SITE, NEAR - TAKES UP ABOUT 40% OF DISADVANTAGES SOME PARK FUNCTIONS NEIGHBORHOOD K -MART SITE (THEATER ETC.) 1/10/2014 11.39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Study\Tour Book\Tour Book.rN Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION B - TUCK UNDER GARAGE NEW BUILDING - SUMMARY 1. SUMMARY City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 This option is puts all departments on one level and the garage in the basement. All functions would be on the same level. This reduces the footprint of the building but will take some additional site grading to make happen. This could be built on the existing City Hall/Police Station site, further back into the existing Park or on the K -Mart site. To add a 37,000 square foot pennant to the building, a likely option would be to add a second story, 2. COSTS "REQUIRES TEMPORARY RE -LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND POLICE, WHICH IS NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST. —REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST- "' FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COST TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3. ADVANTA5ESIpISADVANTAGES SITE 1 SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 2 SITE 3 - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF NEW SF 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL SF 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 DEMO - KEEPS PROMINENT - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE $150,000 $150,000 FRONTAGE STATION OPERATIONAL $0.00 SITE 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 190 Stalls x $4,000/Stall $760,000 SUBTOTAL $12,890,000 - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF $12,890,000 $13,300,000 EST. CONT, ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING $14,179,000 $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $14,179,000 $17,723,750 $14,630,000 x 1.25 = $14,630,000 $18,287,500 PROJ. COST $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $17,723,750 TOTAL PROJ. COST DISADVANTAGES $17,723,750" SOME PARK FUNCTIONS NEIGHBORHOOD $17,723,750" $18,287,500— "REQUIRES TEMPORARY RE -LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND POLICE, WHICH IS NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST. —REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST- "' FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COST TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3. ADVANTA5ESIpISADVANTAGES 1/10/2014 11 39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\TourBook\TourBook,rvl Comm No: 132077 DIAGRAM SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 - ONLY PRIMARY SPACES - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - PART OF CITY CENTER ARE ON THE MAIN LEVEL EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING DEVELOPMENT - CLEAN ORGANIZATION TO - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE ADVANTAGES THE BUILDING BUILDINGS BUILDINGS STATION OPERATIONAL -SLIGHTLY SMALLER - KEEPS PROMINENT - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE DURING CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT FRONTAGE STATION OPERATIONAL - PARK REMAINS AS IS DURING CONSTRUCTION - POSSIBILITY TO RENT OUT EXISTING BUILDING - SOME GRADING TO MAKE - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - DOES NOT TAKE WORK CITY HALL AND POLICE SOME PARK FUNCTIONS ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING DURING CONSTRUCTION (FIELDS ETC,) CITY AMENITIES - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - SITS BACK IN SITE, NEAR - TAKES UP ABOUT 30% OF DISADVANTAGES SOME PARK FUNCTIONS NEIGHBORHOOD K -MART SITE (THEATER ETC.) 1/10/2014 11 39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\TourBook\TourBook,rvl Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION C - TWO LEVEL POLICE NEW BUILDING - SUMMARY 1. SUMMARY City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 This option is City Hall and the public spaces on one level but the Police Department is split between two levels. This reduces the footprint of the building but will take some additional site grading to make happen. This could be built on the existing City Hall/Police Station site, further back into the existing Park or on the K -Mart site. To add a 37,000 square foot tenant to the building, a likely option would be to add a second story. 2. COSTS "REOUIRESTEMPORARY RE -LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND POLICE, WHICH IS NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST. —REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST. FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT. THERE MAYBE ADDITIONAL COST TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES DIAGRAM SITE 1 SITE 1 SITE 3 SITE 2 - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF SITE 3 BUILDING EXISTING PARKING NEW SF 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL SF 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 DEMO DURING CONSTRUCTION $150,000 $150,000 EXISTING BUILDING $0.00 SITE 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 190 Stalls x $4,000/Stall $760,000 SUBTOTAL - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF $12,890,000 - TAKES UP ABOUT 40% OF $12,890,000 NEIGHBORHOOD $13,300,000 EST. CONT. $14,179,000 $14,179,000 $14,630,000 PROJ. COST $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $17,723,750 1 $14,179,000 x 1:25 = $17,723,750 $14,630,000 x 1.25 = $18,287,500 TOTAL PROJ. COST $17,723,750 $17,723,750" $18,287,500"— "REOUIRESTEMPORARY RE -LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND POLICE, WHICH IS NOT FIGURED INTO THE COST. —REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST. FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT. THERE MAYBE ADDITIONAL COST TO UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES DIAGRAM SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 - GARAGE IS UNDER - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - PART OF CITY CENTER BUILDING EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING DEVELOPMENT - CLEAN ORGANIZATION TO - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE THE BUILDING BUILDINGS BUILDINGS STATION OPERATIONAL -SLIGHTLY SMALLER - KEEPS PROMINENT - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE DURING CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAN ONE LEVEL FRONTAGE STATION OPERATIONAL - PARK REMAINS AS IS BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION - POSSIBILITY TO RENT OUT EXISTING BUILDING - SOME GRADING TO MAKE - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - DOES NOT TAKE TUCK UNDER GARAGE CITY HALL AND POLICE SOME PARK FUNCTIONS ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING DURING CONSTRUCTION (FIELDS ETC.) CITY AMENITIES - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - SITS BACK IN SITE, NEAR - TAKES UP ABOUT 40% OF SOME PARK FUNCTIONS NEIGHBORHOOD K -MART SITE (THEATER ETC.) 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Sludy\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvt Comm No: 132077 WCL OPTION D - THREE LEVEL BUILDING NEW BUILDING - SUMMARY 1. SUMMARY City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 This option is City Hall and the public spaces on the upper level and the Police Department is split between the main level and basement. This reduces the footprint of the building but will take some additional site grading to make happen. Because of the smaller footprint, this option can leave the City Hall and Police operational during construction. To add a 37,000 SF tenant to the building, an additional story or creating a larger footprint building would be likely. 2. COSTS "REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST. —FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT, THERE MAYBE ADDITIONAL COST T0. UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3.ADVANTAGESlDISADVANTAGES SITE 1 SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 3 SMALLEST FOOTPRINT NEW SF 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL SF 0 SF x $80 SF = $0,00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 0 SF x $80 SF = $0.00 DEMO BUILDINGS $150,000 STATION OPERATIONAL $150,000 $0.00 SITE 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 190 Stalls x $4,000/Stall $760,000 SUBTOTAL $12,890,000 DURING CONSTRUCTION $12,890,000 $13,300,000 EST. CONT. $14,179,000 $14,179,000 DURING CONSTRUCTION $14,630,000 PROJ. COST $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $17,723,750 $14,179,000 x 1.25 = $17,723,750 $14,630,000 x 1.25 = $18,287,500 TOTAL PROJ. COST SOME PARK FUNCTIONS $17,723,750"` ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING $17,723,750"" CITY HALL $18,287,500— "REQUIRES RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED INTO THE COST. —FINAL COST WILL DEPEND ON IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS KEPT, THERE MAYBE ADDITIONAL COST T0. UPGRADE SYSTEMS AT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IF KEPT OR DEMOLITION COSTS IF BUILDING IS REMOVED. 3.ADVANTAGESlDISADVANTAGES 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Slud}\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvl Comm No: 132077 DIAGRAM SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SMALLEST FOOTPRINT - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF A - PART OF CITY CENTER EXISTING PARKING EXISTING PARKING DEVELOPMENT - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY _ CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE ADVANTAGES BUILDINGS BUILDINGS STATION OPERATIONAL - KEEPS PROMINENT - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE DURING CONSTRUCTION FRONTAGE STATION OPERATIONAL - PARK REMAINS AS IS - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE DURING CONSTRUCTION - POSSIBILITY TO RENT OUT STATION OPERATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION - PUBLIC REQUIRED TO GO - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF - DOES NOT TAKE UP ONE LEVEL TO GET TO SOME PARK FUNCTIONS SOME PARK FUNCTIONS ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING CITY HALL (THEATER ETC.) (FIELDS ETC.) CITY AMENITIES - SITS BACK IN SITE, NEAR - TAKES UP ABOUT 25% OF DISADVANTAGES NEIGHBORHOOD K -MART SITE 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077 Space Needs Slud}\Tour Book\Tour Book.rvl Comm No: 132077 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 OPTION E- R EM 0 D WAD DIT10 N -SUMMARY 1._SUMMARY THIS OPTION KEEPS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IN PLACE. THIS SPACE WOULD BE REMODELED TO HOUSE CITY HALL. THE ADDITIONS WOLD BE A TWO LEVEL POLICE STATION AND PUBLIC SPACES. 2. COSTS 3.ADVANTAGESlDISADVANTAGES SITE 1 SITE 1 NEW SF 40,000 SF x $220 SF = $8,800,000 REMODEL SF 18,000 SF x $80 SF = $1,440,000 DEMO - CLEAN ORGANIZATION TO $45,000 SITE 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 DEF. MAINT 18,000 SF x $80 SF = $1,440,000 SUBTOTAL $11,925,000 $13,117,500 EST. CONT. PROJ. COST $11,925,000 x 1.25 = $16,396,875 TOTAL PROJ. COST STATION OPERATIONAL $16,396,875 3.ADVANTAGESlDISADVANTAGES 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077Space Needs Study\TourBook\TourBook.rvt Comm No:132077 DIAGRAM SITE 1 UTILIZES EXISTING - TAKES ADVANTAGE OF BUILDING EXISTING PARKING - CLEAN ORGANIZATION TO - CREATES CAMPUS OF CITY BUILDING BUILDINGS ADVANTAGES - KEEPS PROMINENT FRONTAGE - KEEPS CITY HALL/ POLICE STATION OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTION - REQUIRES RELOCATION OF SOME PARK FUNCTIONS DISADVANTAGES (THEATER ETC.) 1/10/201411:39:29 AM S:\CI-NewHope\132077Space Needs Study\TourBook\TourBook.rvt Comm No:132077 WO -LE SUMMARY MATRIX City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY January 9, 2014 Comm No: 132077 OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D OPTION E ONE LEVEL NEW TUCK UNDER TWO LEVEL THREE LEVEL REMODEL BUILDING GARAGE NEW POLICE NEW NEW BUILDING ADDITION BUILDING BUILDING I II I I PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: SITE 1 $17,723,750 $17,723,750 $17,723,750 $17,723,750 $16,396,875 PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: SITE 2 $17,723,750 $17,723,750 $17,723,750 $17,723,750 N/A PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: PROJ. COST: N/A SITE 3 $18,287,500 $18,287,500 $18,287,500 $18,287,500 Comm No: 132077 COUNCIL V49.2 Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development August 19, 2013 Work Session Item No. 11.1 By: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD I3y: Kirk McDonald, City %-laiiag::t- Update on the Space Needs Study by Wold Architects. �'(1 Requested Action The city staff and Wold Architects propose to provide an update of the progress to date regarding the execution of the Space needs Study. Policy/Past Practice It is a past practice for staff and consultants to provide periodic updates to the City Council, Background The city of New Hope has engaged Wold Architects and Engineers to conduct a Space Needs Study related to the departments in city hall and the Police Department. Staff has requested that Wold attend the meeting to provide the Council an update of their activity/progress to date. Attachment • Update from Wold Motion by Second by To: 61', -71 I:\RFA\COMM DEV\Q WOLDUpdate 8-19-2013.doc arch i t e c t s engineers www.woldae.com 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 maii@woldae.com CITY OF NEW HOPE City Hall &Police Space Needs Study Council Update New Hope, Minnesota August 19, 2013 Minnesota Illinois Michigan Colorado CITY OF NEW HOPE • i City Hall & Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Table of Contents: A. Executive Summary 1. Introduction TBD 2. Recommendations of the Core Group Committee TBD • Space Needs Recommendation • Site Recommendation • Proposed Site Plan • Proposed Conceptual Floor Plans Support Information 1. Study Methodology Page 1 2. Guiding Principles Page 2 3. Current and Future Populations Page 3 4. Existing Facility Analysis TBD C. Program Summary 1. Detailed Projected Space Needs Page 4 E. Option Development 1. Option A TBD 2. Option B TBD 3. Option C TBD 4. Option D TBD 5. Option E TBD F. Appendix • Meeting Minutes Commission No. 132077 WCL CITY OF NEW HOPE City Hall & Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Study Methodology To arrive at the conclusions in this report, extensive meetings and discussions occurred between the Wold team, the Core Group Committee and City of New Hope City Hall and Police Department Staff. This effort includes staff interviews, information gathering, a tour of recently constructed police facilities and a study of any future growth. The following goals for the study were outlined early in the process: Current and Future Operations • Analysis of current operations • Department Interviews • Projection of future operational opportunities Growth Needs Analysis • Review and approval of projected growth needs • Space deficiencies explored Program • Development of a program of spaces • Discussion of potential future operational models • Refinement of basic program needs Facility Analysis • Analysis of current facility utilization and capacities Tours Options • Observation of relevant recent City Hall and Police projects • Presentation and discussion of options and costs • Selection of a preferred option Commission No. 132077 WoL CITY OF NEW HOPE City Hall & Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Guiding Principles and Strategies for Implementation Guiding principles and strategies for implementation were developed by the Core Group in order to define the role, image and mission of the Police Department functions for the City and served as objectives for the planning of the resulting facility. 1. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should function for the residents and be a beacon for community pride. 2. New Hope City Hall and Police Department should be an up to date facility in terms of energy efficiency, modern materials, HVAC systems and updated technology. 3. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should house all departments with the ability to accommodate future growth and changes in operation. 4. New Hope City Hall and Police Station should be a safe and secure facility for the staff and public. Commission No. 132077 WCL CITY OF NEW HOPE City Hall & Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Current and Future Operations The number of City Hall and Police Department personnel is the basis for determining space needs. The projection of personnel is based on a variety of factors. The following assumptions were used as a basis for projecting staff needs: • The City Hall and Police Department will continue to provide the services it currently provides. • The staff necessary to provide services will continue to incorporate new efficiencies to minimize growth, MethodoloQv Wold Architects and Engineers used a survey and meetings with each department within the City Hall and Police Department to gather base line information and operational descriptions for use in projecting personnel needs. The survey data is summarized in the following pages by division. Three primary forecast models were used to develop staff projections. These three forecast models are described below. Ultimately Model 1 was used to inform this study and the trends that the City Hall and Police predicts for their staffing. Model 1 is the management's estimate of employee growth based, in part, on current and projected workloads. The departments provided personnel forecasts for a twenty year horizon. For divisions that have been functioning for a number of years, particularly if the same division head has witnessed personnel trends, Model 1 is a good predictor of future personnel growth trends. Model 2 assumes that a given division will grow at the same rate that it has grown in the past decade. In most cases, departments have been reduced due to the economic conditions affect on budgets and staffing over the last five years, so this model is not considered to provide good trends. Model 3 ties personnel growth to the growth of City population. This model assumes that growth in the department or division will occur in direct proportion to City population. This model is based on the premise service provided and staff efficiency are constant. The Metropolitan Council's January 1, 2013 Projections were used as the baseline for general population projections. The number of citizens in the City is typically proportional to the number of patrol officers on staff. However, because general population growth is predicted to be very stable, the indicator of projected general population growth was not seen as very useful. Instead, Model 1 was utilized, basing any preparation for future staff growth on the anticipated needs of the department or new operations that are predicted. Citywide General Population Projections Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 New Hope Population 3,552 23,180 23,087 21,853 20,873 20,339 22,000 22,500 * Cells shaded gray are projections. Commission No. 132077 WaL CITY OF NEW HOPE City Hall & Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Overall Space Needs Summar Utilizing staffing projections derived from Model 1, spaces needed to support City Hall and Police Department operations were developed and reviewed with the Police Department staff and Core Group Committee. The following pages summarize and then detail room by room the space needs generated to allow the Police Department to operate effectively both today and into the foreseeable future. Commission No. 132077 City of New Hope City Hall / Police Space Needs Study Rip DRAFT August 19, 2013 Space Program Summary Existing Proposed Buildinq Proqram Departmental Summary - Police 1.100 Public Spaces USF Needed 2,044 s.f. 1.200 Administration Bldg USF Needed 2,617 s.f. 1.300 Patrol USF Needed 3,170 s.f. 1.400 Investigations USF Needed 1,456 s.f. 1.500 Holding USF Needed 2,184 s.f. 1.600 Evidence USF Needed 3,332 s.f. 1.700 Support Spaces USF Needed 5,397 s.f. 1.800 Garage Support USF Needed 520 s.f. Total Police Office USF 20,720 s.f. Garage Summary x 1.20 Total Police Garage GSF Total Police Office GSF 24,863 s.f. Departmental Summary - City Hall 2.100 Public Space USF Needed 6,804 s.f. 2.200 City Manager USF Needed 1,875 s.f. 2.300 Finance/IT/HR USF Needed 2,531 s.f. 2.400 Comm. Development Bldg USF Needed 1,898 s.f. 2.500 Parks and Rec USF Needed 2,311 s.f. 2.600 Shared Space USF Needed 2,087 s.f. Total City Hall Office USF 17,507 s.f. x 1.20 Total City Hall Office GSF 21,008 s.f. Garage Summary 3.100 Total Police Garage GSF 11,180 s.f. 3.200 Total City Hall Garage GSF 900 s.f. Total Garage GSF 12,080 s.f. TOTAL Total Gross Square Footage - Police 24,863 s.f. Total Gross Square Footage- City Hall 21,008 s.f. Total Gross Square Footage- Garage 12,080 s.f. Total 26,740 s.f. 57,952 s.f. s:/Ci-New Hope/132077/New Hope Space Program.xlsx 1 Comm. No. 132077 WCL Space Program Summary 1.000 Police 1.100 Public Spaces 1.101 Public Waiting 1.102 Lobby Interview Room 1.103 Community Room/ EOC 1.104 Community Room Storage 1.304 Public Spaces Net Area Total: 1.305 Net to Usable SF Factor 1.306 Public Spaces USF Needed 1.200 Administration 1.201 Chief Office 1.202 Captain Office 1.203 Admin. Assistant Office 1.204 Office Supervisor Office 1.205 Clerical Workstation 1.206 Future IT Coordinator - Workstation 1.207 Active Records Storage 1.208 Archive Records Room 1.209 Copy/Supply/Workroom 1.210 Conference Room 1.211 Admin Storage Investigator's Office - Part Time Administration Net Area Total: Computer Forensics / DTF Office Net to Usable SF Factor Administration Bldg USF Needed 1.300 Patrol 1.301 Sergeants Shared Area 1.302 Shared Patrol Workstations 1.303 Patrol File Storage 1.304 Community Service Officer Wkstn 1.305 Animal Control Officer Wkstn 1.306 Crime Prevention Specialist Wkstn 1.307 PTE CSO/Reserve Officer Wkstn 1.308 School Resource Officer Wkstn 1.309 Copy/Workarea 1.310 Roll Call Area 1.311 CSO/Reserve Storage 1.312 Program Storage (DARE, Crime Prev.) 155 s.f. Patrol Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Patrol USF Needed 1.400 Investigations 1.401 Investigator's Office 1.402 Investigator's Office - Part Time 1.403 Computer Forensics / DTF Office 1.404 Conference / Case Mgmt Room w/ Wkstn 1.405 Soft Interview Room 1.406 Invest. Storage/ Elect. Equip. Unit Size Investigations Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Investigations USF Needed s:/Ci-New Hope/132077/New Hope Space Program.xlsx 2 City of New Hope City Hall / Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Existing Proposed Building Program Comm. No. 132077 155 s.f. 400 s.f. 120 s.f. 900 s.f. 40 s.f. 155 s.f. 1,460 s.f. x 1.40 2,044 s.f. QTY Unit Size QTY Unit Size 185 s.f. 200 s.f. 2 130 s.f. 260 s.f. 2 150 s.f. 300 s.f, 96 s.f. 110 s.f. 120 s.f. 135 s.f. 2 64 s -t 128 s.f. 3 80 s.f. 240 s.f. 64 s.f. 60 s.f. 160 s.f. 150 s.f. 200 s.f. 140 s.f, 240 s.f. 240 s.f, 80 s.f. 1,239 s.f. 1,869 s.f. x 1.40 2,617 s.f. 2 67 s.f 135 s.f. 6 80 s.f. 480 s.f. incl 4 64 s.f. 256 s.f. incl incl 65 s.f. 64 s.f. 65 s.f. 64 s.f. 65 s.f. 64 s.f. 3 64 s.f 192 s.f. 130 s.f. 64 s.f. See 1.209 440 s.f. 800 s.f. 80 s.f. 140 s.f. 200 s.f. 1,040 s.f. 2,264 s.f. x 1.40 3,170 s.f 2 130 s.f. 260 s.f. 3 150 s.f. 450 s.f. 65 s.f. incl 80 s.f. 150 s.f. 240 s.f. 120 s.f. 20 s.f. 80 s,f. 425 s.f. 1,040 s.f. Comm. No. 132077 1.700 Support Spaces 1.701 Armory City of New Hope 120 s.f. City Hall / Police Space Needs Study Ammunition Room Garage Support Net Area Total: DRAFT August 19, 2013 Space Program Summary Fitness Center Garage Support USF Needed 900 s.f. Existing Proposed Building Program 1.500 Holding 800 s.f. 1.501 Holding Cell 3 60 s.f. 180 s.f- 2 70 s.f. 140 s.f. 1.502 Holding Cell Juvenile 1,707 2 70 s f. 140 s.f. 1.503 Booking/Intox. 73 s.f. 280 s.f. 1.504 Sallyport 580 s.f. 900 s.f. 1.505 Hard Interview 90 s.f 100 s.f. Holding Net Area Total: 923 s.f. 1,560 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 2 64 s.f. 128 s.f. x 1.40 Holding USF Needed 550 s.f. 2,184 s.f. 1.600 Evidence Men's Toilet/ Shower Included 1.601 Evidence Entry/ Process Lab 1.713 300 s.f. 1.602 Evidence Storage 256 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1.603 Large Property Storage 210 s.f. incl 1.604 Vault Storage/ Drugs/ Weapons/ Drying Room Women's Toilet/ Shower 80 s.f. 1.605 Evidence Garage 1.716 2 400 s.f. 800 s.f. Evidence Net Area Total: 466 s.f. 2,380 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 824 s.f. x 1.40 Evidence USF Needed Net to Usable SF Factor 3,332 s.f. 1.700 Support Spaces 1.701 Armory 1.802 Gear bag storage/Radio Charging 120 s.f. 1.702 Ammunition Room Garage Support Net Area Total: 80 s.f. 1.703 Fitness Center Garage Support USF Needed 900 s.f. 1.704 City Staff Changing Room 2 80 s.t. 160 s.f. 1.705 Defensive Tactics Training Room 800 s.f. 1.706 Defensive Tactics Training Storage 40 s.f. 1,707 Breakroom w/ Kitchenette (6-8 people) 450 s.f. 1.708 Quiet/Mothers Room 80 s.f. 1.709 Beverage Station 72 s.f. 1.710 Staff Toilet 2 25 s.f. 50 s.f. 2 64 s.f. 128 s.f. 1.711 Men's Locker Room 550 s.f. 50 12s.1 600 s.f. 1.712 Men's Toilet/ Shower Included 120 s.f. 1.713 Men's Vestibule Included 44 s.f. 1.714 Women's Locker Room 224 s.f. 20 12 s f. 240 s.f. 1.715 Women's Toilet/ Shower Included 120 s.f. 1.716 Women's Vestibule Included 44 s.f. Support Spaces Net Area Total: 824 s.f. 3,998 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.35 Support Spaces USF Needed 5,397 s.f. 1.800 Police Garage Support 1.801 Swat Gear Storage / Locker Room 180 s.f. 1.802 Gear bag storage/Radio Charging 120 s.f, 1.803 Squad Supply Storage 60 s.f. 100 s.f. Garage Support Net Area Total: 60 s.f. 400 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.30 Garage Support USF Needed 520 s.f. s:/G-New Hope/132077/New Hope Space Program.xisx 3 Comm. No. 132077 WCL Space Program Summary 2.000 City Hall 2.100 Public Spaces 2.101 Public Lobby 2.102 Council Chambers 2.103 Council Chambers Table Storage 2.104 TV Control Room 2.105 Council Work Session Room 2.106 Public After Hours Conference !Training 2.107 Kitchenette 2.108 Conference Room 2.109 Public Toilets Storage Public Space Net Area Total: Finance Workstation (1@80 1@110) Net to Usable SF Factor Cash Handling/Safe Room Public Space USF Needed 2.200 City Manager 2.201 City Manager Office 2.202 City Clerk Office 2.203 Admin. Assistant 2.204 Assessor Workstation 2.205 Mayor/Council Workspace 2.206 Public Counter 2.207 Ballot Storage 2.208 Elections Storage 2.209 Public Record Viewing Kiosk 2.210 Counter Workstations f2 cr 54) 2 54s.1. Finance/IT/HR USF Needed City of New Hope City Hall / Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Existing Building 420 s.f. 1,280 s.f. 0 s.f. 60 s.f. 840 s.f. 222 s.f. 2 200 s.f. 280 s.f, 145 s.f. 110 s.f. 20 s.f. 640 s.f. Proposed Program 600 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 900 s.f. 800 s.f. 120 s.f. 400 s.f. 300 s.f. 4,860 s.f. x 1.40 6,804 s.f 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 110 s.f. 64 s.f. 150 s.f. incl 40 s.f. 600 s.f. 25 s.f. 0 s.f. 1,339 s.f. x 1.40 1,875 s.f 170 s.f. City Manager Net Area Total: 135 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor 64 s.f. City Manager USF Needed 2.300 Finance / IT / HR / Communications 2.301 HR/Admin Director Office 2.302 HR Coordinator Office 2.303 Wellness Workstation 2.304 Finance Director Office 2.305 Finance Storage 2.306 Storage 2.307 Finance Workstation (1@80 1@110) 2.308 Cash Handling/Safe Room 2.309 I.T. Coordinator Office 2.310 I.T. Support Workstation 2.311 I.T. Set Up Workstation 2.312 I.T. Storage 2.313 Server Room 2.314 Communications Office 2.315 Communications Intern Work Area/Storage Wkstn Finance/IT/HR Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Finance/IT/HR USF Needed City of New Hope City Hall / Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Existing Building 420 s.f. 1,280 s.f. 0 s.f. 60 s.f. 840 s.f. 222 s.f. 2 200 s.f. 280 s.f, 145 s.f. 110 s.f. 20 s.f. 640 s.f. Proposed Program 600 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 120 s.f. 120 s.f. 900 s.f. 800 s.f. 120 s.f. 400 s.f. 300 s.f. 4,860 s.f. x 1.40 6,804 s.f 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 110 s.f. 64 s.f. 150 s.f. incl 40 s.f. 600 s.f. 25 s.f. 0 s.f. 1,339 s.f. x 1.40 1,875 s.f 170 s.f. 200 s.f. 135 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. See 1.703 160 s.f. 200 s.f. 80 s.f. 80 s.f. 28 s.f. 28 s.f. 190 s.f. 3 64 s.f. 192 s.f. 60 s.f. 140 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. 128 s.f. 150 s.f. 80 s.f. 164 s.f. 240 s.f. 155 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. 1,414 s.f. 1,808 s.f. s:/Ci-New Hope/132077/New Hope Space Program.xlsx 4 Comm. No. 132077 WCL Space Program Summary 2.400 Community Development 2.401 CD Director Office 2.402 CD Specialist Office 2.403 Building Official Office 2.404 Housing Inspector Office 2.405 General Inspector Office 2.406 CD Assistant Workstation 2.407 Intern Workstation 2.408 Office Support Specialist 2.409 Work Area 2.410 Plan Storage 2.411 Public Counter Parks and Rec USF Needed Comm. Development Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Comm. Development Bldg USF Needed 2.500 Parks and Recreation 2.501 Parks Director Office 2.502 Athletic Supervisor Office 2.503 Rec. Coordinator Office 2.504 Office Support Spec. Workstation 2.505 Seasonal Supervisor 2.506 Work Area 2.507 Work Room 2.508 Supply Storage 2.509 Park and Rec Counter Parks and Rec Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Parks and Rec USF Needed 2.600 Shared Spaces 2.601 Copy/Supplies/Work Room 2.602 Mail/Work Area 2.603 Quiet/Mother's Room 2.604 Break Room 2.605 Archive Storage 2.606 Loading Dock 2.607 Janitorial 2.608 Staff Toilets Shared Space Net Area Total: Net to Usable SF Factor Shared Space USF Needed s:/Ci-New Hope/132077/New Flope Space Program.xlsx 5 City of New Hope City Hall / Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Existing Buildina 175 s.f. 140 s.f. 175 s.f. 135 s.f. 115 s.f. 54 s.f. 54 s.f. 2 48s.1. 96 s.f. 48 s.f. incl 76 s.f. 1,068 s.f. 48 s.f 250 s.f. 165 s.f. 155 s.f. 96 s.f. 100 s.f. 80 s.f. 190 s.f. 505 s.f. 50 s.f. 1,591 s.f. 210 s.f. 80 s.f. 63 s.f. 640 s.f. 200 s.f. 64 s.f 1,257 s.f. Proposed Proaram 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. 64 s.f. 2 64 s.f 128 s.f. incl 150 s.f. 3 50 s f 150 s.f. 1,356 s.f. x 1.40 1,898 s.f. 200 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 2 64 s f. 128 s.f. 3 36s.1. 108 s.f. 120 s.f. 190 s.f. 505 s.f. 100 s.f. 1,651 s.f. x 1.40 2,311 s.f. 300 s.f. incl 63 s.f. 400 s.f. 200 s.f. 250 s.f. 150 s.f. 64 s.f. 128 s.f. 1,491 s.f. x 1.40 2,087 s.f Comm. No. 132077 City of New Hope City Hall / Police Space Needs Study DRAFT August 19, 2013 Space Program Summary s:/CI-New Hope/132077/New Hope Space Program.xlsx 6 Comm. No. 132077 Existing Proposed Building Program 3.100 Vehicle Garage 3.101 Parking Stalls 2,160 s.f. 27 300 s.f. 8,100 s.f 3.102 Swat Truck 0 s.f. 500 s.f. Vehicle Garage Net Area Total: 2,160 s.f. 8,600 s.f, Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.30 Vehicle Garage GSF Needed 11,180 s.f. 3.200 Community Development Vehicle Garage 3.201 Parking Stalls - CD 3 300 SI 900 s.f.. Vehicle Garage Net Area Total- 0 s.f. 900 s.f. Net to Usable SF Factor x 1.30 Vehicle Garage GSF Needed 1,170 s.f. s:/CI-New Hope/132077/New Hope Space Program.xlsx 6 Comm. No. 132077 C;*49:44 Originating Department Community Development : Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD e"t—%T M TrITT Request for Action Approved for Agenda Kirk March 25, 2013 Agenda Section Consent Item No. 6.4 Motion to approve Wold Architects and Engineers to conduct a municipal facilities space needs assessment for a total contract maximum of $9,400. Requested Action Staff requests the Council approve a motion to authorize Wold Architects and Engineers to conduct a municipal space needs assessment. Policy/Past Practice It is a city policy and past practice to solicit Council approval before entering into an agreement with an outside consulting firm. Background Over the last couple of years while conducting the TOD Study, city center vision and the modification of zoning codes for the city center area there has been some interest in studying if a new city hall is necessary. As the city moves forward with the possible redevelopment of city center now is the appropriate time to look into this issue. At the March 18 Council work session two quotes for a space needs study were presented, from Stantec and Wold, for consideration. The Council recommended that this issue be moved forward to the March 25 City Council meeting for award to the low quote of $9,400 from Wold Architects and Engineers. Financing The study is recommended to be paid for out of the temporary financing fund. Recommendation Staff recommends the Council Rass a motion awarding to Wold Architects and I Motion b f� y ''�.,� Second by To: I:1 RFA 1 COMM DEV 1Q - Motion to award to Wold for Space deeds Originating Department Community Development : Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD Discuss authorizing a city hall space needs COUNCIL Request for Action Approved for Agenda March 18, 2013 Kirk McDonald, Agenda Section Work Session Item No. 11.4 Requested Action Staff requests to discuss with the Council the possibility of having a facility Space needs study conducted for the city hall including; administration, community development, parks and recreation, police and vehicle garage space. Policy/Past Practice It is a practice of the staff to discuss studies/feasibility reports with the Council prior to authorizing said studies. Background Over the last two years as the city has gone through the visioning process and the zoning code amendments for the City Center area staff has heard many times that the city should investigate the possibility of incorporating a new city hall into the redevelopment project. Under the guidance of the City Manager staff has solicited quotes from both the city's current engineering firm and also Wold Architects. Staff requests guidance from the Council as to your desire to proceed along this path. The estimated cost for the study would range from $9,400 to $10,500. Funding It is proposed that the funding for this study be taken from the Temporary Financing account. The EDA was considered and although it is no longer acceptable to finance public buildings with TIF funds EDA funds could be used if a future project was to be established as a lease/purchase between the EDA and City. It may be too early in the process to determine the ultimate financing arrangements for a future city hall and therefore it is recommended that the temporary financing account be used to fund this study if authorized. Motion by To: Second by 1: \RI'A \ COMM DEV \ iJcvclopment \ O -Feasibility Study for City Hall 3-18-2013.doc Request for Action March 18, 2013 Page 2 Attachment Space needs quotes • Unaudited Cash Balances ter, r �.n .Stantec February 21, 2013 Stentec Consulting Services Inc: 8188 Rome Circle NW Rochester MN 55901 Tel; (507) 282-2100 Fax: (507) 282-3100 Mr: Curtis Jacobsen Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: New Hope Municipal Space Needs Study Professional Consulting Services Proposal Dear Mr. Jacobsen, Thanks for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide professional consulting services for the New Hope Municipal Space Needs Study. The following letter presents our understanding of the project, scope of services and professional services tee. We propose to ,provide these services under the terms of the current master services agreement between the City of New Hope and Stantec. Project Understanding As a growing community, New Hope's municipal services needs have charged. The projected growth indicated in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan will have an impact all of the current departments including City Manager's Office, Finance, Paries and Recreatlon, Community Development, and Police. The goal of this space needs study will be to determine the optimal space needs and adjacencies for each of the departments In City Hall. Scope of Basic Services The following are considered Basic Services for the New Hope Municipal Space Needs Study: Task 1: Demographic Analysis We will work with the City staff to define and document the following Information in order to forecast future needs: • Current population served • Projected population growth for the five-, ten-, fifteen- and twenty-year time horizons • General growth locations within the City limits Task 1 Deliverables: • Tabular format summaries of existing and projected population • City map showing current boundaries and future growth locations Task 1 City -provided Items: 0 Population, growth and land use information stanti?c February 21, 2013 New Hope Municipal Space Needs Study Page 2 of 3 Task 2: Space Program Development In order to accurately determine the existing and future needs, a picture of the overall City municipal departments' requirements Is needed. Task 2.1 Interviews We will conduct interviews with appropriate individuals representing each department within the City to gather Information on current staffing, space and operational issues unique to each department. We will use the information gathered from these interviews to form the building and site program, including requirements for. • Public Interactions aces • Comm uMI Develo ment Department • Ci Council Chambers • Planning and Zoning • City Mana er's Office . Permits and Inspections • City Clerk • Conference/Meeting Rooms • Communications Department • Public/Staff Restrooms ■ Human Resources Department CopyWork Rooms ® Information Technology Department Break Room/Kitchen • Finance Department Records/Files Storage • Parks and Recreation De artment •. Vehicle Parkin inside • Police Department ■ Vehicle Parkin on site Task 2.2 Inventory We will visit the existing City Hall to develop an accurate inventory of spaces and equipment. During this Inventory we will also review what is and what is not working within the existing building. Task 2.3 Projections and Spatial Analysis Drawings We will develop the.information gathered in Tasks 1 and 2 into projections of future facility needs for the five-, ten -,.fifteen-, and twenty-year time horizons. We will then translate these projected needs into square footage requirements for bath building and land. We will also develop a functional relationship diagram for the building layout showing how the different spaces would relate to each other, and the overall building footprint required. Task 2.4 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Based on the projected square footage requirements, a preliminary opinion of probable construction costs will be developed, Task 2 Dellverables: Interview summaries • Written inventory • Functional relationship diagrams (block/bubble diagrams) Stant c February 21, 2D13 New Hope Municipal Space Needs Study Page 3 of 3 Task 3. Report Information developed In Task 1 and Task 2 will be summarized in a draft report which will, be presented to the City Manager. Based on comments received, the report will be revised and then formally presented to the City Council. Task 3.Deliverable3: • Draft report and presentation • Final report and presentation Compensation We propose to be compensated for the services outlined in the above scope of basic services on an estimated lump sum basis in the amount of $10,500.00. This includes reimbursable expenses such as mileage and printing/reproduction costs. Should you wish to discuss any of the Information above in further detail, please do not hesitate to call me at 651-604-4649. Respectfully, hW f. 4.— Senior Project Manager CC: Chris Long, Steve Alm Request for Action January 11, 2016 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Development & Planning Item Number 8.3 Agenda Title Resolution approving proposal from Wold Architects to develop site options for new police station/city hall facility (improvement project #926) Requested Action Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution approving a proposal in the amount of $42,500 from Wold Architects to develop site options for a new police station/city hall facility. The City Council discussed the proposal at the December 21, 2015 work session, and the majority of the Council was supportive. The site options would be developed in conjunction with the space needs task force. Several neighboring property owners will be invited to join the task force and provide input. The proposal is based on the assumption the city will utilize the services of Stantec Engineering, the city engineer, for civil engineering associated with the development of site options. Policy/Past Practice The city utilizes the services of professional consultants for special services and projects on an as needed basis. Background The city solicited proposals in 2013 for a space needs analysis and selected Wold Architects to complete the study at a cost of $9,400. Over the last three years Wold Architects has completed the study and assisted with providing information to a citizens task force, and assisted with a public open house. The task force presented a recommendation to the City Council in September to proceed with a new facility, and a public open house was held in October. Community feedback was solicited through an online survey, at the open house, and by a professional firm conducting a citywide survey on a variety of issues. The survey responses are attached. If the City Council desires to continue this process, the next step would be to start the concept site planning process to determine options as to where the new facility could be located on the current city hall/Civic Center Park site. This process would include working with city staff, the task force and surrounding neighborhood on various options, presenting the options to the Council, and seeking more feedback from all New Hope residents. The attached proposal from Wold to continue the process is in the amount of $42,500, and assumes the city would utilize Stantec Engineering for civil engineering services (soil borings, park planning, etc.). The proposal is a full service, fixed fee amount for six percent (6%) of the estimated new building construction cost, and five percent (5%) for site planning and the conceptual design phase, with the understanding that no additional fees will be requested during this phase unless the scope of the project changes significantly. Funding The city has been setting funds aside over the past several years for city hall improvements and/or to study the need for a new facility. The third quarter of 2015's financial report shows the city hall CIP fund had a I:/RFA/CityManager/2016/Q&R-ApproveProposal IP926 011116 Request for Action, Page 2 balance of $396,319 as of September 30, 2015. If the Council proceeds with the proposal, staff recommends the study be funded with the city hall CIP funds. Attachments • Resolution • Proposal from Wold Architects • Open House/Online survey results • City Survey excerpts • Task Force recommendation City of New Hope Resolution 2016-18 Resolution approving proposal from Wold Architects to develop site options for new police station/city hall facility (improvement project #926) WHEREAS, in 2013 the city selected Wold Architects to complete a space needs analysis of the police station/city hall facility; and WHEREAS, the analysis was completed and the information was studied by a citizens task force in 2015, and the task force presented a recommendation to the City Council in September, 2015; and WHEREAS, the information was shared at a public open house, and community feedback was solicited through an online survey and by a professional survey firm, and WHEREAS, The next step in the process is to have the architectural firm develop concept site options for a new facility and determine the impact on Civic Center Park; and WHEREAS, Wold Architects has submitted a proposal to develop various options for the siting of a new facility at a fixed fee in the amount of $42,500 for completion of one third of the schematic design phase, and the City Council discussed the proposal at the work session held on December 21, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The proposal from Wold Architects in the amount of $42,500 to develop site options for a new police station/city hall facility is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 11th day of January, 2016. Mayor Attest: City Clerk December 16, 2015 Kirk McDonald, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 architects engineers Re: City of New Hope www.woldae.com New Police Station / City Hall Commission No. 9999 332 Minnesota Street Suite W Two Thousand Dear Kirk: Saint Paul, MN 55101 We are pleased to provide a proposal for professional engineering and architectural consulting services to develop site tel 651.227.7773 options, master planning for the reconfiguration of Civic Center Park and its amenities while planning for the proposed fax 651.223.5646 new facility. mail@woldae.com As with the Space Needs Study we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction and 7.5% for remodeling, based on your approved construction cost. We understand that your objective is to develop various options for the siting of the new Police Station / City Hall and to develop ownership from the community on the remaining uses of the Civic Center Park. Therefore, we propose that our fixed fees be based upon completion of one third of the Schematic Design phase. This results in the following calculation: Potential Construction Budget (w/ escalation) $14,179,000 Full Service Fixed Fee Rate x 6.0% Proposed Full Service Fixed Fee $ 850,000 Site Planning and Conceptual Design Phase x 5% Preliminary Site Planning Full Service Fixed Fee $ 42,500 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS k 4N, Joel . Dunning// A"LEED Partner Minnesota cc: Ben Beery, Wold Illinois Matt Mooney, Wold Michigan MF/9999/CI_NewHope/crsp/dec15 Colorado Iowa wdesigners and researchers for public environments Open House and Online Survey Results i Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager; Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator From: Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant Date: December 14, 2015 Subject: Survey Results from Space Needs Survey Overview The city held an open house on November 17, 2015 to provide information to interested residents about the condition of the city's existing municipal building, the space needs of the police department and city hall, and the recommendations of a recent citizen task force. Open house attendees were asked to complete a survey, which was also offered at city hall and through the city's website from November, 24, 2015 through December 13, 2015. The display boards, PowerPoint presentation, and task force report presented at the open house were made available on the city's website along with a video of the presentation. The display boards were displayed at city hall while the surveys were offered. There were 18 surveys completed at the open house, 8 surveys turned in at city hall, and 157 surveys submitted through the website. Surveys offered after the open house asked if respondents were New Hope residents or businesses owners. Those who answered "no" are not included in the overall results outlined within this memorandum. This included a total of 2 surveys turned in at city hall and 22 surveys submitted through the website. Staff can provide results from non-residents/business owners if the data is of interest to the City Council. There were also two instances in which the survey offered through the city's website was completed more than two times with the same computer, as determined by the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the completed survey. An IP address is a numerical label assigned to each device participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. As per the recommendation of the city's Communication Coordinator, these surveys were also excluded from the overall results. This included a total of 5 surveys. Up to two surveys were accepted per IP address. Factoring in these omissions, there were 18 surveys completed at the open house, 6 surveys turned in at city hall, and 130 surveys submitted through the website. 1 Results from Open House Yes No No Response Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is 17 0 1 needed on the City Center campus? If nom_ lease describe an alternative. The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for 17 1 0 an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Comments on Alternative F "Have other locations been explored - Science Drive business park?" Why move closer to Zealand - why not north? Consider overbuilding/budget for growth. Can the fields be re- developed, make park walking friendly - light." a "I agree that a new city campus is needed. I strongly prefer a brand new structure not a remodel." o "Place the new structure over the deteriorating pool. $5 mil to repair, new tax increase? Give me a break! Dump the pool for the new building site. Some day in the future, build an indoor poor instead. Pick your winners and losers. Both are losers $ wise." Additional Comments ® "Thanks to staff and members of staff needs task force." * "I see this as a $1.3M question due to the fact that a complete gutting of the existing facility is needed at a minimum. I believe remodeling a 50 year old building would be a disservice to the people of New Hope as well as New Hope employees that are here every day." "I think remodeling the current facility would fall under the old saying about a silk purse and sow's ear." ® "Although alternative sources of funding ought to be explored." e "Every year there is a new cost added to my taxes. My cost of living is always going up (like many others) but our Avages and benefits (S.S.) do not go up. Do the math!" 2 Results from Lobby Yes No No %Ces Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is 6 0 0 needed on the City Center campus? If no, please describe an alternative. The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for 6 0 0 an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Comments on Alternative + "I have enjoyed the present City Hall for 40 years plus and it has worked for me. But the evidence presented by Wold convinces me we need a new City Hall and police station." Additional Comments ® "The presentation was very helpful. We will need to do this." 3 Results from Website Do you support the Citizen Task Yes No No Response Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is 65 65 0 needed on the City Center campus? If no, Iease describe an alternative. The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for 53 77 0 an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Comments on Alternative Comments from the website have been categorized by subject of content, as most focused on the location of a potential new buildiiig/impact on Civic Center Park and the cost of a new building as opposed to remodeling. LocationlPark 32 corn"ieiits • "Recommendation to keep the existing footprint of the city hall and police station and not encroach on the park. If more space is needed, consider building in the vertical direction (larger basement and/or taller building). A multi -story apartment complex already exists across the street, so going higher would not set a precedent," ® "Why can't city hall and the police station relocate to another place for the time it takes to demolish and rebuild the building in the same place? What an eye sore the back of a building will be on Zealand Ave N. I do not care about the tax impact but I do care about how it will affect my neighborhood. When the city put in the temporary street to get in and out I understood why but could not stand the traffic. Why can't it be relocated to another area within the park, land, etc. Please find another way to do this." "But not in the middle of the park! It should be built on the existing site. The park has been there for over 50 years and it should not be destroyed. The city workers could be temporarily moved while construction took place. The city should take a long term view and not think back 20 years from now and wonder what they destroyed our showcase park. Why don't any of the proposed models consider this? We want to keep all of the park amenities! Pool, hockey rink, skate park and playground. The neighborhood is turning over and many new families have moved in because of the location next to the park. We do not want to live next to a building." 4 ® I think remodeling the existing building and possible adding on to the existing building would be better. This would save the park space. Building a new structure in the middle if the park would not benefit the residence of New Hope. Taking away outdoor places young and old people visit is never a good thing. New Hope should encourage outside activities not discourage them." • "I would request rather more renovations on the current site and preserve the beauty of the civic center. It really is a great resource for families." • "We do not support the proposed location. The park in "our backyard" is one of the reasons why we purchased our house. What would this do to the property values in our surrounding neighborhood? I would like an answer to that!" • "I realize that more space is needed and that the most convenient and probably financially reasonable plan is to build a new building, However, I am cautious about what homeowners around the park will be left looking at when a new building is finished. When we moved to New Hope 15 years ago, our view of the park was one of the biggest selling points for our home. We would be very unhappy to be left staring at buildings instead of our beautiful park. Therefore, we remain hesitant to be overly enthusiastic until we can see what the building would look like and where and how it will be situated within the park property. We know that will be the next step, and we will remain neutral until then." • "It may be needed, but we do not support the proposed location. The park in "our backyard" is one of the reasons why we bought our house. Also, what would this do to the property values in the surrounding neighborhood? I would like an answer to that." ® "Take over the strip mall by unique thrift. That mall looks like hell anyway. Move all the administrative offices over there and try to attract restaurants (like the old sunshine factory) and local businesses and build up a more modern strip mall. The location would be better and easier for the PD to get to where they need to go. If you do that, then you can leave civic center park, the theatre, hockey rink, and playground intact." "The site next to the golf course. I don't support diminishing the green spaces in New Hope." "Looking at the proposed plans it is a horrible location for residents living off of the park on Zealand. Why would one put a commercial/business building directly across from homes? Why not where the building already is? Or use the current building - remodel, add on, or go up." "I am deeply disappointed to learn that this is even a discussion on the table. For the past several years we have been taking our kids to the swimming pool for lessons. The park, tennis courts and skate park have been a huge benefit and draw for us. Removing and relocating these iconic 'child and family -friendly' spots would be devastating!! We also just moved from Golden Valley to New Hope and more specifically closer to this park. Our kids have commented and have been looking forward to being able to now bike to the park. As a wife of a firefighter, I understand the importance of public safety and the need for building and space for service departments; however, I will be very 5 disappointed in the city of New Hope if they choose to mob forward with the project and remove the park and the other structures and replace it with a new police station and building project. I believe there are other solutions. When I drive in that area, I don't want to see more building structures. I want to see that the city I live in supports families, kids and the growth of community and coming together. Taking away from that communicates something very different that I don't think I can support. Please, please please reconsider and put the park FIRST!! Thank you!!" • "It should be remodeled or rebuilt on the existing site and parking area. It should not be built in the park. A new building in the middle of the park would split the park in half and ruin it. The park would no longer be accessible to the surrounding neighborhood, and the neighborhood would have difficulty accessing HyVee and the surrounding businesses. Additionally, we do not want to lose the park amenities. The neighborhood is changing over and new families with young children are moving in. This is NOT the time to take away park land and amenities! Please, please save our park!" ® "I don't think disturbing a great park is a good idea. I think if the current sites could be reconstructed would be a better option for the community. Plus there are families that would be disrupted by changing the site." "I believe there is already way too much traffic around City Center campus already. It seems, through the years, anything residents living around another New Hope park didn't want, City Center got. The swimming pool brings so much traffic that creates a parking problem already ... why would you want to add to that situation. With the pool, and the theater already in the Park, you should enhance the playground even more than it is, so families can enjoy the park when using the pool. It would not be fair at all to take the view away from the homes on Zealand and move the current playground. That is what most bought their homes for. If you need to build a new city hall and police station, I believe it should be built north of the current theater and west of the cemetery. But the best situation due to traffic congestion is to build entirely in another area of New Hope, not locating the building in a city park. With Hyvee, the new clinic, and the gas station recently added, together with all the other buildings built through the years, traffic would be unsafe and unmanageable." ® "I don't know where it should be built but if you take any of the playground it will discourage people with children from coming to the park." • 'But it should not be built in the park. Build it on the existing site or find another one. Civic Center park is New Hope's showcase park- it makes no sense to put a building in the middle of it. The plan is shortsighted and ill-conceived. The city has a duty to preserve its open spaces. There are plenty of commercial sites available in the city, don't take the park land!" "Yes I believe a new building is needed but not at the expense of park space. It seems that the architects need to go back to the drawing board and design a building that does not encroach on the park space. We should be enhancing the park and not destroying it. People want to live in cities with parks and green space. By constructing a building that 2 splits New Hope's largest park in half, you are sending the residence of New Hope a message that you don't care about parks and places residence of all ages can go and enjoy. Why tear down paradise to put up a parking lot?" ® "We have always enjoyed the outdoor theater, the park and the pool. We wouldn't want to see those landmarks changed as a result of building bigger, then renovation of the old buildings is an option." • "I support the need for a new complex but I don't want you to destroy much of our Civic Center Park. I've live next to this park since 1967 before the park was a park. A center in the lives of my children and now my grandchildren. The hockey rink and soccer fields are important to our family. We are a family of hockey players. Don't destroy it!" "A new building is fine, but do not move the playground. Do not move anything. Just build up (and down for parking). Build a taller building with the identical footprint. Save our green space and save money by not relocating the playground, the theater and more." "The importance would be on maintaining the current park design and keeping the building in its current location for my family." • "I disagree with this action because it will take out most of the park that is there. My child will not have a park to play in if this happens." "I agree in needing a new center, but not at the cost of the park space which is heavily used. The existing space of the building can and should be used for replacement." Building upon the exact same location of the existing city hall or directly adjacent to the west would be a far better choice. I have lived in New Hope since 1990 and after the amount of time, money, and effort this city has put into this park is is ridiculous to consider tearing it down and putting a building on top of it. It is also completely unfair to the families whose properties would now be directly adjacent to this new building instead of the park which in most cases was the reason they purchased those homes." • Replacing the park with a facility will reduce our free space for community to gather and enjoy. Find another location!" • "The impact to the park is too big with the proposed new developments. The park should remain a place for kids to play. The buildings should stay where they are and be renovated." ® "I would support improvements and possible enlargements to the existing buildings instead of building new. I don't support such a drastic change in the parks footprint. Where would the warming house go? What is the future of the ice rinks? I bought a home with a park across the street, I don't want to be looking at buildings now." E "You know, that isn't a very old building by comparison to other area buildings. My house nearby City Hall and is older yet I don't need to tear it down and start over. With a little annual maintenance it is in fine condition and I'm mighty proud to live here. It would sound like you haven't taken great care of your building over the years and now want us to pay for it. That isn't exactly fair to the citizens that work hard for their paychecks is it? And why should the neighborhood kids lose their playground and we 7 lose our park? The kids love to go there and play, it is close enough to walk every day if they like. Now we'd have to bundle them up and drive somewhere (even if during construction which will take at least .a year or more). For a luxury that benefits only a select few people that work for the city? So it doesn't seem fair to punish the citizens - you should remodel or at least build on the same footprint so you do not disrupt our neighborhood and our park. You can live out of construction trailers for the construction period and then move into your new home with no disruption to the park - I've done it for work and it is perfectly functional for your office work, etc. No doubt there is also a temporary solution for the police too if you look." "My house is older than that yet appears to be in better condition from your description. And it hasn't needed any major expansion or remodeling work. Don't sacrifice Civic Center park for your new buildings. The playground and skate park are very popular with the neighborhood kids, it isn't fair to them to lose that. And the theatre provides a good summer time cultural experience. Not to mention the hockey rink, ball fields, tennis courts, etc. are all good recreational features for the residents. Why not look at moving to space near the Public Work garage where your project would be less disruptive to the neighborhood? It would also save fuel from your people going back and forth between sites." ® "I support that a new building is necessary, however I believe the best plan for the neighborhood and the park specifically is for a renovation and addition of the current building. Building a new building on the park site will disrupt the park, the flow, the sight lines and no matter where it goes, it is likely to be a burden to the neighbors who border the park. The inconvenience factor will be infinitely higher for neighbors if the site is moved as opposed to the temporary inconvenience of relocation city offices during construction." ® "I could be persuaded to support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation if and only if I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Civic Center Park would not be changed or altered by the reconstruction of said buildings." Cost/Remodel (23 comments) 0 "I struggle to understand that we need $16M in improvements. I have been in the building twice both times to Homestead my house. Fix the repairs needed to maintain the building and that's all." ® "90% of the houses were constructed in 1960th in city of New Hope. It doesn't mean all houses have to be rebuilt. The city should raise/save money from existing property tax and not use home owners as a piggy bank." 6 "I don't necessarily not support it, however, we're new residents and one of the factors for buying in New Hope was the park and pool as we have 4 young children. Could the current building be renovated and added on to?" ® "Remodel the existing space." 0 • "My property taxes have increased over 10% every year since I've lived in New Hope (over $1,000 cumulatively). I think we need to come up with different alternatives than just tax and spend." • "Seems like the city is getting fleeced on the cost of updating vs. cost of new. Just doesn't seem realistic." • "Fix existing problems or reconstruct portions of the building on the same site." • "Fix the issues of existing facilities, and save us tax payers on an unnecessary increase." • "I like the idea of renovating the current building and maintaining the location. What would happen to the current building if you built new, Are we tearing it down to lay new sod?" "Would it not be less expensive to repair the station and city hall? Get some estimates and share what this cost would be to we tax payers." • "I would prefer to remodel the current building including an 'add-on' to provide additional space which is obviously much needed. It does not seem necessary to demolish the current city hall which is newer than a great many of our houses in New Hope, and seems to have the same maintenance problems that we all have as our buildings get older. I would also like more thinking toward provision of community center facilities in the building plan to provide a better gathering spot for a variety of functions in our city." • "Ok so you are saying that the building was constructed in 1968. My current home was built in 1965 and we have put money in it through the years to fix it up. I am very sure that New Hope has put money into fixing up that building as well. It makes no sense that it would cost that much to fix up the building instead of tearing the whole thing down. If you haven't noticed lately we have been having a lot of young families moving out of the district because they want to be in a better school district than 281. I do not support that amount of money coming out of my property taxes. I would support this money going to our schools to improve our children's education and to keep the young families here as their kids age and go into our schools." • "With the economic dive taken by this country in the last 8 years, we cannot afford to be extravagant. I know that this seems petty somewhat, but I am also aware there are other very necessary improvements that cannot be ignored that will also be big, if not much bigger dollars (water pipes). Please consider those who are suffering deeply from the down turn in the economy as well as those on fixed incomes. Please choose to remodel versus new for this reason." • "Remodel." • "Those are ridiculous numbers. Use what you have or find a company that can do it for half the price. I suggest going through each expense item by item to see where they're robbing you. Find out what they're charging for a toilet then go to Menards to see the difference." ® "I'm not happy about this increase in local taxes after the recent upgrade in the cost of my health insurance, we are owners of a property built in 1963, we could use some of that E money to make improvements on our home, I suppose that amount will not break us, but in the event my husband dies, my income is not really sufficient to pay for all of the things he covers including real estate taxes, house insurance, utilities and a good share of our groceries. I would not want to leave this property that has been my home since 1978, and I need the fully paid for home to make changes in my budget for the future. I understand that building a new police department might be more cost effective, but couldn't the city split this amount into 2 or 3 years of increased levy instead of one year with high Minnesota taxes and a federal government that wants to control our health care among other things, every little bit counts with only 1% or less increase in my pension and other small amount of Social Security?" "Unfortunately it appears that the building has not been properly maintained and has limited functionality going forward. It is ironic that my home was constructed in 1963 and with proper maintenance will not require replacement or a significant remodel in the near future. It appears that I have been a responsible property owner and the City of New Hope has dropped the ball and is now looking to the citizens of NH to foot the bill." "I did not get a letter about what's going on with city hall and police. Stay with the old building no improvements if that isn't possible make improvement to the existing building." "That is excessive remodeling that does not support or add value to me as a taxpayer. Taxpayers get little value for 'nice' office space - I suggest city planners revisit their budget and plans as we all have to live within our means!!!" "I propose the city postpone for another year all remodeling or updating plans. I do not see an end date as in how many years these additional funds are needed. My current tax increase proposal for 2016 is $255.7. That is an additional $21.30 a month plus the city wants to add another $10.50 monthly for an indefinite period of time. I won't say yes to this." "1.3 million dollars is a lot of money. And I don't really believe the numbers. I think the remodel budget is BS - way higher than reality. And the new building # is BS low. They're a little too convenient. The Civic Center Park is a great park that adds a lot to the community. With the addition of Hyvee, and road work, we have a really nice area there - and the park plays a role. We don't need to be eliminating green space in that area. Expand the existing if you have to, but don't build new and wipe out a great park. Hasn't New Hope's population dropped since the 1990s? Why do we need a bigger police station?" "Not if it means the elimination of the playground/skate park/ice rink. We have several young families on our street that have all enjoyed the playground/park and are all looking forward to using the skating rink and skate park in the future." "A new building is fine but should be built on existing site, leaving the city park, theater, playground and rink intact. If this isn't possible, then renovations should be made to existing building." 10 Other (7 comments) ® "We need a new building but I have visited new city halls in Cottage Grove, Maple Grove and see a lot of unused ornamental space. This seems like a lot of wasteful spending to construct, heat and maintain a feel good space that serves no real purpose." a "If the roof needs fixing then do that." "I support fixing the roof of the police station. We should suspend the buying of private home and selling them to re -developers and apply those funds." * "I'll agree if you can plow the sidewalks of Lion's Park!" ® "I don't believe it is necessary." "The police department, especially, is in need of additional space." * "Merge BACK with the city of Crystal and end this cost to taxpayers and make city government more streamlined and less repetitive." Additional Comments Location/Park (7 comments) "My property value is going to drop. The location of the new city hall would basically put the mayor's office in my kitchen. I would not support the increase." "But not if it means losing the park." "Can you remodel the building you now have? Or maybe extend it west?" "But only if the new building was not in the park. It could be built on the existing site and parking lot." "I would not support property taxes for the purposed 17.4 million dollar plan. Come up with a plan that does not destroy the park and I would support it. Why would I pay for less park space and devalued property around the existing park." ® "If done properly and without taking the park to do it. I drive by the skate park and it is used quite often by the kids." "Again, not at the expense of the playground/park but I understand the need for upgrades or a new facility." Cost/Remodel (37 comments) ® "Preference is for remodeling the existing structure." ® "Why should we have to pay for this?" ® "Please consider site lines and access for the neighborhood with any plan designs." • "Paying to have something taken away is never a good deal. Come up with a new plan that leaves the park space along and I will support it." • "No new taxes." m "It is hard to believe that expanding and remodeling can cost nearly as much as new construction. With that criteria no homes in New Hope should be remodeled but replaced by new just because they are inefficient and outdated." ® "Our property taxes are high enough." 11 ® "I do not support any property tax increase." ® "Stop wasting tax payer's money and curb spending, then you would not have to raise it by that much per annum." ® "Fund other ways to cut expenses. Let go of employees." 0 "Our taxes are already high enough, we recently moved from Plymouth and now owning in New Hope, about 20% higher." 0 "I'm really not a fan of increasing taxes even a small amount. New Hope property taxes are already considerably high." "With the increased taxes that we are already paying for District 281 due to the last levy and insurance expenses going up due to Obamacare, we are tapped out. Employment raises are not keeping up with increased taxes and the current costs of living." • "Property taxes in New Hope are way too high for what this city offers, compared to larger, more affluent cities." i "I'm never interested in any property tax increases, since the mill rate is plenty high. Check out assets the city owns, that maybe liquidated, to help support the $17.4 million cost." ® "Taxes are too high already, especially for those of us on fixed incomes. Look elsewhere in the city budget for the necessary funds." ® "Nobody wants to pay more taxes. I want to spend as little as possible." U "Who wants to pay more taxes, really?" c "After the 7% this year I doubt we can swing it." b "You are already raising our taxes by 7%. It sounds like we failed in our budget process." ® "We are seniors on fixed incomes. $10.50 isn't much but my social security will not increase that much!" "Taxes always are going up by so much. Is there a way for you to budget and then actually use the budgeted amount for its intended use? There has to be a place that has had money in the past that was never dropped off and is allocated to something else." o "I doubt the city would find a way to pay for this without the tax payer's input, but when a person is 75 even $10.50 a month looks large after a $30 increase in health insurance." ® "No I do not support this. I do not want my property tax raised to fund something I do not support." "It is absolutely ludicrous to think that we should have to increase our property taxes to pay for something that is going to lower the values of our properties." ® "I am not in favor of a property tax increase, but three years of analysis by Wold Architects implies action must be taken. I hope that the current leadership of NH will advocate a comprehensive remodel of the current facility in order to limit the financial burden to residents. A remodel also would limit changes to the current footprint which would be far less disruptive to residents of the immediate area as well as others that enjoy the park." 12 "I would not approve of tax increase. I have a family and we live on a budget. Spending huge amounts of money on an ugly building in down the street is not the way I would spent money. Plant a tree instead." "This cost might be ok depending on how many years the increase would be in effect." "Because you failed to tell us how many years this increase would go on for." e "That is a big jump. Increasing taxes by 10.50 per month on top of the -$7 per month tax increase for the Robbinsdale school district approved last year means an overall increase of $210 per year. I find it sad that we are willing to spend more money on office space than we are on our schools." ® "Quite extravagant. Everyone has a wish list and city government always gets what they want and not with what they can get by with as the average tax payer must." "When I have to work hard every day for my pay and you just want to take more of it for a building that benefits few city employees then no, I don't support it. Would it be for something for the public good like a community center, better infrastructure, city park improvements, etc. that everyone in the city can enjoy then yes, I would support that. But not something that is a luxury for only a few people." "Every month I budget my money, plan my expenses, etc. I can't do everything I want but J live within my means. How about the city living within its means? Our public infrastructure is in poor condition is many areas (streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.), that should be fixed up first before building a brand new building that only a few people will use. If it was going to city beautification which helps all residents (both in property value and daily livability) that would be one thing but this just goes to help City Hall and the few people that work there. Some austerity should be shown on the city's part when it comes to non-critical items." "But again - a tax increase for a building on its current site." • "New Hope had one of the lowest property tax rates when we first moved in and now they are one of the highest." E., "Would prefer increases in tax dollars to go towards school system upgrades (technology etc.)." "This survey is a bit ridiculous isn't it, and skewed toward those who want this to pass. Sure, $10.50 per month doesn't seem like a lot, but how about asking the question differently. What would I like $10.50 a month go to make New Hope better? It's about priorities and I don't think this is the best use of tax dollars at this time. A more modest remodel could accomplish much of what is needed." Other Q comments) "We just moved here as I mentioned and no! I would not support this!!" "So you are saying that every structure in the area that was built before 1968 be demolished and rebuilt. There would be no structures left here." r "I'll agree if you can plow the sidewalks of Lion's Park!" 13 Combined Results The combined results from the open house, website, and city hall surveys are as follows: Yes No No Res Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a new police station/city hall facility is 88 65 1 needed on the City Center campus? If no, please describe an alternative. The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for 76 78 0 an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? Attachments Bar Graphs Depicting Survey Results Letter from David Lingo 14 Do you support the Citizen Task'Force's recommendation that a neer police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ,r�11'-°' dam' .�""�a�• ,�1► 0 Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Response Response Response Open House Lobby Website The cost for a new municipal building ($12.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for an average home in New Hope. Mould you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Response Response Response Open House Lobby Website Do you support the Citizen Task Force's recommendation that a neve police station/city hall facility is needed on the City Center campus? 90 80 70 50 40 30 f, 20 17f 10 0 Yes No No Response Combined Results The cost for a new municipal building ($17.4 million) would result in a property tax increase of approximately $10.50 per month or $126 per year for an average home in New Hope. Would you support a property tax increase to pay for the construction? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 f,. 0 Yes No No Response Combined Results David P Lingo 8225 38th Ave N New Hope, MN 55427 PH: 763-544-5213 Mr. Kirk McDonald City Manager New Hope, MN 55427 Re: New Hope Facilities Study December 4, 2015 I read with interest the write up in the Sun Post of Dec. 3, 2015 dealing with the questions of what to do with aging and inadequate New Hope City buildings. Government buildings I think should be seen as simply tools to aid in the delivery of city services and police protection. When these tools are obsolete, inadequate, badly worn, or poorly fit to the task, then the efficient and effective delivery of these services and protections cannot take place at the desired level of output I think any business or manufacturing owner understands that modern, efficient tools are necessary to arrive at desired and reliable product output; it simply is not cost-effective to continue to try and deliver quality goods using poor, unsuited, worn-out and outdated tools. As I read the article, there is long laundry list of shortcomings in the present facilities; several upgrades have been made during the life of these buildings. That was good. But it seems to me that more attempts to patch and paper over facilities (tools) that are worn out and not up to the current job would be misuse of public funds. As a resident and home owner in New Hope of 44 years, I would certainly support a total upgrade to get the tools for our staff that they need, and that would allow city employees to continue well into the future to deliver the services we need and have all come to expect from our excellent city staff. 1 support efforts to move toward new and adequate facilities for our city employees. I think it would be a bargain and a strong move forward in city operating efficiency if this could be accomplished for the $125 or so per year the article indicates may be the cost of these upgrades. The sooner the better before interest rates begin to climb. Sincerely, City Survey Excerpts The Morris Leatherman Company 2015 New Hope Residential Study October, 2015 Mayor and City Council: Sixty-one percent feel they know either "a great deal" or "a fair amount" about the work of the Mayor and City Council. A comparatively small 38%, though, admit they know "very little." Eighty-three percent either "strongly approve" or "somewhat approve" of the job of the Mayor and City Council. Only twelve percent register disapproval. The seven -to -one approval -to - disapproval ratio is among the highest in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area suburbs. A very low six percent are uncertain. City Staff. Forty-seven percent report they have "quite a lot" or "some" first-hand contact with the New Hope City Staff; this level of contact is 18% higher than the suburban norm. Eighty percent rate the staff as "excellent" or "good," while 14% rate them lower. The almost six -to -one favorable - to -unfavorable ratio is also among the highest in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Again, a very small seven percent are unsure. Seventy-one percent did not contact or visit City Hall during the past year. But, 18% telephoned, while 11% contacted it in person. In thinking about their last contact, 83% rate the ease of obtaining the service they needed as either "excellent" or"good;" eighty-nine percent rate the waiting time for a staff member to assist you similarly; and, 92% rate the courtesy of the City Staff highly. In each case, the percent of positive ratings exceed 80%, the threshold indicating high quality customer service in the public sector. City Hall and Police Department Facilities: Sixty-one percent support remodeling or replacement of the current Police and City Hall facilities if the City Council, with advice from the citizen task force who will determine it is necessary. Twenty-nine percent are opposed and 11% are undecided. When informed the renovation or replacement would increase property taxes on the average home in New Hope by $10.50 per month or $126.00 per year, 59% support the tax increase, while 33% oppose it, and eight percent are uncertain. Page 5 City Hall and Police Department c M 30 20 ire 0 2015 City of New Hopi Strongly Support Support Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure O Remodeling/Replacement ElProperty Tax Increase The Morris Leatherman Company Task Force Recommendation Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald, Request f®r Acti®n Apprgen a Agenda Section September 21, 2015 Work Session Item No. Kirk McDonald _ 11.2 Police Station/City Hall space needs task force recommendation (improvement project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests the city council receive the report and recommendations from the space needs task force studying the need to renovate or construct a new police station and city hall facility. Planning Commissioner Roger Landy, who was selected as the chair of the task force, will be in attendance at the meeting to present the recommendations along with representatives from Wold Architects. Other members of the task force may also be in attendance. Policy/Past Practice The city council has appointed or approved the formation of various citizen task forces in the past to study specific issues in the city and present recommendations to the council. Background The city council has been discussing the potential need to upgrade or replace the current police station and city hall facility since January, 2013, and in March, 2013, approved a contract with Wold Architects in the amount of $9,400 for a space needs assessment. Over the last two years a space needs assessment was conducted and meetings were held with District 281 to discuss a potential joint city/school district administration building. In February, 2015, bath District 282 staff and city staff mutually agreed the concept of a joint facility no longer be pursued due to a variety of factors, and the city council authorized staff to form a citizen/stakeholder task force to study the issue and' make a recommendation to the council. A task force was formed in April, 2015, and has been studying the issue since May. The task force was comprised of a broad cross section of the community representatives including city commissioners, business representatives, and various stakeholder groups such as Crime Prevention Board, gymnastics, Lions Club, etc. An update on the work of the task force was presented at the June 15 council work session. Roger Landy, chair of the task force, will be in attendance to present the recommendations from the group and representatives from Wold Architects will also be in attendance. A full copy of the report is attached. If the council is in agreement with the recommendation to construct a new facility on the current Civic Center Park/city hall site, it is recommended that Wold Architects be directed to develop more specific site and building Motion by 1:/RFA/CityManager/2015/Q-TaskFOrceRecommends 092115 Second by e Request for Action, Page 2 September 21, 2015 concept plans including the potential relocation of some park facilities, and the task force be involved in the process. When more detailed plans are developed, they would be shared with the city council. If the council was in general agreement with the plans, staff would then recommend an open house be held to educate the public about the need for a facility and gather public opinion on the issue. Attachments Citizens task force space needs study report Space needs analysis history/timeline CITY OF NEW HOPE CITIZENS TASK FORCE: SPACE NEEDS STUDY City Council Report September 21, 2015 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 Table of Contents Introduction Committee Members Study Methodology Recommendation 6-14 Cost Worksheet 15 Appendix A - Meeting Minutes 16-27 Appendix B - Program 28-38 Appendix C - Ehlers Information 39-58 Appendix D - Shooting Range 59-61 Appendix E - Facility Analysis 62-67 9/10/2015 3:36:19 PM H:10I-NewHope1132077 Space Needs SW ACithens Task Force Repor(Til ans Task Force Reportnt Page 2 INTRODUCTION City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 The New Hope Citizen Task Force is pleased to submit to the New Hope City Council, this recommendation for the development of a new Police Department and City Hall facility. The Task Force wishes to thank the City Council for authorizing the formation of this Task Force, and to City staff for their efforts in providing the Task Force with the information necessary to aide their study and advance the development of their recommendation, Thank you for the consideration of this project recommendation. Roger Landy Citizen Task Force Chairperson 9/14/2015 3:32:05 PM H:1GI-NewHope1132077 Space Needs Studd bris Task Force ReporWfthens Task Force ReporLPA Page 3 TASK FORCE Mary Arnold Kim Lewis Greg Bender Rick Riley Teri Burkstrand Todd Schmeltzer Kent Garbers Michelle Slotto Mary Hudson Steve Svendsen Michael Isenberg Bill Wills Roger Landy (Chair) CITY STAFF Kathi Hemken, Mayor Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Tim Fournier, Director of Police Rich Johnson, Director of HR / Admin Valerie Leone, City Clerk Susan Rader, Director of Parks & Recreation Jeff Sargent, Director of Comm. Development WOLD ARCHITECTS Joel Dunning Ben Beery 9/10/2015 3:36:19 pM H:1CI-Newf{ope`132077 Space Needs SWdACMzens Task Force ReporMllzens Task Force RepodpA Page 4 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 STUDY METHODOLOGY To arrive at the conclusions in this report, extensive meetings and discussions occurred among the Wold team, the Citizen Task Force Committee, and City of New Hope Police Department and City Hall Staff. This effort includes staff interviews, information gathering, a tour of recently constructed police facilities, and a study of any future growth. SPACE NEEDS TASK FORCE MEETING SCHEDULE: Meeting 11 May 27, 2015 I-xistin-Q Conditions Introductions Review Process Project Goals/Expectations Video/Powerpoint of facility deficiencies Review programmatic deficiencies Tour planning Tour of New Hope Police Department and City Hall Meeting #2 June 16, 2015 Tour(s) Tour of Richfield Municipal Center Virtual Tour: Cottage Grove Public Safety/City Hall Facility Tour discussion Meeting #3 July 21, 2015 Meeting #4 Meeting #5 Options for New Hope S ites - Impact to neighborhood - Inclusion of gymnasium New versus addition Review costs and financing options August 18, 2015 Develop Citizen Recommendation Discuss: Gymnastics, Kitchen, Gun Range Review draft report to City Council September 21, 2015 City Council Presentation 9/102015 3:3620 PM H:\CI-"ope\132077 Space Needs StudyWhIzens Task Force ReporWillzens Task Force Reparl.M Page 5 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION City of Hew Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 The Citizen Task Force was formed to objectively review space needs and facility options of the current New Hope Police Station and City Hall facility. Facilitated by Wold Architects and Engineers, the Task Force held four meetings over the course of several months to develop project goals, review deficiencies in the current facility, tour recently built police stations in neighboring communities, and study different site options and their associated costs. The Citizen Task Force recommendation is based on the following rationale: 1. The existing facility needs a lot of maintenance. (See Appendix E) 2. Renovation will not accomplish all goals/needs. 3. Police department facilities are inadequate which pose a considerable security and safety issue for Police Officers, City Staff, and the Community. 4. A new building would allow for more flexibility for future uses, and 5. Interest rates are currently very favorable. Based on the reasons above, the Task Force recommends the following: 1. A new Police Station and City Hall facility should be built to replace the existing facility. 2. The city park adjacent to the pool and fire station appears to be the ideal site. 3. With adjacent new developments and streetscape projects, this is an ideal project to take part in the revitalization of that area. In addition, the Task Force was asked to consider the options of adding a gymnastics facility and an expanded serving kitchen. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: 1. Gymnastics Facility: After studying this option, the group took a ballot vote with the results being two (2) members in favor and eleven (11) members against. In general, the reasoning was that a gymnastics facility is not a harmonious use with the Police Department/City Hall facility. Because the majority were not in favor, this option is not recommended. However, the group recommends that a task force be formed to study overall city park and recreation facilities. There was a lot of discussion around the need for a community center where a gymnastics facility would be an appropriate component. 2. Expanded Serving Kitchen: The group did not recommend this option as the smaller serving kitchen in the program could provide for the needs of the facility. 9/10/10153:36:20 PM HTI-NewHope1132077 Space Needs SWdy RIzens Task Force RepailCitlzens Task Face Report.M Page 6 '3 City of New Hope 1 SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT ' September 21, 2015 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION (cont.) Finally, the Task Force discussed adding a shooting range to the project in order to better train police officers. The Task Force recommendation is as follows: The group could not reach concensus on this topic and recommend that the City Council continue to study the financial impacts of adding a shooting range. Ballot results were six (6) members in favor and seven (7) members opposed. The group members in favor felt that it was important that all police officers had access to a shooting range to continually improve their skills. The group members opposed felt that the current lease with Maple Grove is adequate and did not want to see the addition of a shooting range potentially challenge the viability of the project moving forward. Ultimately, the group concluded that if the Council is comfortable with the financial impacts to the project, a shooting range would be a justifiable amenity. The Citizen Task Force did not review actual site and building layouts, as this is a future step in the process. 9/108015 3.36.20 PM HACI4;swHope1132077 Space Needs SWci6zers Task Force ReporgCiftens Task Force Report.M Page 7 City of Now Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 21, 2015 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Three conceptual building stacking diagrams — two of new buildings and one addition/remodeling — were reviewed based upon meeting the consensus space needs and the functional adjacencies arrived upon in earlier stages of the study. Each -of these options were demonstrated being developed on two separate sites: • The site of the existing building. (not recommended) • The site at the west end of the City Hall / Pool parking lot. (recommended) Estimated construction costs, total project costs, advantages and disadvantages were developed for each of the options. A summary of the recommended concepts follows. 9/10/2015 3:3620 PM H.1CI-NeAope1132077 Space Needs S1udACl0zens Task Force Repochizens Task Force ReporLM Page 8 COST WORKSHEET City of Now Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT BASE PROJECT PARK SITE NEW ADDITIONS 57,000 SF x $220 SF = $12,540,000 REMODEL AREA 0 SF x $80 SF = $0 DEMOLITION $150,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT* 50 Stalls x $4,000/Stall = $200,000 EST. CONSTRUCTION COST $12,890,000 EST. PROJECT COST TOTAL PROJECT COST $12,890,000 x .35 = $4,512,000 $17,402,000 "ACTUAL SITE PLAN MAY REQUIRE RE -BUILDING OF SOME PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE DISPLACED BY THE NEW BUILDING.THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SITE DEVELOPMENT, 9/1020153:36:24 PM H \QkNvMopeU32077 Spate Needs Study\Cillzens Task Force RepoalUzens Task Force Report m Page 15 September 21, 2015 January 21, 2016 Mr. Joel Dunning Wold Architects and Engineers 332 Minnesota Street Suite W Two Thousand St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Joel: At its meeting of January 11, 2016, the New Hope City Council approved the $42,500 quotation for Wold Architects to perform preliminary site planning related to a city hall/police facility, We look forward to working with you on this next phase. Please contact City Manager Kirk McDonald at 763-531-5112 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4 A/ryf d' Valerie Leone, CMC City Clerk cc: Kirk McDonald, City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North • New Hope, Minnesota 554.28-4898 • www. ci.new-hope.mn.us City Hall: 763-531-5100 • Police (non -emergency). 763-531-5170 • Public Works: 763-592-6777 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 • Police Fax: 763-531-5174 • Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776 Request for Action December 19, 2016 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.2 Agenda Title Review Survey Results and Discuss Next Steps for Police Department/City Hall Facility Space Needs Study (project no. 926) Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council review the survey results from the space needs study and discuss next steps. Representatives from Wold Architects, the city engineer, city staff and the task force chair will be present to assist with the discussion. If the Council is supportive of the proposals presented, staff recommends they be placed on the January 9 council agenda for formal action. Policy/Past Practice The city has been discussing the space needs issue for the past three years and a citizen task force was formed in 2015 to solicit community input for the study. Two public open houses have been held to gather community feedback. Background The Space Needs Task Force studied options for locating a new facility on the existing city hall/Civic Center Park site during the spring/summer of 2016. After taking into consideration the poor soil conditions on the site and the need for extensive pool renovations, the task force recommended constructing a new facility on the swimming pool site and that the pool be rebuilt somewhere else on the site. This recommendation was presented to the Council at the September 19 work session and it was agreed that a public open house would be conducted on November 2 to solicit community feedback and that an online survey would be available through the month of November. Staff recommends that the following topics be discussed at this work session, please refer to the attachments to assist with discussion: 1. Review survey responses — Jeff Alger 2. Discuss next steps with Wold Architects — see attached proposal 3. Discuss city engineer proposal 4. Discuss potential park and pool improvements planning process with Director Rader Attachments • Survey Responses • 12/14 Wold Architects Correspondence and Proposal • 12/14 Stantec Engineering Correspondence and Proposal • 9/19/16 Task Force Recommendation I:\RFA\City Manager\2016\WS -Space Needs Study 121916.docx Survey Responses Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager; Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator; Tim Fournier, Police Chief; Valerie Leone, City Clerk; Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation; Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development From: Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant Date: December 2, 2016 Subject: Survey Results from Space Needs Survey The city held an open house on November 2, 2016, to provide the community with an opportunity to convey input to the City Council on the proposed construction of a new Police Department/City Hall, and the recommendations of a citizen task force. Open house attendees were asked to complete a survey, which was also offered at New Hope City Hall and on the city's website from November 3, 2016, though November 30, 2016. The display boards, PowerPoint presentation, and task force report presented at the open house were made available on the city's website along with a video of the presentation. The display boards were displayed at City Hall while the paper surveys were offered. There were 42 attendees at the open house and 15 surveys were completed. Those in attendance were presented in-depth information on the proposed project, and had the opportunity to ask detailed questions. Survey results from the open house indicated strong support for the project, with 11 of 13 respondents agreeing with the task force's recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. As for the possible tax levy increases, 13 of 15 respondents supported an increase to construct a new Police Department/City Hall, and 12 of 14 respondents supported an increase to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool. The paper survey that was offered at City Hall after the open house was completed by one resident who did not agree with the task force's recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. The individual did support tax levy increases to construct a new Police Department/City Hall and swimming pool. 1 The online survey that was offered through the city's website after the open house was completed by 35 individuals, six of which were non-residents. While online respondents had access to all of the materials presented at the open house, they did not have the opportunity to watch the presentation in person and ask questions. Results from the online surveys were more neutral, with 14 of 32 respondents agreeing with the task force's recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Of the 18 survey respondents that did not agree with the task force's recommendation, 12 indicated a strong concern related to relocating or altering the pool. As for the possible tax levy increases, 15 of 33 respondents supported an increase to construct a new Police Department/City Hall, and 15 of 31 respondents supported an increase to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool. The variation in the number of responses per question was due to individuals completing some, but not all questions on the survey. Combined results from the open house, paper survey, and online survey indicated support for the project, with 25 of 46 respondents agreeing with the task force's recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. As for the possible tax levy increases, 29 of 49 respondents supported an increase to construct a new Police Department/City Hall, and 28 of 46 respondents supported an increase to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool. The city received relatively few responses as compared to the space needs survey from about a year ago. The city held an open house on November 17, 2015, and received a total of 183 surveys. There were 18 surveys completed at the open house, 8 surveys turned in at City Hall, and 157 surveys submitted through the website. The Communications Coordinator has reviewed the 2016 survey responses and addressed some of the misconceptions related to the project within the attached "Space Needs Survey Misconceptions, Points Needing Clarification" document. The 2016 survey results are as follows: 2 Results from Open House Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time? Yes 11 No No Response Comments • "Definitely. I would like you to do a cost/benefit analysis of an indoor vs. an outdoor pool. Outdoor does not seem as feasible for this environment." • "Yes, as long as the future pool remains a lap pool!!!!" • "Yes, but make sure the new swimming pool has 50M lanes for swimming." • "Yes - but as an avid user of the pool, I'd like to have it done ASAP." • "Yes - badly needed." • "Not this option. More space is needed but seems to be new/new!" Yes-- - r — - - - — --- Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a 13 home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? • "I guess - I'm not happy with ALLLL of the projects that are increasing taxes - this, streets, other improvements." • "Yes and pool." Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimmine nool? Yes No 9 Comments • "Yes, ok to pay more." • "Questionable - outdoor pool not as feasible for this environment." • "Yes - but we should get 1 -year free membership too!" 3 No Response 1 What questions or concerns do you have? • "Concern - that the existing amenities are preserved - specifically - hockey, skating rinks and warming house. The neighborhood is turning over and many young families now live close to the park. Each year the rink is used more and more. When the new pool is built, the season should be extended to accommodate the summer break. Also, the pool hours should be extended - open earlier and later." • "Keep the lap pool! 50M lap pool! New pool MUST HAVE lanes for lap swimming! No water parks like Crystal!" • "Make sure the new pool is a lap pool - 50M for swimming. Don't build a water park! Build a lap pool! 50M" • "How quickly will this get done? How will construction affect playing at the park? Are you making this green? What are the chances this will go over budget? How would the pool rates change? When will we know the final design? How is the construction company being held accountable?" • "Current layout does not work. Move skate park and volleyball where back parking is. Put hockey/dog park where volleyball is. Use building of pool for winter warm house. Expand parking lot where skate park is." • "Concerned about the Zealand parking lot location. Keep sk8 pad!" • "When the roof leaks you tear the building down." • "Cost analysis of adding to the current space: $20M. Seems to be a lot of $ for additional space." What additional information would YOU like to see, if atiy? • "Thank you for the opportunity to comment and all of the work that has gone into this!" • "Bring the farmers (market) back to this area." • "Timeline. Construction company name, reviews. More details about the pool." • "This is needed. Please move forward on it." • "You use the firm that was selected to build the new building to estimate upgrading the present building?" 4 Results from Lobby Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time? Yes 0 No No Comments 0 "No - pool is an important part of city amenities for families." 1 Yes No No Response Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a 1 home valued at $196,000, to construct a 0 0 new Police Department/City Hall? 0 $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a Comments * "Yes - but for how many years?" � Yes —_INo No Response Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at 1 0 0 $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Comments • "Yes - but for how many years? Do both so New Hope can be a first rate, first tier, attractive suburban area." What questions or concerns do you have? • "Entry to City Hall - north facing or east facing? Attractive views from Xylon. Well lit and landscaped entry. Any solar or other energy -conscious features? Wind -cold protection for north entry. Inside of entry should have attractive display -not just signs pointing this way and that. Safe exit of police vehicles through parking area -not to endanger visitors to pool or other city buildings. Community room available to civic groups." 5 Results from Website Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time? Yes 14 Comments • "No - use the current space as efficiently as possible or build up." • "Yes, I agree with it as long as it gets accomplished, and park green space and field/court/rink space is preserved." • "No, I would rather they build on the location where the city hall and police station is but it sounds like that is no longer an option. I have 2 children and we use the pool all summer and was planning on sending our youngest to swimming lessons there. When you say future time how long are we talking here? I have heard 2 years but to be honest, I am guessing it's going to be longer. Do we really need a new pool? What is the real reason other than an inconvenience to move both to another location while rebuilding, Crystal location? Robbinsdale? Plymouth? Golden Valley? They all seem fairly close." • "Yes, assuming the pool will be replaced and the park/green space will be preserved as much as possible - not like in the picture with an added parking lot over the current field and hockey rink." • "No, the pool will likely not be built until many years in the future." • "No. I think you are wasting money. Crystal re -did their pool and didn't move locations. I think it would be interesting to compare remodeling the pool vs relocating it. I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is." • "I do believe that the placement of the city hall and the pool, as recommended by the Task Force is the most practical solution." • "Yes. This seems like the only workable arrangement." • "No, I cannot agree with the current recommendation. The New Hope outdoor pool is an important asset to the community and to me personally. I grew up attending the pool every day in the summer since I was seven months old and passed all my swimming lessons there, following which I have worked as a swim instructor at the pool through this past summer. The current recommendation does not provide sufficient details about when a new pool would be built or what a new pool would look like. It states vague intentions about the pool, but no specific plans or indeed any guarantee that a new pool would actually be built. Destruction of the pool comes across as a peripheral issue to the overall project, but I think it is a major community asset on the same scale as the city hall and police department, and pursuing this recommendation joins it alongside those two 0 buildings as a main focus of the project, so it should be granted the same level of planning consideration in this recommendation. After reading the Space Needs Study report and attending the open house of November 2, I am not convinced that destroying the current pool is the best option. I do not support the city hall project moving forward at the expense of the pool. More details about the pool aspect of this project need to be explicitly determined in order to make an informed decision about moving forward. I think committing to destroying the pool next year and assuming that the details will be figured out later is irresponsible and not reassuring. 'A future time' is noncommittal and can too easily turn into 'never."' • "I am both an annual patron, as well as a former employee of the pool and the swimming lessons program. I absolutely disagree with the recommendation. The pool has been an asset to the New Hope community for fifty years. To destroy it with no immediate plan to rebuild its replacement is a huge disappointment to the community. And a new structure seems absolutely unnecessary. The city could refinish the pool keeping its classic structure. There is no need to update the pool to include the trendy pool features. It has everything it needs: a high dive and low dive, a drop slide, swimming lanes, zero depth entry, a kiddie pool, multiple kiddie slides and spouts. Less money could be spent to refresh the pool. Another site could be found for a new police dept/city hall." • "Absolutely not. I do not support demolishing a staple of this community (NEW HOPE POOL) that serves thousands to add square footage to government employee's office space. The task forces rational is non-specific for a reason; it makes no sense." • "No. Keep the pool where it is. Don't take this away from the community." • "By the way you phrase that, no, I do no support that. 'Future time' would lead me to believe that you may never actually replace the pool. That is part of the whole purpose of this project as it was advertised to the citizens, to modernize both the City Hall and pool facilities. If you are going to postpone the pool replacement, then that really changes the dynamic of the whole project." • "No. With respect to the pool, what is 'a future time' - this seems too vague." • "Yes I agree that seems to be the best plan. I appreciate all the time and effort that has gone into making this decision, as well as you providing all this information to us residence." • "No, the current proposal would completely eliminate the value of the current building and pool, both of which are newer than the houses most New Hope residents live in. I cannot believe that build or remodel options would have comparable costs. We need to further evaluate a remodel/addition option for the current facilities." • "No I do not. Our taxes have already gone up 20% since we bought our house here 3 years ago. We haven't seen any discernible differences locally. Except for losing amenities at our already unlit and poorly maintained parks." • "How near in the future?" • "It depends on when that'future time' is." 7 • "Yes I agree with the replacement of the police dept/city hall in the most suitable location which appears to be where the pool is currently located. I don't agree with replacing the Pool." • "Yes only if the pool was replaced and it was replaced as quickly as feasible." • "Sure, trusting task force to bring best option to the table." Yes Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a 15 home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Comments �-1 No No Response ' • "Yes, I would agree with the tax levy increase as long as park/field/green space/rink is preserved." • "No - I don't think it's needed." ■ "No, too much money. I don't believe this estimate is accurate. bonding is not the answer. we should plan and save accordingly, when we have the money up front then we do this. NO MORE TAXES. No bonding." • "N/A (I am not a homeowner)." • "Yes, but not as a replacement to the pool." • "NO! Renovate while interest rates are low to reduce future maintenance costs. As a taxpayer, I do not take pride in the city hall or police department as long as the building is functional." • "No. I know the police department is important, but the size of the new City Hall seems unreasonable. It has a huge lobby and is a space which my family will never use. I know there need to be city offices and meeting rooms, but such a large cost seems unwarranted." • "No, I would not support that levy as it stands. There were unanswered questions about the actual space utilization at the open house. There were vague details about why everyone needs so much space, such as a large garage for the police. And the area in the drawing labeled as 'Lobby' - why do you need a lobby with a footprint almost as large as the current city hall? That doesn't seem to be a wise use of space for something that is a 'nice to have' feature at best." • "No. Why do you need to levy this? Where has our tax money gone? Will we get better services? We don't need an excessively fancy building for our modest suburb (the planned lobby is huge!) With proper upkeep, the current city hall should have lasted much longer. We have to maintain our home; the city should have maintained city hall. Shouldn't they have kept it up? (For example, maintain your roof regularly and promptly fix it when it has issues.) As with many people in New Hope, we are on a fixed income and feel that the levy will be an added financial burden." ■ "Yes I would support the levy on the police department/city hall as these are vital to our city. I have lived in New Hope grown up and also been a resident of New Hope for 54 years." • "Not for this proposal." • "No, our existing facilities are fine. I do not support any more spending at this time." • "How much is project supposed to cost? Based on my home's value I may be paying near 40/mo total. That seems pretty extreme." • "There should be an option other than constructing a brand new building. Maybe a more cost effective approach. Our property taxes are already high for the area." • "Yes, absolutely." Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new Yes _ No No Response 15 16 2 Comments • "Yes, I would only agree with the levy if a new pool would be constructed and park green space, courts/fields and rinks are preserved." • "Yes, if you had to destroy the pool." • "N/A (I am not a homeowner)." • "Yes - or just refresh." • "Absolutely if it is necessary. The New Hope City Pool is a staple of the community and provides citizens with invaluable services. A local pool where children can learn to swim, and generally have a safe place to spend time in the summer is vastly more important than a shiny government building that is used by a few dozen government employees." • "If the old one is destroyed yes, but it would be better to keep the old one!" • "No. This is a cost of $75/year for an amenity only available 2.5 months of the year. In addition, a pool pass for a family of 4 is $108, making it a total cost of $183/year." • "Again, no. I don't have a use for the pool, but I totally understand the kids need one. But an Olympic sized pool is not for the community, it is just for teams rather than residents. Make something like Crystal that actually is for the community, you need the residents involved with the designs to fit the needs." • "No. We won't use the pool. We understand that people in the community will use the pool, but do not make this an Olympic -sized pool. Gather a lot of input from the community on what they want to make this a fun place to enjoy. (An Olympic -sized pool would only serve a few people; aren't most swim meets inside??)" • "Cheaper to upgrade and expand the existing city hall/police station and repair the Pool." 9 • "I would like more information on the plans for the pool. Questions I have is when would the levy take effect, what are the plans for the size of the pool and amenities? With the season being shorter and less people using the pool then in the past, do we need as large a pool? Have any surveys gone out to the residents of New Hope on what their thoughts are on the new pool? I am all for having a pool but would like more information the plan before supporting a levy." • "Not for this proposal." • "No. I do not support any more spending. Our taxes have gone from 2k to 3k to 5k now back to 3k in less than 5 years. Our mayor's property taxes haven't fluctuated more than $400 in the last decade. I'm sure the city could find more than enough money by auditing the city and figuring out who isn't paying enough tax vs who is paying too much. We have 40-50% of our residents in rental properties. Charge them more in property taxes. They use just as many or our amenities, roads, public works and have no investment in the community. The city should quit bleeding the young families with already tight budgets that choose to move into this community." • "We need the pool. Crystal has a wonderful Recreation Center AND pool and Bassett Creek Park (wonderful park). I'm starting to wonder what New Hope can say for itself.... oh, thrift stores!!! Let's have something to be proud of." • "No. I feel that the cost of the new pool and its ongoing maintenance far outweighs the value. It is only about 12 weeks of the year. Sure it's busy when the weather is hot but then there are a number of summer days with limited attendance when the weather is cool or rainy." • "Yes, definitely." What questions or concerns do you have? • "I am concerned that green space and park amenities will be forced out. What good is a park that the citizens of New Hope, families and kids can't enjoy. I live on the park and I don't want to stare at buildings and parking lots. I grew up here and Civic Center Park was once the jewel of New Hope and we should strive to make it a place the residence of New Hope can be proud of. The neighborhood is turning over and a lot of young families are moving in. We need a place that encourages families, kids and adults to put down the devices, get off the couch and get out and play. Anything less than that and we won't be able to call it a PARK." • "The cost - the need vs the want." • "That the pool will be eliminated!" • "As mentioned in the first response - I am in support of this plan but not if it includes increasing the parking lot so much that it breaks up the park. I am very concerned that having the parking lot extend as it was shown in one drawing would be a safety issue as well as break up how the park has so much uninterrupted green space. If more lot is needed for a new pool, can it be behind the pool or shared with Hy -Vee? Otherwise, if the current amenities are kept/replaced, I am in support of this." 10 • "I lived in New Hope for 11 years at 3649 Decatur Avenue North. We moved because the tennis courts were removed at Northwoods Park and not replaced. But we did continue to use the New Hope pool every summer buying a family pool pass and taking swimming lessons paying non-resident fees. We went swimming almost everyday. My four children took all their swimming lessons at the New Hope pool, all reaching the highest level that was taught. I enjoyed the physical layout of the pool. All ages of my children could be accommodated. But most importantly for me was that I could watch all my children no matter where they swam in the pool. This was most helpful when I had toddlers and older children who could swim in the deep end. As a former resident of New Hope, I hope you realize that New Hope itself does not have many amenities -no lakes, no creeks or forests that can be enjoyed by the public. The pool is a big summer destination for people. I would think that to remove such an asset would be short- sighted. I would think that to entice people and families to buy homes in New Hope a pool would be a major drawing point. A pool like the one New Hope has now and that has lasted for 50 years would be a good place for a design for a new pool to begin. Areas of different depths, diving boards, and a zero -depth entry to a separate pool for young children may be good to incorporate. I hope you decide that a pool is a good investment and that you build one that will last for 50 years." • "Property taxes go up every year, along with income taxes, sales tax and every other tax. No more taxes. No more bonding to repair roads. No more bonding period. Save money, cash on the barrel, no more credit. No more interest. These are the values my parents taught me and this is what I believe in. I was born at north memorial in 1970, graduated from Armstrong in 1989 and have lived in New Hope my entire life. please don't destroy our city. There is more to this city than the road ratings. I know we can agree to a new police department that would be more 'fiscally responsible.' This is and always will be a 'blue collar city.' Council member London, thank you so much for opening my eyes to the 'fiscal responsibility,' my parents taught me, and the rest of the council doesn't understand." • "I think you are wasting money. Crystal re -did their pool and didn't move locations. I think it would be interesting to compare remodeling the pool vs re locating it. I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is." • "I am generally pleased with the layout as proposed, with minor changes. I would prefer that the sand volleyball court (if deemed to be necessary, be flipped with the proposed location of the theater, with the theater being redone in a more appropriate manner, such as an amphitheater." • "There seems to be an excessive amount of parking and lack of green space, especially near the playground. The latest proposal no longer includes the ice rinks. There seems to be uncertainty related to the theater location." • "I have many concerns about this proposal, as a lifelong patron and longtime employee of the New Hope outdoor pool. The idea of losing this special place that is really like my home is of course very upsetting to me. So I do hope you will consider my concerns 11 described below seriously, and I thank you for your time in doing so: 1. The value of the current pool design. 2. The potential design of a new pool. 3. The impacts of having no community pool for an undetermined number of years. Concern 1. The value of the current pool design. This is a pool that has served the public well for fifty years. I believe this speaks to an enduring quality of design that should not be overlooked in the quest for 'something new.' The fact that families have enjoyed coming to this pool for fifty years, through childhood, adulthood, and even multiple generations, is noteworthy. Based on my experience growing up attending the New Hope pool since infancy and working there through adulthood, I can explain what features have contributed to the pool's lasting appeal. I know firsthand what helps it serve patrons of all ages and provide a safe open swimming environment and an effective teaching environment. I believe these time -tested features should not be sacrificed in any effort to improve or replace the pool: o The fact that it is an outdoor pool. Nothing is more fun on a summer's day than swimming outside. o The simple shape of the pool and open design of the deck ensures that all ages of children can swim and be easily watched by their parents and lifeguards. At one point my three siblings and I were of an age range when we could have been spread out from the shallow 'kiddie' pool to the diving well, and yet my mother was able to see us all from one spot on the deck. Many pools have restricted sightlines and blind corners, but from pretty much anywhere on the New Hope pool deck, you can see the entirety of the pool. Perhaps the pool is not in great shape mechanically, but it is shaped in a great shape! o The pool has enough space and variation in depth so all ages can truly enjoy swimming there and it is possible to teach a full range of swimming and water safety skills as a lessons instructor. A young child can enjoy the kiddie pool and the shallow end of the main pool, where they can touch, but as they learn to swim independently and grow into teenagers and adults they have more room in the deeper end of the pool and the diving well. There is room for families to enjoy the New Hope pool together and for people to enjoy it throughout their lifetime, as I have. Having a separate shallow kiddie pool for the youngest, with fountains and slides and other water features, is fantastic, but only when there is also another true swimming pool to complement it. Too many modern pools (like Crystal's redesign) put too much shallow space in their main pools at the expense of actually having somewhere to swim. I also cannot stress enough how difficult it is to teach children to swim in pools that lack adequate spaces for a progression of ages and abilities. The New Hope pool was a joy to teach at because beginning swimmers could be taught in the shallow end, where they could touch the bottom and spread out along the walls, and as they learn and perfect their formal swimming strokes they have multiples lanes of space for swimming laps and deeper areas for learning diving skills. Additionally, the 'deep water test' that only 12 allows swimmers access to the deeper parts of the pool if they can demonstrate the necessary swimming skill is also a wonderful aspect of the New Hope pool. I know of no other pools that have a requirement like this (expect Crystal, if they still do), and it is directly responsible for the fact that we have never had a drowning at New Hope pool and that rescues (where lifeguards actually have to enter the water to help a patron) have been exceedingly rare over the years. I can assure you this is not the case at other pools where they allow anyone to enter the deep end. o Related is the current pool's full 50 -meter length. You don't see a lot of pools like this nowadays, and as I hope the city council is aware, this length is attractive to lap swimmers and swim teams that pay to use our facility. Again, the adequate swimming space that New Hope provides is extremely valuable. o The diving well is also too often a casualty of modern pools. While I would certainly invite an even deeper diving well than New Hope's current sloped design, I am enthusiastic about having a true diving well with multiple diving boards. It's great for teaching, and in all these years, patrons have not gotten tired of standing in line and launching off these boards again and again and again. New Hope is the only outdoor public pool in the metro area that I know of that still has a three -meter 'high dive' board, since as a recall Crystal got rid of theirs and replaced it with a boring small drop slide. Having a high dive definitely makes New Hope stand out, and I would actually welcome the return of the original diving well arrangement, with two one -meter boards on either side of the high dive. Based on my experience, the drop slide that replaced one of the low diving boards nearly twenty years ago is not used as often as the diving boards. People get bored with it. People have not gotten bored of boards. o Lastly, I simply love the classic 'white slide' in the shallow end of the main pool. It doesn't require any complicated pumping system, and it has stood there solidly for who knows how many years. It is timelessly fun for children and adults alike, and I have seen many children who, like myself at their age, can literally spend hours going down it. Crystal also once had a slide of this design, which disappointingly was lost in its redesign. I hope New Hope can keep a great slide design like this. Heck, even consider keeping the exact same white slide in a new facility. Why not? Concern 2. The potential design of a new pool. Along with my lifelong personal and professional familiarity with the New Hope pool facility, I also have experience attending and working at other public pools. My experience at other, frankly inferior pools has only confirmed the quality of New Hope's design, from both patron and employee perspectives. I would hate for a new New Hope pool to end up like other sub -par pools that I have had the frustrating experience working or swimming at. We have a pool design that has lasted and proved itself to work well for fifty years, and I urge you to agree it makes no sense to change it now. The focus in designing a new pool should not 13 be on what is 'trendy' or 'modern' in pool design, but what works. And please believe me, what we have currently at New Hope works. To that point, I don't believe the potential new features that I have so far seen described in the sparse and uncertain plans for a new pool would be an improvement on our current design. I don't like the idea of reducing the pool from eight lanes to six lanes. I admit I'm not sure what the intention for doing so would be, since I cant tell how serious if at all these potential plans are at this point, but I don't think any of the proposed features are worth giving up such valuable space to swim. The 'modern water play amenities' I have seen listed so far are a climbing wall and a floating obstacle course. In my experience, features like these making lifeguarding more difficult (I have worked at facilities that had both of these features, and climbing walls strike me as particularly unsafe, with the potential for climbers to fall on top of each other), and they waste space that could be more productively used for open swimming, since their frequency of use definitely goes down after any initial novelty wears off. I have seen these installed at many new and remodeled metro area pools in the past decade—Crystal actually has an obstacle course, and I heard from Mayor Kathi Hemken herself at the open house of November 2 that she does not want to have a new pool that replicates Crystal's remodel - and these features are just a trend. I don't want a new New Hope pool to be just like all the other new pools out there. I want a pool that will last for another fifty years, a pool actually built for swimming and diving. Concern 3. The impacts of having no community pool for an undetermined number of years. I don't think the City has fully considered the impacts of destroying the current pool next year without having any solid plans for its replacement. Where will loyal patrons and employees be left when they have no pool in their community for an undetermined, years long period? All they can do is go elsewhere, and then how many can be expected to return once a new pool is eventually built? Open swimmers, swim teams, swim lessons participants? Students will be unable to take swimming lessons here for years, which I believe will essentially end the current swim program as we know it. Everything will have to be started from scratch at a new facility. And if the new facility is inferior to the current one, I'm sure you'll lose others like me who preferred the current pool. I don't see how the City can accept the task force recommendation without exploring these important considerations. Finally, I still have some questions after my careful review of the Space Needs Study and the materials provided at the open house of November 2: 1. Are the soil remediation costs truly one of the deciding factors in arriving at this recommendation? If so, this seems short-sighted to me. While yes, you can plainly see on the Cost Worksheet (page 19 of the Space Needs Study report) that the pool site option (Option 3) has the lowest soil remediation line item figure, this doesn't impact the overall cost of that option significantly. The final cost figures for each of the five options (0 through 4) are in fact quite comparable, and Option 3 is not even the cheapest overall. So I continue to be baffled why soil remediation keeps being brought up as a key point in the task force recommendation. This leads me to my next question. 2. What are the true costs for replacing the current pool? In reviewing the materials provided by the City 14 about the city hall project, I am concerned that the total costs for destroying and replacing the pool are not fully reflected in the Cost Worksheet, giving a misleading impression about how Option 3 really compares, cost -wise, to the other options. It gives the 'Pool Replacement Premium' as $2,000,000. Am I to understand this is all it would cost to destroy the current pool and build a new one? How can that possibly be accurate? Especially since the report admits elsewhere that the costs of building a new pool are dependent on the eventual design adopted: 'Depending on how and where the pool is replaced and what the new pool looks like, it could raise the cost of the overall project' (page 8). In 2015, Stantec Consulting Services submitted a recommendation to budget $6,500,000 for improvements to the current pool. Will these funds now be dedicated to constructing a new pool? These funds do not seem to be represented in the Cost Worksheet. How much a new pool will actually cost is an important question to at least get an estimate of before making this decision. 3. How does the City prioritize the pool as a community asset? As I have worked to understand the plans for the city hall project and why my favorite pool is being threatened because of it, I find myself asking just how important the City considers having a community pool. It seems easy for them to say today that the pool is so old and in such disrepair that it makes more sense to just tear it down and build a new one (at some unspecified point in the future). But why was more effort not made to maintain the current pool? With no significant work done on the pool for the past eighteen years, it's no wonder it looks to be in bad shape. Those who have worked as pool employees the past decade (such as myself) are aware of the maintenance needs and the current structural deficiencies. But these are not necessarily inevitable. The City has always had the opportunity to decide that the pool is a community resource worth investing in, but they have chosen on many occasions not to do so. So would a new pool receive the same treatment? I keep experiencing attempts to reassure me that the pool is indeed a priority, that this recommendation doesn't mean the current pool wouldn't be replaced, but the lack of maintenance on the current pool, the lack of specific plans for a new one, and the fact that this is only happening in the first place as a side effect of a completely different project give me quite the opposite impression. 4. Why was a new city hall not built on the vacant K -Mart site? It seems odd to me that building a new city hall and police department is suddenly so urgent enough as to merit going forward as soon as possible, at the expense of losing the city pool for an undetermined amount of time. Just recently, the City decided to build not a new city hall on the long - vacant K -Mart lot, but a commercial development. If a new city hall was needed so urgently, why was it not built there, an option which was explored at the time? It seems unfair that the pool should be destroyed because of this lack of forethought. I suspect that the sudden urgency for a new city hall is related to the terrible 2015 shooting attack, but have not seen this admitted anywhere in the project plans." "Is there something structurally/functionally wrong with the pool that requires it to have more than a refresh?" 15 • "My biggest concern is not having a City Pool and also wasting taxpayer money on new facilities just because 'interest rates are favorable. • "The pool is an important community cornerstone for the city of New Hope. I grew up with the pool, worked there as a young adult, and plan to bring my children soon. • It is a very bad idea -keep the pool!" • "The pool has always been a positive place for the community. The fact that we live in a state of 10,000 lakes and still go to the pool says a lot about the staff, the facility, and the community at large. Do not take that away, especially with no time table for the new pool structure. Also, do not take away the jobs of the people who work at the pool, then start from scratch some time down the road." • "Concerns about the current proposal: Parking Lot expansion, meaning loss of green park space Expanded pool, expensive and limited use No skating rink or hockey rink, free for use by all for roughly 2.5 months of the year (the same as the pool) No dog park, free for use by all." • "I have multiple concerns with this project and unanswered questions. *Skate Park, hockey rink, theatre, etc. - how come those have a zero -dollar budget? Those should not be optional - this needs to be a part of the final plan. And not a part of the 'future phase' - this is an essential part of the park. *Parking lot where the hockey rink is located - this seems like far too much space for parking. We do not need a concrete jungle. We need more green space and less asphalt. As some task force members pointed out, the city needs to look elsewhere for parking such as renting space from Hy -Vee for special event days. Don't build parking lots that will be used only a few times a year. Also - the parking for the police seems excessive, do they really need large indoor parking and large secured parking lot? What can be shared with the fire dept. in terms of parking space to better utilize that space? Is it really needed or just another 'nice to have' feature? *Pool - do we really need an Olympic sized pool? Most swim meets are indoors, not outdoors. That also cuts off the public access to the pool on an already very short summer schedule. A pool more in line with the community (Crystal is a good example) that is open and accessible is what we need. And if an Olympic sized pool is really as profitable as was professed at the meeting than it should be able to support itself." • "See above! Also the proposed parking space seems quite excessive. We would like to see a neighborhood skating rink. We've always enjoyed (and have volunteered at) the community theatre - where is it going?" • "Cost of the project. I am retired and on a fixed income and a two -hundred -dollar tax increase over a two-year period is going to be hard to manage." • "What is the process for picking a task force for the future when it comes to where the rest of the facilities of the park should be placed? I would be interested in applying to be on that task force/committee." • "We have a drug house on our block, behind our house we have a property that is abandoned and dilapidated. It has been now for 2 years. We have no lights in our parks after dark. We have a level 3 sex offender that lives right across the street from that same 16 under lit park. We are losing amenities in our parks. We're fined for outrageously outdated and stupid infractions like having visible trash cans yet you can still see most people cans clearly. We have abandoned businesses that aren't required to be maintained. New Hope is turning out to not be that great of a place to live." • "Concerns; I wish the City of New Hope would work on removing/demolishing all the 'empty' stores, gas stations in town. Compared to Robbinsdale, Golden Valley and EVEN CRYSTAL, our city looks crummy with the exception of the new Hy -Vee and the nice road decor that was put in. That whole strip mall where Unique Thrift is an embarrassment. I'm all for the New City Hall office, but please focus on the downtrodden dilapidated buildings." • "We are already paying enough in taxes." • "I am hoping the pool will not be closed or unavailable for more than one season! My kids love taking lessons there and playing there." • "This whole project seems like a means to establish someone's legacy more than a need. I'm having a hard time believing that remodeling the building was within $1000000 of new construction. How many bids were submitted for this project? Our property taxes have already increased 20% in the last two years for no good reason. There has to be a way to achieve this without raising everyone's taxes even more." • "It is good to keep improving and modernizing New Hope." ■ "The amount of time without a pool. Also the resistance of others to have a tax increase." What questions or concerns do you have? • "I would like reassurance that park space and the amenities will be spared or relocated. I need the people of New Hope to know exactly what they are getting. I went to the open house and was very disappointed to see a parking lot in the space of the hockey rink. This was the first the people on the task force had seen that proposal. I felt like the company doing the design did a little bit of an end around on the task force and the people that live on the park. I need better reassurance on the plans and the residence kept in the loop." • "Cost comparison of building in the same location vs the above proposal - I know this information has been given in the oast but an undated version would be greatly appreciated." • "I would like to see no more additional bonding, at all in this city. save money to pay for any improvements. The estimates this survey states add up to $222.72 a year for a house valued at $196,000. These amounts should be given in yearly totals not monthly as that is deceptive. I feel the current city council is being deceptive in nature by not giving the proposed tax increase in yearly totals. Had anyone on the council been opposed in the recent election I would have voted accordingly. Perhaps I will run next election." • "I think you are wasting money. Crystal re -did their pool and didn't move locations. I think it would be interesting to compare remodeling the pool vs re locating it. I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is." 17 • "Should the project go forward, we would like to see a plan for how the city is going to maintain the new infrastructure to minimize the need for more construction in this area in the near future." • "I would like to see a more transparent process for keeping interested stakeholders like me informed of this project's progress. Whether or not this was your intention, the process so far has come across as secretive and mysterious. Information has only become available on the city website in the past couple of months, yet this project has apparently been in the works for years. As an employee of the pool, a city facility that will be directly affected by this project, I would have expected to hear about this sooner. Instead, it very much came out of the blue for me. It feels like you can only find out information about this project if you are looking for it. I struggle to even get the correct information when a friend and coworker of mine with manv contacts in the New Hone citv government asks questions for me. So I would urge greater transparency about this project and the related fate of the pool." • "If you move forward with this project, we need information regarding the immediate project to replace the pool. We shouldn't be without a pool for the summer. If we have to be, it should only be a partial or up to one summer. Anything longer than that would be a huge disappointment." • "What would the levy be to renovate the city hall building and the pool? If that cost is around 6-8 dollars/month, I'd support it." • "You must have a real plan for a new pool before agreeing to demolish the current one." • "There's no benefit to the community at large for either facility. They are both doing just fine and accurately provide the services needed to New Hope and other surrounding cities." • "Please inform the public so we know when our next chance is to have input on this project." • "What is the fate of the skate park? Theatre? Hockey rink? Why is there so much parking? What about real floor plans for the building space utilization? What about the needs of kids and families in the area? How are you actually helping the kids? This appears mostly just benefit city employees and not the residents that have to pay for everything...." • "Where's the skating rink going? Where is the skate park going? It is very popular. Where is the theatre going? Why is so much parking being planned?" • "Further study. New is nice but in this case expensive..." • "More information on what the plan is for the new pool (size, and other facility plans) Any additional information on the other facilities, including the theater, ice rink, playground, tennis courts, ball fields, etc... Thank you." • "More information on beautifying our city." • "An estimated timeline for completion." 18 If You are not a New Hone resident, what community do you live in? • "Maple Grove." • "Robbinsdale." • "Edina." • "Crystal." • "Maple Grove." • "New Centra homes development." • "I currently live in St. Louis Park. My family is from New Hope, and I grew up attending the pool every day in the summer since I was seven months old. I passed all my swimming lessons at the New Hope pool and afterwards worked there as a water safety instructor myself, continuing through this past summer. I would consider buying a house in New Hope when I reach that stage of my life, but the presence (or absence) of a quality pool like the one I grew up with would be a deal -breaker in moving back to New Hope." 19 Combined Results The combined results from the open house, website, and city hall surveys are as follows: Yes No No Resvonse Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new 25 21 4 Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and Resident --25 Resident=16 Resident --4 planning to replace the pool at a future Non -Resident --O Non -Resident --5 Non -Resident --O time? Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Resident --25 Non -Resident --3 No In Resident=17 Non -Resident --1 Attachments • Bar Graphs Depicting Survey Results • Individual survey responses (separated by resident/non-resident) • Space Needs Survey Misconceptions, Points Needing Clarification 20 No Response 3 Resident --2 Non -Resident --1 Yes No No Response Would you, as a taxpayer, support a 29 20 1 tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a Resident --27 Resident=18 Resident --O new Police D partment/City Hall? Non-Resident=2 Non -Resident --2 Non-Resident=l Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Resident --25 Non -Resident --3 No In Resident=17 Non -Resident --1 Attachments • Bar Graphs Depicting Survey Results • Individual survey responses (separated by resident/non-resident) • Space Needs Survey Misconceptions, Points Needing Clarification 20 No Response 3 Resident --2 Non -Resident --1 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time? 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? 30 25 20 15 10 5 9 Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time? 30 25 20 15 10 GI 0 Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a horse valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City ball? E Resident 7- Non -Resident 30 25 ItE 15 10 5 C Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? M Resident Non -Resident Resident Responses New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #1 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:25:09 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:27:00 PM Time Spent: 00:01:51 IP Address: 107.77.206.12 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Sure, trusting task force to bring best option to the table. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes, absolutely. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes, definitely. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 1/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #2 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:24:48 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:28:05 PM Time Spent: 00:03:17 IP Address: 75.146.171.5 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes only if the pool was replaced and it was replaced as quickly as feasible. 02: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? The amount of time without a pool. Also the resistance of others to have a tax increase. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Resl;omient skipped this do you live in? question 2/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #3 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:42:02 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:45:00 PM Time Spent: 00:02:58 IP Address: 50.171.248.128 PAGE Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. yes Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? It is good to keep improving and modernizing New Hope. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 3/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #4 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 4:01:02 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 4:36:43 PM Time Spent: 00:35:41 IP Address: 66.87.145.1 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. NO. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? There should be an option other than constructing a brand new building. Maybe a more cost effective approach. Our property taxes are already high for the area. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? See the response above. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? This whole project seems like a means to establish someone's legacy more than a need. I'm having a hard time believing that remodeling the building was within $1000000 of new construction. How many bids were submitted for this project. Our property taxes have already increased 20% in the last two years for no good reason. There has to be a way to achieve this without raising everyone's taxes even more. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 4/40 Respondent skipped this question Yes Respondent skipped this question New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #5 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 4:51:01 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 4:53:06 PM Time Spent: 00:02:04 IP Address: 174.219.5.170 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? I am hoping the pool will not be closed or unavailable for more than one season! My kids love taking lessons there and playing there. Q& What additional information would you like to see, if any? An estimated timeline for completion. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 5/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #6 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 4:58:57 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:00:12 PM Time Spent: 00:01:15 IP Address: 73.65.62.222 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? We are already paying enough in taxes. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 6/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 ##7 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:19:09 PM Last Modified: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:30:25 PM Time Spent: 00:11:16 IP Address: 24.131.147.35 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes I agree with the replacement of the Police dept/ity Hall in the most suitable location which appears to be where the pool is currently located. I don't agree with replacing the pool. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. I feel that the cost of the new pool and it's ongoing maintenance far outweighs the value. It is only about 12 weeks of the year. Sure it's busy when the weather is hot but then there are a number of summer days with limited attendance when the weather is cool or rainy. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? queslion Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you five in? question 7/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #g COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:24:21 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 04, 2016 11:00:49 AM Time Spent: 14:36:27 IP Address: 149.111.140.50 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. It depends on when that "future time" is. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? How much is project supposed to cost? Based on my home'a value I may be paying near 40/mo total. That seems pretty extreme. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax Respondent skipped lhi;; levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at question $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 8/40 Yes New Centra homes development. New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #9 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 04, 2016 2:39:33 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 04, 2016 2:44:31 PM Time Spent: 00:04:58 IP Address: 75.73.123.250 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. How near in the future? Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? We need the pool. Crystal has a wonderful Recreation Center AND pool and Bassett Creek Park (wonderful park). I'm starting to wonder what New Hope can say for itself .... oh, thrift stores!!! Let's have something to be proud of. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? Concerns; I wish the City of New Hope would work on removing/demolishing all the "empty" stores, gas stations in town. Compared to Robbinsdale, Golden Valley and EVEN CRYSTAL, our city looks crummy with the exception of the new HyVee and the nice road decor that was put in. That whole strip mall where Unique Thrift is is an embarrassment. I'm all for the New City Hall office, but please focus on the downtrodden dilapitated buildings. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? More information on beautifying our city. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 9/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #10 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 04, 2016 3:25:00 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 04, 2016 3:26:36 PM Time Spent: 00:01:35 IP Address: 174.20.195.109 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 10/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #11 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:54:31 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 04, 2016 6:21:32 PM Time Spent: 00:27:01 IP Address: 50.188.105.104 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No I do not. Our taxes have already gone up 20%since we bought our house here 3 years ago. We haven't seen any discernible differences locally. Except for losing amenities at our already unlit and poorly maintained parks. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No, our existing facilities are fine. I do not support any more spending at this time. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. I do not support any more spending. Our taxes have gone from 2k to 3k to 5k now back to 3k in less than 5 years. Our mayors property taxes haven't fluctuated more than $400 in the last decade. I'm sure the city could find more than enough money by auditing the city and figuring out who isn't paying enough tax vs who is paying too much. We have 40-50% of our residents in rental properties. Charge them more in property taxes. They use just as many or our amenities, roads, public works and have no investment in the community. The city should quit bleeding the young families with already tight budgets that choose to move into this community. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? We have a drug house on our block, behind our house we have a property that is abandoned and dilapidated. It has been now for 2 years. We have no lights in our parks after dark. We have a level 3 sex offender that lives right across the street from that same underlit park. We are losing amenities in our parks. We're fined for outrageously outdated and stupid infractions like having visible trash cans yet you can still see most people cans clearly. We have abandoned businesses that aren't required to be maintained. New Hope is turning out to not be that great of a place to live. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 11/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #12 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Sunday, November 06, 2016 4:41:19 PM Last Modified: Sunday, November 06, 2016 4:48:39 PM Time Spent: 00:07:20 IP Address: 50.171.249.66 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No, the current proposal would completely eliminate the value of the current building and pool, both of which are newer than the houses most New Hope residents live in. I cannot believe that build or remodel options would have comparable costs. We need to further evaluate a remodel/addition option for the current facilities. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Not for this proposal. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Not for this proposal. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 12/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #13 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Monday, November 07, 2016 1:56:23 PM Last Modified: Monday, November 07, 2016 2:06:58 PM Time Spent: 00:10:34 IP Address: 75.73.181.216 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes I agree that seems to be the best plan. I appreciate all the time and effort that has gone into making this decision, as well as you providing all this information to us residence. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes I would support the levy on the Police Department / City Hall as these are vital to our city. I have lived in New Hope grown up and also been a resident of New Hope for 54 years. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? I would like more information on the plans for the pool. Questions I have is when would the levy take affect, what are the plans for the size of the pool and amenties? With the season being shorter and less people using the pool then in the past, do we need as large a pool? Has any surveys gone out to the residents of New Hope on what their thoughts are on the new pool. I am all for having a pool but would like more information the plan before supporting a levy. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? What is the process for picking a task force for the future when it comes to where the rest of the facilities of the park should be placed? I would be interested in applying to be on that task force/committee. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? More information on what the plan is for the new pool (size, and other facility plans) Any additional information on the other facilities, including the theater, ice rink, play ground, tennis courts, ball fields, etc... Thank you. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 13/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #14 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Monday, November 07, 2016 3:27:33 PM Last Modified: Monday, November 07, 2016 3:50:49 PM Time Spent: 00:23:16 IP Address: 75.161.246.206 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. NO Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? NO Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Cheaper to upgrade and expand the existing city hall/police station and repair the pool..l Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? cost of the project. I am retired and on a fixed income and a two hundred dollar tax increase over a two year period is going to be hard to manage. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? further study. new is nice but in this case expensive... Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 14/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #15 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Monday, November 07, 2016 7:21:39 PM Last Modified: Monday, November 07, 2016 7:42:20 PM Time Spent: 00:20:40 IP Address: 73.164.34.125 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No. With respect to the pool, what is "a future time" - this seems too vague. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No. Why do you need to levy this? Where has our tax money gone? Will we get better services? We don't need an excessively fancy building for our modest suburb (the planned lobby is huge!) With proper upkeep, the current city hall should have lasted much longer. We have to maintain our home; the city should have maintained city hall. Shouldn't they have kept it up? (For example, maintain your roof regularly and promptly fix it when it has issues.) As with many people in New Hope, we are on a fixed income and feel that the levy will be an added financial burden. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. We won't use the pool. We understand that people in the community will use the pool, but do not make this an Olympic -sized pool. Gather a lot of input from the community on what they want to make this a fun place to enjoy. (An Olympic -sized pool would only serve a few people; aren't most swim meets inside??) Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? See above! Also the proposed parking space seems quite excessive. We would like to see a neighborhood skating rink. We've always enjoyed (and have volunteered at) the community theatre - where is it going? Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? Where's the skating rink going? Where is the skate park going? It is very popular. Where is the theatre going? Why is so much parking being planned? Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes 15/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 11.1FjO7 SurveyMonkey New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #16 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Monday, November 07, 2016 7:09:49 PM Last Modified: Monday, November 07, 2016 7:43:48 PM Time Spent: 00:33:58 IP Address: 73.164.34.125 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. By the way you phrase that, no, I do no support that. "Future time" would lead me to believe that you may never actually replace the pool. That is part of the whole purpose of this project as it was advertised to the citizens, to modernize both the City Hall and pool facilities. If you are going to postpone the pool replacement then that really changes the dynamic of the whole project. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No, I would not support that levy as it stands. There were unanswered questions about the actual space utilization at the open house. There were vague details about why everyone needs so much space, such as a large garage for the police. And the area in the drawing labeled as "Lobby" - why do you need a lobby with a footprint almost as large as the current city hall? That doesn't seem to be a wise use of space for something that is a "nice to have" feature at best. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Again, no. I don't have a use for the pool, but I totally understand the kids need one. But an Olympic sized pool is not for the community, it is just for teams rather than residents. Make something like Crystal that actually is for the community, you need the residents involved with the designs to fit the needs. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? I have multiple concerns with this project and unanswered questions. *Skate Park, hockey rink, theatre, etc. - how come those have a zero dollar budget? Those should not be optional - this needs to be a part of the final plan. And not a part of the "future phase" - this is an essential part of the park. *Parking lot where the hockey rink is located - this seems like far too much space for parking. We do not need a concrete jungle. We need more green space and less asphalt. As some task force members pointed out, the city needs to look elsewhere for parking such as renting space from HyVee for special event days. Don't build parking lots that will be used only a few times a year. Also - the parking for the police seems excessive, do they really need large indoor parking and large secured parking lot? What can be shared with the fire dept. in terms of parking space to better utilize that space? Is it really needed or just another "nice to have" feature? *Pool - do we really need an Olympic sized pool? Most swim meets are indoors, not outdoors. That also cuts off the public access to the pool on an already very short summer schedule. A pool more in line with the community (Crystal is a good example) that is open and accessible is what we need. And if an Olympic sized pool is really as profitable as was professed at the meeting than it should be able to support itself. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? What is the fate of the skate park? Theatre? Hockey rink? Why is there so much parking? What about real floor plans for the building space utilization? What about the needs of kids and families in the area? How are you actually helping the kids? This appears mostly just benefit city employees and not the residents that have to pay for everything.... 17/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 18/40 SurveyMonkey New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #17 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 7:58:34 AM Last Modified: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 8:12:34 AM Time Spent: 00:13:59 IP Address: 66.41.47.25 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No. I know the police department is important, but the size of the new City Hall seems unreasonable. It has a huge lobby and is a space which my family will never use. I know there need to be city offices and meeting rooms, but such a large cost seems unwarranted. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. This is a cost of $75/year for an amenity only available 2.5 months of the year. In addition, a pool pass for a family of 4 is $108, making it a total cost of $183/year. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? Concerns about the current proposal: Parking Lot expansion, meaning loss of green park space Expanded pool, expensive and limited use No skating rink or hockey rink, free for use by all for roughly 2.5 months of the year (the same as the pool) No dog park, free for use by all Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? Please inform the public so we know when our next chance is to have input on this project. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 19/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #18 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 11, 2016 4:36:10 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 11, 2016 4:41:42 PM Time Spent: 00:05:32 IP Address: 75.76.47.223 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No. Keep the pool where it is. Don't take this away from the community. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? The pool has always been a positive place for the community. The fact that we live in a state of 10,000 lakes and still go to the pool says a lot about the staff, the facility, and the community at large. Do not take that away, especially with no time table for the new pool structure. Also, do not take away the jobs of the people who work at the pool, then start from scratch some time down the road. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? There's no benefit to the community at large for either facility. They are both doing just fine and accurately provide the services needed to New Hope and other surrounding cities. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 20/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #21 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:03:34 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:33:02 PM Time Spent: 00:29:28 IP Address: 71.8.143.3 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Absolutely not. I do not support demolishing a staple of this community (NEW HOPE POOL) that serves thousands to add square footage to government employee's office space. The task forces rational is non-specific for a reason; it makes no sense. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? NO! Renovate while interest rates are low to reduce future maintenance costs. As a taxpayer, I do not take pride in the city hall or police department as long as the building is functional. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Absolutely if it is necessary. The New Hope City Pool is a staple of the community and provides citizens with invaluable services. A local pool where children can learn to swim, and generally have a safe place to spend time in the summer is vastly more important than a shiny government building that is used by a few dozen government employees. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? My biggest concern is not having a City Pool and also wasting taxpayer money on new facilities just because "interest rates are favorable". Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? What would the levy be to renovate the city hall building and the pool? If that cost is around 6-8 dollars/month, I'd support it. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent ski/sped this do you live in? question 23/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #24 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:24:54 AM Last Modified: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:35:17 AM Time Spent: 00:10:23 IP Address: 104.129.204.115 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes. This seems like the only workable arrangement. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.231month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? There seems to be an excessive amount of parking and lack of green space, especially near the playground. The latest proposal no longer includes the ice rinks. There seems to be uncertainty related to the theater location. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? Should the project go forward, we would like to see a plan for how the city is going to maintain the new infrastructure to minimize the need for more construction in this area in the near future. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 29/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #25 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:45:42 AM Last Modified: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:01:49 PM Time Spent: 00:16:06 IP Address: 174.20.96.30 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. I do believe that the placement of the city hall and the pool, as recommended by the Task Force is the most practical solution. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? am generally pleased with the layout as proposed, with minor changes. I would prefer that the sand volleyball court ( if deemed to be necessary, be flipped with the proposed location of the theater, with the theater being redone in a more appropriate manner, such as an amphitheater. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? nothing Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question O ER New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #26 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:52:16 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:52:57 PM Time Spent: 00:00:41 IP Address: 156.142.30.149 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? None Q& What additional information would you like to see, if any? None Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 31/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #27 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:22:02 PM Last Modified: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:24:07 PM Time Spent: 00:02:05 IP Address: 24.245.23.174 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No. I think you are wasting money. Crystal re -did their pool and didn't move locations. I think it would be interesting to compare remodeling the pool vs re locating it. I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? NO. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? I think you are wasting money. Crystal re -did their pool and didn't move locations. I think it would be interesting to compare remodeling the pool vs re locating it. I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? I think you are wasting money. Crystal re -did their pool and didn't move locations. I think it would be interesting to compare remodeling the pool vs re locating it. I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 32/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #29 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 25, 2016 7:22:08 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 25, 2016 8:06:50 PM Time Spent: 00:44:42 IP Address: 73.37.179.142 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. no Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No,too much money. I don't believe this estimate is accurate. bonding is not the answer. we should plan and save accordingly, when we have the money up front then we do this. NO MORE TAXES. No bonding. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? NO Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? Property taxes go up every year, along with income taxes, sales tax and every other tax. No more taxes. No more bonding to repair roads. No more bonding period. Save money, cash on the barrel, no more credit. No more interest. These are the values my parents taught me and this is what I believe in. I was born at north memorial in 1970, graduated from Armstrong in 1989 and have lived in New Hope my entire life. please dont destroy our city. There is more to this city than the road ratings. I know we can agree to a new police department that would be more "fiscally responsible". This is and always will be a "blue collar city". Council member London, thank you so much for opening my eyes to the "fiscal reponsibilty", my parents taught me, and the rest of the council doesnt understand. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? I would like to see no more additional bonding, at all in this city. save money to pay for any improvements. the " estimates this survey states add up to 222.72 dollars a year for a house valued at 196,000.these amounts should be given in yearly totals not monthly as that is deceptive. I feel the currunt city council is being deceptive in nature by not giving the proposed tax increase in yearly totals. had anyone on the council been opposed in the recent election i would have voted accordingly. Perhaps i will run next election. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 34/40 Yes Respondent skipped this question New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #31 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:12:30 PM Last Modified: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:16:38 PM Time Spent: 00:04:07 IP Address: 24.118.226.133 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. yes, assuming the pool will be replaced and the park/green space will be preserved as much as possible - not like in the picture with an added parking lot over the current field and hockey rink. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? As mentioned in the first response - I am in support of this plan but not if it includes increasing the parking lot so much that it breaks up the park. I am very concerned that having the parking lot extend as it was shown in one drawing would be a safety issue as well as break up how the park has so much uninterrupted green space. If more lot is needed for a new pool, can it be behind the pool or shared with Hy -Vee? Otherwise, if the current amenities are kept/replaced, I am in support of this. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 36/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 32 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:42:20 PM Last Modified: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:45:43 PM Time Spent: 00:03:22 IP Address: 174.219.135.214 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? That the pool will be eliminated! Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 37/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #33 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:37:52 PM Last Modified: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:50:52 PM Time Spent: 00:13:00 IP Address: 173.160.112.157 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No, I would rather they build on the location where the city hall and police station is but it sounds like that is no longer an option. I have 2 children and we use the pool all summer and was planning on sending our youngest to swimming lessons there. When you say future time how long are we talking here? I have heard 2 years but to be honest, I am guessing it's going to be longer. Do we really need a new pool? What is the real reason other than an inconvenience to move both to another location while rebuilding, Crystal location? Robbinsdale? Plymouth? Golden Valley? They all seem fairly close. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No - I don't think it's needed. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? The cost - the need vs the want Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? cost comparison of building in the same location vs the above proposal - I know this information has been given in the past but an updated version would be greatly appreciated Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 38/40 Yes Respondent skipped thL question New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey #34 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:40:23 PM Last Modified: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:06:04 PM Time Spent: 00:25:40 IP Address: 74.39.159.194 Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Yes, I agree with it as long as it gets accomplished, and park green space and field/court/rink space is preserved Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes, I would agree with the tax levy increase as long as park/field/green space/rink is preserved. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes, I would only agree with the levy if a new pool would be constructed and park green space, courts/fields and rinks are preserved. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? I am concerned that green space and park amenities will be forced out. What good is a park that the citizens of New Hope, families and kids can't enjoy. I live on the park and I don't want to stare at buildings and parking lots. I grew up here and Civic Center Park was once the jewel of New Hope and we should strive to make it a place the residence of New Hope can be proud of. The neighborhood is turning over and a lot of young families are moving in. We need a place that encourages families, kids and adults to put down the devices, get off the couch and get out and play. Anything less than that and we wont be able to call it a PARK. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? I would like reassurance that park space and the amenities will be spared or relocated. I need the people of New Hope to now exactly what they are getting. I went to the open house and was very disappointed to see a parking lot in the space of the hockey rink. This was the first the people on the task force had seen that proposal. I felt like the company doing the design did a little bit of an end around on the task force and the people that live on the park. I need better reassurance on the plans and the residence kept in the loop. Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped thi do you live in? question 39/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #35 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:46:54 PM Last Modified: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:19:00 PM Time Spent: 00:32:06 IP Address: 204.63.160.254 PAGE 1 SurveyMonkey Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No - use the current space as efficiently as possible or build up. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? no Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? u7 Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q6: Are you a New Hope resident? Yes Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Respondent skipped this do you live in? question 40/40 Non-Resident Responses New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #19 Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 11, 2016 4:40:25 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 11, 2016 4:42:31 PM Time Spent: 00:02:05 IP Address: 73.37.172.34 PAGE 1 SurveyMonkey NON-RESIDENT Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No! Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? No! Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? If the old one is destroyed yes, but it would be better to keep the old one! Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? It is a very bad idea --keep the pool! Q& What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question 0('c Are you a New Hope resident? No Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Maple Grove do you live in? 21 140 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #20 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Friday, November 11, 2016 5:33:11 PM Last Modified: Friday, November 11, 2016 5:38:08 PM Time Spent: 00:04:56 IP Address: 208.54.80.235 PAGE 1 SurveyMonkey NON-RESIDENT Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? No. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? The pool is an important community cornerstone for the city of New Hope. I grew up with the pool, worked there as a young adult, and plan to bring my children soon. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? You must have a real plan for a new pool before agreeing to demolish the current one. Are you a New Hope resident? 07: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 22/40 Im Crystal New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #22 Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:44:07 PM Last Modified: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:55:44 PM Time Spent: 00:11:37 IP Address: 73.88.26.250 PAGE 1 SurveyMonkey NON-RESIDENT Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. I am both an annual patron, as well as a former employee of the pool and the swimming lessons program. I absolutely disagree with the recommendation. The pool has been an asset to the New Hope community for fifty years. To destroy it with no immediate plan to rebuild its replacement is a huge disappointment to the community. And a new structure seems absolutely unnecessary. The city could refinish the pool keeping its classic structure. There is no need to update the pool to include the trendy pool features. It has everything it needs: a high dive and low dive, a drop slide, swimming lanes, zero depth entry, a kiddie pool, multiple kiddie slides and spouts. Less money could be spent to refresh the pool. Another site could be found for a new Policy Dept/City Hall. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Yes, but not as a replacement to the pool. Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes - or just refresh. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? Is there something structurally/functionally wrong with the pool that requires it to have more than a refresh? Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? If you move forward with this project, we need information regarding the immediate project to replace the pool. We shouldn't be without a pool for the summer. If we have to be, it should only be a partial or up to one summer. Anything longer than that would be a huge disappointment. Are you a New Hope resident? No Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Edina do you live in? 24/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #23 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Saturday, November 12, 2016 7:04:47 PM Last Modified: Saturday, November 12, 2016 7:17:32 PM Time Spent: 00:12:44 IP Address: 65.128.160.250 PAGE 1 SurveyMonkey NON-RESIDENT Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No, I cannot agree with the current recommendation. The New Hope outdoor pool is an important asset to the community and to me personally. I grew up attending the pool every day in the summer since I was seven months old and passed all my swimming lessons there, following which I have worked as a swim instructor at the pool through this past summer. The current recommendation does not provide sufficient details about when a new pool would be built or what a new pool would look like. It states vague intentions about the pool, but no specific plans or indeed any guarantee that a new pool would actually be built. Destruction of the pool comes across as a peripheral issue to the overall project, but I think it is a major community asset on the same scale as the city hall and police department, and pursuing this recommendation joins it alongside those two buildings as a main focus of the project, so it should be granted the same level of planning consideration in this recommendation. After reading the Space Needs Study report and attending the open house of November 2, 1 am not convinced that destroying the current pool is the best option. I do not support the city hall project moving forward at the expense of the pool. More details about the pool aspect of this project need to be explicitly determined in order to make an informed decision about moving forward. I think committing to destroying the pool next year and assuming that the details will be figured out later is irresponsible and not reassuring. "A future time" is noncommittal and can too easily turn into "never." Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? N/A (I am not a homeowner.) Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? N/A (I am not a homeowner.) Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? I have many concerns about this proposal, as a lifelong patron and longtime employee of the New Hope outdoor pool. The idea of losing this special place that is really like my home is of course very upsetting to me. So I do hope you will consider my concerns described below seriously, and I thank you for your time in doing so: 1. The value of the current pool design. 2. The potential design of a new pool. 3. The impacts of having no community pool for an undetermined number of years. Concern 1. The value of the current pool design. This is a pool that has served the public well for fifty years. I believe this speaks to an enduring quality of design that should not be overlooked in the quest for "something new." The fact that families have enjoyed coming to this pool for fifty years, through childhood, adulthood, and even multiple generations, is noteworthy. Based on my experience growing up attending the New Hope pool since infancy and working there through adulthood, I can explain what features have contributed to the pool's lasting appeal. I know firsthand what helps it serve patrons of all aqes and provide a safe open swimminq environment and an effective teachinq environment. I believe these time- 25/40 ime- 25/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey tested features should not be sacrificed in any effort to improve or replace the pool: • The fact that it is an outdoor pool. Nothing is more fun on a summer's day than swimming outside. • The simple shape of the pool and open design of the deck ensures that all ages of children can swim and be easily watched by their parents and lifeguards. At one point my three siblings and I were of an age range when we could have been spread out from the shallow "kiddie" pool to the diving well, and yet my mother was able to see us all from one spot on the deck. Many pools have restricted sightlines and blind corners, but from pretty much anywhere on the New Hope pool deck, you can see the entirety of the pool. Perhaps the pool is not in great shape mechanically, but it is shaped in a great shape! • The pool has enough space and variation in depth so all ages can truly enjoy swimming there and it is possible to teach a full range of swimming and water safety skills as a lessons instructor. A young child can enjoy the kiddie pool and the shallow end of the main pool, where they can touch, but as they learn to swim independently and grow into teenagers and adults they have more room in the deeper end of the pool and the diving well. There is room for families to enjoy the New Hope pool together and for people to enjoy it throughout their lifetime, as I have. Having a separate shallow kiddie pool for the youngest, with fountains and slides and other water features, is fantastic, but only when there is also another true swimming pool to complement it. Too many modern pools (like Crystal's redesign) put too much shallow space in their main pools at the expense of actually having somewhere to swim. I also cannot stress enough how difficult it is to teach children to swim in pools that lack adequate spaces for a progression of ages and abilities. The New Hope pool was a joy to teach at because beginning swimmers could be taught in the shallow end, where they could touch the bottom and spread out along the walls, and as they learn and perfect their formal swimming strokes they have multiples lanes of space for swimming laps and deeper areas for learning diving skills. Additionally, the "deep water test" that only allows swimmers access to the deeper parts of the pool if they can demonstrate the necessary swimming skill is also a wonderful aspect of the New Hope pool. I know of no other pools that have a requirement like this (expect Crystal, if they still do), and it is directly responsible for the fact that we have never had a drowning at New Hope pool and that rescues (where lifeguards actually have to enter the water to help a patron) have been exceedingly rare over the years. I can assure you this is not the case at other pools where they allow anyone to enter the deep end. • Related is the current pool's full 50 -meter length. You don't see a lot of pools like this nowadays, and as I hope the city council is aware, this length is attractive to lap swimmers and swim teams that pay to use our facility. Again, the adequate swimming space that New Hope provides is extremely valuable. • The diving well is also too often a casualty of modern pools. While I would certainly invite an even deeper diving well than New Hope's current sloped design, I am enthusiastic about having a true diving well with multiple diving boards. It's great for teaching, and in all these years, patrons have not gotten tired of standing in line and launching off these boards again and again and again. New Hope is the only outdoor public pool in the metro area that I know of that still has a three -meter "high dive" board, since as a recall Crystal got rid of theirs and replaced it with a boring small drop slide. Having a high dive definitely makes New Hope stand out, and I would actually welcome the return of the original diving well arrangement, with two one -meter boards on either side of the high dive. Based on my experience, the drop slide that replaced one of the low diving boards nearly twenty years ago is not used as often as the diving boards. People get bored with it. People have not gotten bored of boards. • Lastly, I simply love the classic "white slide" in the shallow end of the main pool. It doesn't require any complicated pumping system, and it has stood there solidly for who knows how many years. It is timelessly fun for children and adults alike, and I have seen many children who, like myself at their age, can literally spend hours going down it. Crystal also once had a slide of this design, which disappointingly was lost in its redesign. I hope New Hope can keep a great slide design like this. Heck, even consider keeping the exact same white slide in a new facility. Why not? Concern 2. The potential design of a new pool. Along with my lifelong personal and professional familiarity with the New Hope pool facility, I also have experience attending and working at other public pools. My experience at other, frankly inferior pools has only confirmed the quality of New Hope's design, from both patron and employee perspectives. I would hate for a new New Hope pool to end up like other sub -par pools that I have had the frustrating experience working or swimming at. We have a pool design that has lasted and proved itself to work well for fifty years, and I urge you to agree it makes no sense to change it now. The focus in designing a new pool should not be on what is "trendy" or "modern" in pool design, but what works. And please believe me, what we have currently at New Hope works. To that point, I don't believe the potential new features that I have so far seen described in the sparse and uncertain plans for a new pool would be an improvement on our current design. I don't like the idea of reducing the pool from eight lanes to six lanes. I admit I'm not sure what the intention for doing so would be, since I can't tell how serious if at all these potential plans are at this point, but I don't think any of the proposed features are worth giving up such valuable space to swim. The "modern water play amenities" I have seen listed so far are a climbing wall and a floating obstacle course. In my experience, features like these making lifeguarding more difficult (I have worked at facilities that had both of these features, and climbing walls strike me as particularly unsafe, with the potential for climbers to fall on top of each 26/40 New Hope Police Departinent/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey other), and they waste space that could be more productively used for open swimming, since their frequency of use definitely goes down after any initial novelty wears off. I have seen these installed at many new and remodeled metro area pools in the past decade—Crystal actually has an obstacle course, and I heard from Mayor Kathi Hemken herself at the open house of November 2 that she does not want to have a new pool that replicates Crystal's remodel—and these features are just a trend. I don't want a new New Hope pool to be just like all the other new pools out there. I want a pool that will last for another fifty years, a pool actually built for swimming and diving. Concern 3. The impacts of having no community pool for an undetermined number of years. I don't think the City has fully considered the impacts of destroying the current pool next year without having any solid plans for its replacement. Where will loyal patrons and employees be left when they have no pool in their community for an undetermined, years long period? All they can do is go elsewhere, and then how many can be expected to return once a new pool is eventually built? Open swimmers, swim teams, swim lessons participants? Students will be unable to take swimming lessons here for years, which I believe will essentially end the current swim program as we know it. Everything will have to be started from scratch at a new facility. And if the new facility is inferior to the current one, I'm sure you'll lose others like me who preferred the current pool. I don't see how the City can accept the task force recommendation without exploring these important considerations. Finally, I still have some questions after my careful review of the Space Needs Study and the materials provided at the open house of November 2: 1. Are the soil remediation costs truly one of the deciding factors in arriving at this recommendation? If so, this seems short-sighted to me. While yes, you can plainly see on the Cost Worksheet (page 19 of the Space Needs Study report) that the pool site option (Option 3) has the lowest soil remediation line item figure, this doesn't impact the overall cost of that option significantly. The final cost figures for each of the five options (0 through 4) are in fact quite comparable, and Option 3 is not even the cheapest overall. So I continue to be baffled why soil remediation keeps being brought up as a key point in the task force recommendation. This leads me to my next question. 2. What are the true costs for replacing the current pool? In reviewing the materials provided by the City about the city hall project, I am concerned that the total costs for destroying and replacing the pool are not fully reflected in the Cost Worksheet, giving a misleading impression about how Option 3 really compares, cost -wise, to the other options. It gives the "Pool Replacement Premium" as $2,000,000. Am I to understand this is all it would cost to destroy the current pool and build a new one? How can that possibly be accurate? Especially since the report admits elsewhere that the costs of building a new pool are dependent on the eventual design adopted: "Depending on how and where the pool is replaced and what the new pool looks like, it could raise the cost of the overall project" (page 8). In 2015, Stantec Consulting Services submitted a recommendation to budget $6,500,000 for improvements to the current pool. Will these funds now be dedicated to constructing a new pool? These funds do not seem to be represented in the Cost Worksheet. How much a new pool will actually cost is an important question to at least get an estimate of before making this decision. 3. How does the City prioritize the pool as a community asset? As I have worked to understand the plans for the city hall project and why my favorite pool is being threatened because of it, I find myself asking just how important the City considers having a community pool. It seems easy for them to say today that the pool is so old and in such disrepair that it makes more sense to just tear it down and build a new one (at some unspecified point in the future). But why was more effort not made to maintain the current pool? With no significant work done on the pool for the past eighteen years, it's no wonder it looks to be in bad shape. Those who have worked as pool employees the past decade (such as myself) are aware of the maintenance needs and the current structural deficiencies. But these are not necessarily inevitable. The City has always had the opportunity to decide that the pool is a community resource worth investing in, but they have chosen on many occasions not to do so. So would a new pool receive the same treatment? I keep experiencing attempts to reassure me that the pool is indeed a priority, that this recommendation doesn't mean the current pool wouldn't be replaced, but the lack of maintenance on the current pool, the lack of specific plans for a new one, and the fact that this is only happening in the first place as a side effect of a completely different project give me quite the opposite impression. 4. Why was a new city hall not built on the vacant K -Mart site? I+ co nr4r4 +r. mo +ho+ k. .;1,4i- � no -i+,i hall -4 -H- A—r+m + is i ir—n+ enni inh 27/40 New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 SurveyMonkey It OVVI I IJ VUV IV 1I IV LIIQI IJUIIU II KJ. Q IIVVV %A Ry IIQII CI IU VUI1k V UVPC31 LI I IVI II IJ JUUUVI Ily JV UI IJVI IL VIIVU911 QJ lV 11101 IL VVII lu forward as soon as possible, at the expense of losing the city pool for an undetermined amount of time. Just recently, the City decided to build not a new city hall on the long -vacant K -Mart lot, but a commercial development. If a new city hall was needed so urgently, why was it not built there, an option which was explored at the time? It seems unfair that the pool should be destroyed because of this lack of forethought. I suspect that the sudden urgency for a new city hall is related to the terrible 2015 shooting attack, but have not seen this admitted anywhere in the project plans. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if any? I would like to see a more transparent process for keeping interested stakeholders like me informed of this project's progress. Whether or not this was your intention, the process so far has come across as secretive and mysterious. Information has only become available on the city website in the past couple of months, yet this project has apparently been in the works for years. As an employee of the pool, a city facility that will be directly affected by this project, I would have expected to hear about this sooner. Instead, it very much came out of the blue for me. It feels like you can only find out information about this project if you are looking for it. I struggle to even get the correct information when a friend and coworker of mine with many contacts in the New Hope city government asks questions for me. So I would urge greater transparency about this project and the related fate of the pool. Are you a New Hope resident? No Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 28/40 I currently live in St. Louis Park. My family is from New Hope, and I grew up attending the pool every day in the summer since I was seven months old. I passed all my swimming lessons at the New Hope pool and afterwards worked there as a water safety instructor myself, continuing through this past summer. I would consider buying a house in New Hope when I reach that stage of my life, but the presence (or absence) of a quality pool like the one I grew up with would be a deal - breaker in moving back to New Hope. New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #28 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 5:38:19 PM Last Modified: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 5:39:39 PM Time Spent: 00:01:19 IP Address: 107.77.208.107 PAGE SurveyMonkey NON-RESIDENT Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. No, the pool will likely not be built until many years in the future. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to construct a new Police DepartmentlCity Hall? No Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Yes, if you had to destroy the pool. Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to Respondent skipped this this proposal? question Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Are you a New Hope resident? Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community do you live in? 33/40 M Robbinsdale New Hope Police Department/City Hall Space Needs Survey - November 2016 #30 COMPLETE Collector: Web Link 1 (Web Link) Started: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:17:39 PM Last Modified: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:38:04 PM Time Spent: 00:20:25 IP Address: 71.51.131.66 PAGE 1 SurveyMonkey NON-RESIDENT Q1: Do you agree with the Task Force recommendation Respondent skipped this of placing the new Police Department/City Hall building question where the current pool is, and planning to replace the pool at a future time. Q2: Would you, as a taxpayer, support a tax levy Respondent skipped this increase of $12.33/month, for a home valued at $196,000, 91estirnl to construct a new Police Department/City Hall? Q3: Would you, as a taxpayer, support an additional tax Respondent skipped this levy increase of $6.23/month, for a home valued at question $196,000, to relocate and reconstruct a new swimming pool? Q4: What questions or concerns do you have related to this proposal? I lived in New Hope for 11 years at 3649 Decatur Avenue North. We moved because the tennis courts were removed at Northwoods Park and not replaced. But we did continue to use the New Hope pool every summer buying a family pool pass and taking swimming lessons paying non-resident fees. We went swimming almost everyday. My four children took all their swimming lessons at the New Hope pool, all reaching the highest level that was taught. I enjoyed the physical layout of the pool. All ages of my children could be accommodated. But most importantly for me was that I could watch all my children no matter where they swam in the pool. This was most helpful when I had toddlers and older children who could swim in the deep end. As a former resident of New Hope, I hope you realize that New Hope itself does not have many amenities -no lakes, no creeks or forests that can be enjoyed by the public. The pool is a big summer destination for people. I would think that to remove such an asset would be short-sighted. I would think that to entice people and families to buy homes in New Hope a pool would be a major drawing point. A pool like the one New Hope has now and that has lasted for 50 years would be a good place for a design for a new pool to begin. Areas of different depths, diving boards, and a zero -depth entry to a separate pool for young children may be good to incorporate. I hope you decide that a pool is a good investment and that you build one that will last for 50 years. Q5: What additional information would you like to see, if Respondent skipped this any? question Q& Are you a New Hope resident? No Q7: If you are not a New Hope resident, what community Maple Grove do you live in? 35/40 Space Needs Survey Misconceptions, Points Needing Clarification A number of online Space Needs survey responses bring to light some areas of confusion that some residents have or issues that need clarification relating to the city's potential construction of a new police station and city hall at the current pool location. These issues should probably be addressed in future communications related to the proposed new building: Timeline of pool replacement "Many years in the future" "The pool will likely not be built until many years in the future" "Future time" would lead me to believe that you may never actually replace the pool." "With respect to the pool, what is "a future time" - this seems too vague." Answer: Explain that the City Council's intention is to rebuild a pool — although it may be configured differently and have different amenities. Cost of the police station/city hall "I cannot believe that build or remodel options would have comparable costs. We need to further evaluate a remodel/addition option for the current facilities." "Our existing facilities are fine. I do not support any more spending at this time." "There should be an option other than constructing a brand new building. Maybe a more cost effective approach. Our property taxes are already high for the area." Answer: Summarize why current facilities are not "fine." Explain cost differential between remodeling and expanding current city hall and building new. Cost of repairing vs moving/replacing pool "I think you will save a LOT of money by just fixing the pool where it is." "Cheaper to upgrade and expand the existing city hall/police station and repair the pool" Answer: To continue to operate, the existing pool will need over $6 million in repairs within the next few years. It leaks and mechanical equipment is in poor condition. The wading pool does not comply with ADA requirements. It would cost about $8 to build a comparable, new pool at the location of the existing city hall. Excessive amount of parking "Why is there so much parking?" Answer: Explain need for additional parking for pool, farmers market, other? Explain need for the size of the area designated as "Lobby" "the planned lobby is huge!" Answer: Explain components included in "Lobby" area. How come some park components have zero dollars designated in the budget? Answer: Many existing park amenities will not need to move. What is the fate of the skate park? Theatre? Hockey rink? "More information on what the plan is for the new pool (size, and other facility plans) Any additional information on the other facilities, including the theater, ice rink, playground, tennis courts, ball fields, etc..." Answer: A park master plan, to serve as a blueprint for a new Civic Center Park, is part of the overall municipal facility project. The amenities that will be included in an updated Civic Center Park have yet to be determined. Some existing amenities may be replaced by new amenities. More detailed floor plans? "What about real floor plans for the building space utilization?" Answer: To keep initial costs down, detailed plans have yet to be completed. Detailed floor plans and design details will be developed if the project moves forward. Explaining tax impact per month "These amounts should be given in yearly totals not monthly as that is deceptive." Answer: Most residents likely think about tax impacts in terms of the cost per year. It may prudent to indicate the annual tax impact of the police station/city hall and pool projects in future communications as well as the term of that impact. For example, The tax impact of the proposed new police station/city hall would be $148/year ($12.33/month) for 20 years, for a home valued at $196,000. Wold Architects Proposal Re: City of New Hope New Police Station J City Hall Commission No. 9999 Dear Kirk: December 14, 2016 Kirk McDonald, City Administrator New Hope City Hall 4401 XyloreAvenue North New Hop¢, Minnesota 55428 We are pleased to provide our proposal to perform full architectural and engineering consulting services for the proposed New Police Station and City Hall project as approved by the City Council. As a culmination of many years of thoughtful study regarding the condition of your existing facility, the space needs of each of the departments housed in the facility, and the most effective siting of a potential new facility, Wold is excited by the prospect of participating in the realization of turning these concepts into actuality. As with the Space Needs Study and Site Master Planning we have performed for you, Wold typically proposes establishing a fixed fee at the onset of each project. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for you and manage our time internally to always meet your expectations. All engineering and consultant services are provided in our fee with the exception of civil engineering and landscape architecture which you have indicated the City of New Hope will contract with Stantec directly. We believe that by establishing a fixed fee for each project, based on an agreed upon construction cost, this eliminates the potentially negative dialog that often happens regarding extra services. Our "basic services" contract with you goes well beyond what some other architectural firms would provide. Our commitment to you is to agree on a fixed fee and not request additional fees unless the scope of the project changes significantly. We propose to provide full service architectural and engineering services, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering for all project phases from Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, Construction Observation and Post Occupancy Close-out as outlined in the American Institute of Architects Document B101— Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. This letter is to serve as an amendment to that contract per Article 11.1.B. Phases of work are delineated as follows. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES During the first phase—Schematic Design—an Architect consults with the Owner to determine project goals and requirements. During Schematic Design, study drawings, documents, or other media are developed that illustrate the concepts of the design and include spatial relationships, scale, and form for the Owner to review. Schematic Design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. This phase produces a final Schematic Design, to which the Owner agrees after consultation and discussions with the Architect. Costs are estimated based on overall project volume. The design then moves forward to the Design Development phase. Schematic Design often produces a site plan, floor plans, sections, an elevation, and other illustrative materials; computer images, renderings, or models. Typically, the drawings include overall dimensions, and a construction cost is estimated. Schematic Design accounts for 15% of architectural services. Wold Architects and Engineers I P LA iN fN E R S X32 Minrresnta tiuticcI tirritc W11(111f)ARCS1ITE1L,-1 S SMin 11aui, MN 55 10 1 w old.mconr 1 651 227 7773 ENGINEERS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 2 Design Development services use the initial design documents from the schematic phase and take them one step further. This phase lays out mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and architectural details. Typically referred to as DD, this phase results in drawings that often specify design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Specific room layouts and amenities are finalized with building users. The DD phase often ends with a formal presentation to, and approval by, the owner. Design Development often produces floor plans, sections, and elevations with full dimensions. These drawings typically include door and window details and outline material specifications. DD accounts for 20% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE SERVICES The next phase is Construction Documents (CDs). Once the Owner and Architect are satisfied with the documents produced during DD, the Architect moves forward and produces drawings with greater detail. These drawings typically include specifications for construction details and materials. Once CDs are completed, the Architect sends them to contractors for bidding. The construction document phase produces a set of drawings and specifications that include all pertinent information required for a contractor to price and build the project. CDs accounts for 40% of architectural services. BID PHASE SERVICES The first step of this phase is preparation of the bid documents to go out to potential contractors for pricing. The bid document set often includes an advertisement for bids, instructions to bidders, the bid form, bid documents, the Owner -Contractor agreement, labor and material payment bond, and any other sections necessary for successful price bids. The Architect and Owner may elect to have a pre-bid meeting for potential contractors. After bid sets are distributed, the Architect answers contractor questions, reviews any requests for alternate materials and issues addenda to the bid document to clarify them prior to bids being received. The Owner, with the help of the Architect, evaluate the bids and select a winning bid. The final step is to award the contract to the selected bidder with a formal letter of intent to allow construction to begin. The final deliverable is a construction contract. Once this document is signed, project construction can begin. Bidding accounts for 5% of architectural services. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Contract Administration (CA) services are outlined in the Owner -Architect construction agreement. CA services begin with the initial contract for construction and terminate when the final certificate of payment is issued. The Architect's core responsibility during this phase is to help the Contractor to build the project as specified in the CDs as approved by the Owner. Questions may arise on site that require the Architect to develop architectural sketches: drawings issued after construction documents have been released that offer additional clarification to finish the project properly. Different situations may require the architect to issue a Change in Services to complete the project. Deliverables: A successfully built and contracted project. CA accounts for 20% of architectural services. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 3 For these complete and comprehensive services, we consistently propose fixed fees of 6% for new construction based on your approved construction cost. In addition, we believe that although much of our work to date was exploring concepts that have been abandoned, some of the work that we have already performed has value in the forthcoming design process. Therefore, we offer that half of all fees paid to date be credited towards the project. This results in the following calculation for the overall building design and construction phases: Building Construction Budget $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition Budget $ 250,000.00 Ualf 91 Contingency $ 342.000.00 Total Building Construction Budget $14,272,000.00 14,1111 5ervice Fixed fg?,alp, x 6.0% Typical Full Service Fixed Fee $ 856,000.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.001 Full Service Fixed Fee. $ 830,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Supplemental Basic Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: • Transportation in connection with travel. • Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web Sites, and extranets. • Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. • Printing, reproductions (except sets of each phase for Owner review), plots, standard form documents. • Postage, handling and delivery. * Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner. * Renderings, models, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner. • Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants and, if authorized in advance by the Owner. • All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses. • Other similar Project -related expenditures, if authorized in advance by the Owner. We have found that reimbursable expenses typically do not exceed $2,500.00 per million of construction cost on a project of this size. Therefore, we propose to invoice reimbursable expenses at actual cost with a maximum amount capped at $36,000.00 resulting in a total contract amount of $866,000.00. Letter to Kirk McDonald Page 4 In addition to these phases for design and construction of the building, Wold Architects and Engineers has full Interior Design and Audio/Visual Systems Design capability and offers to provide the services needed to design, procure and administer implementation of these building elements. We offer a similar fixed fee approach, calculated by our offered 6% rate multiplied by the value of the furnishings or equipment that we are responsible for. Therefore, based upon the approved budget, typical fees would be calculated as follows: Furniture Budget $655,000.00 Full Serice e Rate x 6.0% Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 Equipment Budget $165,000.00 Full Service Fixed Fee Rate x 6.O`t� Typical Equipment Fixed Fee $ 9,9[)Il.Ot] In summary, Wold Architects and Engineers offers the City of New Hope the following proposed fees. Schematic Design (15%) $ 128,400.00 Design Development (20%) $ 171,200.00 Construction Documents (40%) $ 342,400.00 Bidding (5%) $ 42,800.00 Construction Administration (20%) $ 171,200.00 Credit for Previous Efforts ($ 26,000.00) Maximum Reimbursable Expenses $ 36,000.00 Typical Furniture Fixed Fee $ 39,300.00 J'ynical f Jiirnmeilt Fixed 3 c _ 919010Q Wold's Maximum Contract Amount $ 915,200.00 �t�lilteSiVi1 1711 iYlecri .� a '' "9$ 117,202 Total Profession Design and Engineering Services $1,032,570.00 We look forward to commencing work on the planning for the New Hope Police Station / City Hall Project. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, W d Architects and Engineers Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED A ' Partner cc: Ban Beery, Wold Matt Mooney, Wold �11`�Wo =A I A DocumeTM nt B101 —2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect AGREEMENT made as of the day of in the year (In words, indicate day, month and year.) BETWEEN the Architect's client identified as the Owner: ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: (Name, legal status, address and other information) The author of this document hasadded information needed for its City of New Hope completion. The author may also 4401 Xylon Avenue North have revised the text of the original New Hope, Minnesota 55428 AIA standard form. An Additions and Deletions Report that notes added and the Architect: information as well as revisions to the standard form text is available (Name, legal status, address and other information) from the author and should be reviewed. A vertical line in the left Wold Architects and Engineers margin of this document indicates 332 Minnesota Street Suite W2000 where the author has added Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 necessary information and where Telephone Number: 651-227-7773 the author has added to or deleted Fax Number: 651-223-5646 from the original AIA text. for the following Project: This document has important legal (Name, location and detailed description) consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect Basic Contract Agreement for current and future projects agreed upon in writing by both to its completion or modification. parti es. The Owner and Architect agree as follows. Init. AIA Document B101- — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1976, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Instilute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAm Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No 3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) TABLE OF ARTICLES 1 INITIAL INFORMATION 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 6 COST OF THE WORK 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11 COMPENSATION 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT EXHIB►T A INITIAL INFORMATION ARTICLE 1 INITIAL INFORMATION § 1.1 This Agreement is based on the Initial Information set forth in this Article 1 and in optional Exhibit A, Initial Information: (Complete Exhibit A, Initial Information, and incorporate it into the Agreement at Section 13.2, or stale below Initial Information such as details of the Project's site and program, Owner's contractors and consultants, Architect's consultants, Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, authorized representatives, anticipated procurement method, and other information relevant to the Project.) I N/A § 1.2 The Owner's anticipated dates for commencement of construction and Substantial Completion of the Work are set forth below: .1 Commencement of construction date: I To be determined .2 Substantial Completion date: To be determined § 1.3 The Owner and Architect may rely on the Initial Information. Both parties, however, recognize that such information may materially change and, in that event, the Owner and the Architect shall appropriately adjust the schedule, the Architect's services and the Architect's compensation. ARTICLE 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 2.1 The Architect shall provide the professional services as set forth in this Agreement. AIA Document B1101- — 2007 (formerly B151 TM — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 2 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible l under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No 3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 2.2 The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. § 2.3 The Architect shall identify a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. § 2.4 Except with the Owner's knowledge and consent, the Architect shall not engage in any activity, or accept any employment, interest or contribution that would reasonably appear to compromise the Architect's professional judgment with respect to this Project. § 2.5 The Architect shall maintain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the requirements set forth below exceed the types and limits the Architect normally maintains, the Owner shall reimburse the Architect for any additional cost: (Idents types and limits of insurance coverage, and other insurance requirements applicable to the Agreement, if any.) 1 General Liability $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate .2 Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence .3 Workers' Compensation Statutory .4 Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim/$2,000,000 aggregate ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES § 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Article 3 and include usual and customary structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services, civil engineer, cost estimating, food service, pool, theater, acoustical, landscaping, consultant will be hired by Architect as services are required as part of Basic Services.. Services not set forth in this Article 3 are Additional Services. § 3.1.1 The Architect shall manage the Architect's services, consult with the Owner, research applicable design criteria, attend Project meetings, communicate with members of the Project team and report progress to the Owner. § 3.1.2 The Architect shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information furnished by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall provide prompt written notice to the Owner if the Architect becomes aware of any error, omission or inconsistency in such services or information. § 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Work as set forth in the Initial Information. The schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of the Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, if necessary as the Project proceeds until the commencement of construction. AIA Document B10111 — 2007 (formerly 81511" — 1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA© Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAO Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible / under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No 3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 3.1.4 The Architect shall not be responsible for an Owner's directive or substitution made without the Architect's approval. § 3.1.5 The Architect shall, at appropriate times, contact the governmental authorities required to approve the Construction Documents and the entities providing utility services to the Project. In designing the Project, the Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements imposed by such governmental authorities and by such entities providing utility services. § 3.1.6 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE SERVICES § 3.2.1 The Architect shall review the program and other information furnished by the Owner, and shall review laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the Architect's services. § 3.2.2 The Architect shall prepare a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, schedule, budget for the Cost of the Work, Project site, and the proposed procurement or delivery method and other Initial Information, each in terms of the other, to ascertain the requirements of the Project. The Architect shall notify the Owner of (1) any inconsistencies discovered in the information, and (2) other information or consulting services that may be reasonably needed for the Project. § 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design approaches if requested by Owner. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project. § 3.2.4 Based on the Project's requirements agreed upon with the Owner, the Architect shall prepare and present for the Owner's approval a preliminary design illustrating the scale and relationship of the Project components. § 3.2.5 Based on the Owner's approval of the preliminary design, the Architect shall prepare Schematic Design Documents for the Owner's approval. The Schematic Design Documents shall consist of drawings and other documents including a site plan, if appropriate, and preliminary building plans, sections and elevations; and may include some combination of study models, perspective sketches, or digital modeling. Preliminary selections of major building systems and construction materials shall be noted on the drawings or described in writing. § 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider, if requested by the Owner, environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain other environmentally responsible design services under Article 4. § 3.2.5.2 The Architect shall consider the value of alternative materials, building systems and equipment, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design for the Project that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. § 3.2.6 The Architect shall submit to the Owner an estimate of the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with Section 6.3. § 3.2.7 The Architect shall submit the Schematic Design Documents to the Owner, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE SERVICES § 3.3.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design Development Documents for the Owner's approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and AIA Document B101- — 2007 (formerly B151TM — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 4 of this AIAO Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1266042934) electrical systems, and such other elements as may be appropriate. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish in general their quality levels. § 3.3.2 The Architect shall update the estimate of the Cost of the Work. § 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval. § 3.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE SERVICES § 3.4.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Design Development Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Construction Documents for the Owner's approval. The Construction Documents shall illustrate and describe the further development of the approved Design Development Documents and shall consist of Drawings and Specifications setting forth in detail the quality levels of materials and systems and other requirements for the construction of the Work. The Owner and Architect acknowledge that in order to construct the Work the Contractor will provide additional information, including Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other similar submittals, which the Architect shall review in accordance with Section 3.6.4. § 3.4.2 The Architect shall incorporate into the Construction Documents the design requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. § 3.4.3 During the development of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in the development and preparation of (1) bidding and procurement information that describes the time, place and conditions of bidding, including bidding or proposal forms; (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions) The Architect shall also compile a project manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction and Specifications and may include bidding requirements and sample forms. § 3.4.4 The Architect shall update the estimate for the Cost of the Work § 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action required under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval. The Architect shall after consultation with the Owner be primarily responsible for the preparation of the necessary bidding information and bidding forms. The Architect shall also assist the owner in the preparation of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, and form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor. All bidding documents and contractual agreements shall be in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota's public bidding and contracting law as those laws apply to public entities. § 3.4.6 The Architect shall work with the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. The Architect shall have the primary responsibility to complete the required documents and ensure that they are properly filed on behalf of the Owner. The Architect shall observe those applicable laws, statues, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations in force and publically announced as of the date of this agreement or as of the date of subsequent compensation amendments whichever is the latter. § 3.4.7 Owner understands that relatively few guidelines are available with respect to compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Architect is aware of developments in this field, including ADA guidelines that are incorporated in the building code, and legal decisions, but cannot guarantee or warrant that Architect's opinion of appropriate compliance measures will be found valid. § 3.5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE SERVICES § 3.5.1 GENERAL The Architect shall assist the Owner in establishing a list of prospective contractors. Following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in (1) obtaining either competitive bids or negotiated proposals; (2) confirming responsiveness of bids or proposals; (3) determining the successful bid or proposal, if any; and, (4) awarding and preparing contracts for construction. AIA Document B101- — 2007 (formerly B151 TM — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible f under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 3.5.2 COMPETITIVE BIDDING § 3.5.2.1 Bidding Documents shall consist of bidding requirements and proposed Contract Documents, § 3.5.2.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in bidding the Project by .1 procuring the reproduction of Bidding Documents for distribution to prospective bidders; .2 distributing the Bidding Documents to prospective bidders, requesting their return upon completion of the bidding process, and maintaining a log of distribution and retrieval and of the amounts of deposits, if any, received from and returned to prospective bidders; .3 organizing and conducting a pre-bid conference for prospective bidders, if requested by Owner; .4 preparing responses to questions from prospective bidders and providing clarifications and interpretations of the Bidding Documents to all prospective bidders in the form of addenda; and .5 organizing and conducting the opening of the bids, and subsequently documenting and distributing the bidding results, as directed by the Owner. § 3.5.2.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Bidding Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective bidders. § 3.5.3 NEGOTIATED PROPOSALS § 3.5.3.1 Proposal Documents shall consist of proposal requirements and proposed Contract Documents. § 3.5.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in obtaining proposals by .1 procuring the reproduction of Proposal Documents for distribution to prospective contractors, and requesting their return upon completion of the negotiation process; .2 organizing and participating in selection interviews with prospective contractors; and .3 participating in negotiations with prospective contractors, and subsequently preparing a summary report of the negotiation results, as directed by the Owner. § 3.5.3.3 The Architect shall consider requests for substitutions, if the Proposal Documents permit substitutions, and shall prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved substitutions to all prospective contractors. § 3.5.3.4 In the event the lowest bid (or bids) exceeds the budget for the Project, the Architect, in consultation with and at the direction of the Owner, shall provide such modifications in the Contract Documents as necessary to bring the cost of the Project within the budget, unless Owner directs the Architect to bid a project estimated over budget. § 3.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES § 3.6.1 GENERAL § 3.6.1.1 The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A20]TM-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. If the Owner and Contractor modify AIA Document A201-2007, those modifications shall not affect the Architect's services under this Agreement unless the Owner and the Architect amend this Agreement. § 3.6.1.2 The Architect shall advise and consult with the Owner during the Construction Phase Services. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in this Agreement. The Architect shall not have control over, charge of, or responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, nor shall the Architect be responsible for the Contractor's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall be responsible for the Architect's negligent acts or omissions, but shall not have control over or charge of, and shall not be responsible for, acts or omissions of the Contractor or of any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. § 3.6.1.3 Subject to Section 4.3, the Architect's responsibility to provide Construction Phase Services commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates At the end of the one year contractor's construction warranty period. § 3.6.2 EVALUATIONS OF THE WORK § 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 T"' —1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document isrotected b U.S. p y Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAO Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 1 under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1266042934) completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. On the basis of the site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (l) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work. § 3.6.2.2 The Architect has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or advisable, the Architect shall have the authority to require inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the Architect nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons or entities performing portions of the Work. § 3.6.2.3 The Architect shall interpret and decide matters concerning performance under, and requirements of, the Contract Documents on written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness. § 3.6.2.4 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and decisions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, shall not show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions rendered in good faith. The Architect's decisions on matters relating to aesthetic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent expressed in the Contract Documents. § 3.6.2.5 Unless the Owner and Contractor designate another person to serve as an Initial Decision Maker, as that term is defined in AIA Document A201-2007, the Architect shall render initial decisions on Claims between the Owner and Contractor as provided in the Contract Documents. § 3.6.3 CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR § 3.6.3.1 The Architect shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall issue certificates in such amounts. The Architect's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Owner, based on the Architect's evaluation of the Work as provided in Section 3.6.2 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that, to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief, the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3) to correction of minor deviations from the Contract Documents prior to completion, and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Architect. § 3.6.3.2 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. § 3.6.3.3 The Architect shall maintain a record of the Applications and Certificates for Payment. § 3.6.4 SUBMITTALS § 3.6.4.1 The Architect shall review the Contractor's submittal schedule and shall not unreasonably delay or withhold approval. The Architect's action in reviewing submittals shall be taken in accordance with the approved submittal schedule or, in the absence of an approved submittal schedule, with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in the Architects professional judgment to permit adequate review. AIA Document B1011" — 2007 (formerly 81511"" — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible f under the law This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No 3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Architect -approved submittal schedule, the Architect shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. § 3.6.4.3 If the Contract Documents specifically require the Contractor to provide professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment, the Architect shall specify the appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. The Architect shall review Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor that bear such professional's seal and signature when submitted to the Architect. The Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications and approvals performed or provided by such design professionals. § 3.6.4.4 Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall review and respond to requests for information about the Contract Documents. The Architect shall set forth in the Contract Documents the requirements for requests for information. Requests for information shall include, at a minimum, a detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature of the clarification requested. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon, or otherwise with reasonable promptness. If appropriate, the Architect shall prepare and issue supplemental Drawings and Specifications in response to requests for information. § 3.6.4.5 The Architect shall maintain a record of submittals and copies of submittals supplied by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5 CHANGES IN THE WORK § 3.6.5.1 The Architect may authorize minor changes in the Work that are consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents and do not involve an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents. § 3.6.5.2 The Architect shall maintain records relative to changes in the Work § 3.6.6 PROJECT COMPLETION § 3.6.6.1 The Architect shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion; issue Certificates of Substantial Completion; receive from the Contractor and forward to the Owner, for the Owner's review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and issue a final Certificate for Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract Documents. § 3.6.6.2 The Architect's inspections shall be conducted with the Owner to check conformance of the Work with the requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected. § 3.6,6.3 When the Work is found to be substantially complete, the Architect shall inform the Owner about the balance of the Contract Sum remaining to be paid the Contractor, including the amount to be retained from the Contract Sum, if any, for final completion or correction of the Work. § 3,6.6.4 The Architect shall forward to the Owner the following information received from the Contractor: (1) consent of surety or sureties, if any, to reduction in or partial release of retainage or the making of final payment; (2) affidavits, receipts, releases and waivers of liens or bonds indemnifying the Owner against liens; and (3) any other documentation required of the Contractor under the Contract Documents. AIA Document B1011" — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution $ of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 3.6.6.5 Upon request of the Owner, and prior to the expiration of one year from the date of Substantial Completion, the Architect shall, without additional compensation, conduct a meeting with the Owner to review the facility operations and performance. ARTICLE 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES § 4.1 Additional Services listed below are not included in Basic Services but may be required for the Project. The Architect shall provide the listed Additional Services only if specifically designated in the table below as the Architect's responsibility, and the Owner shall compensate the Architect as provided in Section 11.2. (Designate the Additional Services the Architect shall provide in the second column of the table below. In the third column indicate whether the service description is located in Section 4.2 or in an attached exhibit. If in an exhibit, idents the exhibit.) Additional Services Responsibility (Architect, Owner or Not Provided) Location of Service Description (Section 4.2 below or in an exhibit attached to this document and identified below) 4.1.1 Programming Basic Services 4.1.2 Multiple preliminary designs N/P 4.1.3 Measured drawings Owner 4.1A Existing facilities surveys Owner 4.1.5 Site Evaluation and Planning B203Tm-2007) Basic Services 4.1.6 Building information modeling N/P 4.1.7 Civil enEineering Basic Services 4.1.8 Landscape design Basic Services 4.1.9 Architectural Interior Design B252TM-2007) Basic Services § 4.1.10 Value Analysis (B204Tm-2007) N/P 4.1.11 Detailed cost estimating Basic Services 4.1.12 On-site pr9ject representation N/P 4.1.13 Conformed construction documents N/P 4.1.14 As -Designed Record drawings N/P 4.1.15 As -Constructed Record drawings N/P 4.1.16 Post occupan92 evaluation N/P 4.1.17 Facility Support Services (1321oTm-2007) N/P 4.1.18 Tenant -related services N/P 4.1.19 Coordination of Owner's consultants N/P 4.1.20 Telecommunications/data design N/P § 4.1.21 Security Evaluation and Planning B206T--2007) N/P 4.1.22 Commissioning (132111-m-2007) N/P 4.1.23 Extensive environmentally responsible desi n N/P 4.1.24 LEEDS' Certification (B214Tm-2007) N/P 4.1.25 Fast-track design services N/P 4.1.26 Historic Preservation (B205TM-2007) N/P § 4.1.27 Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Design (13253Tm-2007) N/P § 4.2 Insert a description of each Additional Service designated in Section 4.1 as the Architect's responsibility, if not further described in an exhibit attached to this document. § 4.3 Additional Services may be provided after execution of this Agreement, without invalidating the Agreement. Except for services required due to the fault of the Architect, any Additional Services provided in accordance with this Section 4.3 shall entitle the Architect to compensation pursuant to Section 11.3 and an appropriate adjustment in the Architect's schedule. AIA Document B101- — 2007 (formerly B151 T" —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document isrotected b U.S. p y Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 9 of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible f under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 4.3.1 Upon recognizing the need to perform the following Additional Services, the Architect shall notify the Owner with reasonable promptness and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. The Architect shall not proceed to provide the following services until the Architect receives the Owner's written authorization: .1 Services necessitated by a change in the Initial Information, previous instructions or approvals given by the Owner, or a material change in the Project including, but not limited to, size, quality, complexity, the Owner's schedule or budget for Cost of the Work, or procurement or delivery method; .2 Services necessitated by the Owner's request for extensive environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as unique system designs, in-depth material research, energy modeling, or LEEDS certification; .3 Changing or editing previously prepared Instruments of Service necessitated by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations or official interpretations; .4 Services necessitated by decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner or any other failure of performance on the part of the Owner or the Owner's consultants or contractors; .5 Preparing digital data for transmission to the Owner's consultants and contractors, or to other Owner authorized recipients; .6 Preparation of design and documentation for alternate bid or proposal requests proposed by the Owner; .7 Preparation for, and attendance at, a public presentation, meeting or hearing; .8 Preparation for, and attendance at a dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except where the Architect is party thereto; .9 Evaluation of the qualifications of bidders or persons providing proposals; .10 Consultation concerning replacement of Work resulting from fire or other cause during construction; or .11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect. .12 Additional Services shall specifically include Services and Reimbursable regarding Architect responses or actions related to requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"). Additional Services related to the MGDPA may be provided by the Architect without the Owner's consent or permission. Owner's obligation to pay Architect for Additional Services regarding the MGDPA shall survive the termination or completion of Services under this Agreement § 4.3.2 To avoid delay in the Construction Phase, the Architect shall provide the following Additional Services, notify the Owner with reasonable promptness, and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. If the Owner subsequently determines that all or parts of those services are not required, the Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Architect, and the Owner shall have no further obligation to compensate the Architect for those services: 1 Reviewing a Contractor's submittal out of sequence from the submittal schedule agreed to by the Architect; .2 Responding to the Contractor's requests for information that are not prepared in accordance with the Contract Documents or where such information is available to the Contractor from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner -provided information, Contractor -prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation; .3 Preparing Change Orders and Construction Change Directives that require evaluation of Contractor's proposals and supporting data, or the preparation or revision of Instruments of Service; .4 Evaluating an extensive number of Claims as the Initial Decision Maker; .5 Evaluating substitutions proposed by the Owner or Contractor and making subsequent revisions to Instruments of Service resulting therefrom; or .6 To the extent the Architect's Basic Services are affected, providing Construction Phase Services 60 days after (I ) the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or (2) the anticipated date of Substantial Completion identified in Initial Information, whichever is earlier. (Paragraphs deleted) § 4.3.4 If the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within sixty ( 60 ) months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as Additional Services. AIA Document B1011m — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM _ 1997). Copyright @ 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects_ All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document isb rotected p y U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 1 O of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible j under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1266042934) ARTICLE 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES § 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project, including a written program which shall set forth the Owner's objectives, schedule, constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships, flexibility, expandability, special equipment, systems and site requirements. Within 15 days after receipt of a written request from the Architect, the Owner shall furnish the requested information as necessary and relevant for the Architect to evaluate, give notice of or enforce lien rights. § 5.2 The Owner shall establish and periodically update the Owner's budget for the Project, including (l) the budget for the Cost of the Work as defined in Section 6.1; (2) the Owner's other costs; and, (3) reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. If the Owner significantly increases or decreases the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Owner shall notify the Architect. 'Be Owner and the Architect shall thereafter agree to a corresponding change in the Project's scope and quality. § 5.3 The Owner shall identify a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner shall render decisions and approve the Architect's submittals in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services. § 5.4 The Owner shall furnish surveys to describe physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; designated wetlands; adjacent drainage; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and necessary data with respect to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the information on the survey shall be referenced to a Project benchmark. § 5.5 The Owner shall furnish services of geotechnical engineers, which may include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, seismic evaluation, ground corrosion tests and resistivity tests, including necessary operations for anticipating subsoil conditions, with written reports and appropriate recommendations. § 5.6 The Owner shall coordinate the services of its own consultants with those services provided by the Architect. Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants maintain professional liability insurance as appropriate to the services provided. § 5.7 The Owner shall furnish tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents, such as structural, mechanical, and chemical tests, tests for air and water pollution, and tests for hazardous materials. § 5.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, insurance and accounting services, including auditing services, that may be reasonably necessary at anytime for the Project to meet the Owner's needs and interests. § 5.9 The Owner shall provide prompt written notice to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project, including errors, omissions or inconsistencies in the Architect's Instruments of Service. § 5.10 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, or when direct communications have been specially authorized, the Owner shall endeavor to communicate with the Contractor and the Architect's consultants through the Architect about matters arising out of or relating to the Contract Documents. The Owner shall promptly notify the Architect of any direct communications that may affect the Architect's services. § 5.11 Before executing the Contract for Construction, the Owner shall coordinate the Architect's duties and responsibilities set forth in the Contract for Construction with the Architect's services set forth in this Agreement. The Owner shall provide the Architect a copy of the executed agreement between the Owner and Contractor, including the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. AIA Document B10111 — 2007 (formerly B151- — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Instilute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA11 Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 11 r under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 5.12 The Owner shall provide the Architect access to the Project site prior to commencement of the Work and shall obligate the Contractor to provide the Architect access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. ARTICLE 6 COST OF THE WORK § 6.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the Cost of the Work shall be the total cost to the Owner to construct all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Architect and shall include contractors' general conditions costs, overhead and profit. The Cost of the Work does not include the compensation of the Architect, the costs of the land, rights-of-way, financing, contingencies for changes in the Work or other costs that are the responsibility of the Owner. § 6.2 The Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work is provided in Initial Information, and may be adjusted throughout the Project as required under Sections 5.2, 6.4 and 6.5. Evaluations of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the preliminary estimate of the Cost of the Work and updated estimates of the Cost of the Work prepared by the Architect, represent the Architect's judgment as a design professional. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment; the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices; or competitive bidding, market or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work or from any estimate of the Cost of the Work or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Architect. § 6.3 In preparing estimates of the Cost of Work, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation; to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents; to make reasonable adjustments in the program and scope of the Project; and to include in the Contract Documents alternate bids as may be necessary to adjust the estimated Cost of the Work to meet the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work. The Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work shall be based on current area, volume or similar conceptual estimating techniques. § 6.4 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, through no fault of the Architect, the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the applicable construction market. § 6.5 If at any time the Architect's estimate of the Cost of the Work exceeds the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall make appropriate recommendations to the Owner to adjust the Project's size, quality or budget for the Cost of the Work, and the Owner shall cooperate with the Architect in making such adjustments. § 6.6 If the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall .1 give written approval of an increase in the budget for the Cost of the Work; .2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project within a reasonable time; .3 terminate in accordance with Section 9.5; .4 in consultation with the Architect, revise the Project program, scope, or quality as required to reduce the Cost of the Work; or .5 implement any other mutually acceptable alternative. § 6.7 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Section 6.6.4, the Architect, without additional compensation, shall modify the Construction Documents as necessary to comply with the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services, or the budget as adjusted under Section 6.6.1. The Architect's modification of the Construction Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's responsibility under this Article 6. ARTICLE 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES § 7.1 The Architect and the Owner warrant that in transmitting Instruments of Service, or any other information, the transmitting party is the copyright owner of such information or has permission fi•om the copyright owner to transmit such information for its use on the Project. If the Owner and Architect intend to transmit Instruments of Service or any other information or documentation in digital form, they shall endeavor to establish necessary protocols governing such transmissions. Init AIA Document B101TM — 2007 (formerly B151 TM' —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 12 of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 1 under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1266042934) § 7.2 The Architect and the Architect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. Submission or distribution of Instruments of Service to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the reserved rights of the Architect and the Architect's consultants. § 7.3 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations, including prompt payment of all sums when due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect's consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub -subcontractors, and material or equipment suppliers, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for use in performing services or construction for the Project. If the Architect rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 9.4, the license granted in this Section 7.3 shall terminate. § 7.3.1 In the event the Owner uses the Instruments of Service without retaining the author of the Instruments of Service, the Owner releases the Architect and Architect's consultant(s) from all claims and causes of action arising from such uses. The Owner, to the extent permitted by law, further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Architect and its consultants from all costs and expenses, including the cost of defense, related to claims and causes of action asserted by any third person or entity to the extent such costs and expenses arise from the Owner's use of the Instruments of Service under this Section 7.3.1. The terms of this Section 7.3.1 shall not apply if the Owner rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause under Section 9.4. § 7.4 Except for the licenses granted in this Article 7, no other license or right shall be deemed granted or implied under this Agreement. The Owner shall not assign, delegate, sublicense, pledge or otherwise transfer any license granted herein to another party without the prior written agreement of the Architect. Any unauthorized use of the Instruments of Service shall be at the Owner's sole risk and without liability to the Architect and the Architect's consultants. ARTICLE 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 8.1 GENERAL § 8.1.1 The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, against the other arising out of or related to this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the method of binding dispute resolution selected in this Agreement within the period specified by applicable law, but in any case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Owner and Architect waive all claims and causes of action not commenced in accordance with this Section 8.1.1. § 8.1.2 To the extent damages are covered by property insurance, the Owner and Architect waive all rights against each other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of the other for damages, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance as set forth in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. The Owner or the Architect, as appropriate, shall require of the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of any of them similar waivers in favor of the other parties enumerated herein. § 8.1.3 The Architect and Owner waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party's termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in Section 9.7. § 8.2 MEDIATION § 8.2.1 Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. If such matter relates to or is the subject of a lien arising out of the Architect's services, the Architect may proceed in accordance with applicable law to comply with the lien notice or tiling deadlines prior to resolution of the matter by mediation or by binding dispute resolution. § 8.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American AIA Document 13101- — 2007 (formerly B151 TM — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 13 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No, 3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1266042934) Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of the Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of a complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. § 8.2.3 The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. The mediation shall be held in the place where the Project is located, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof. § 8.2.41f the parties do not resolve a dispute through mediation pursuant to this Section 8.2, the method of binding dispute resolution shall be the following: (Check the appropriate box. If the Owner and Architect do not select a method of binding dispute resolution below, or do not subsequently agree in writing to a binding dispute resolution method other than litigation, the dispute will be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.) I X ] Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction ] Other (Specify) (Paragraphs deleted) § 8.3.4 CONSOLIDATION OR JOINDER § 8.3.4.1 No mediation or legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall include, by consolidation or joinder or in any other manner, an additional person or entity not a party to this Agreement, except by written consent containing a specific reference to this Agreement and signed by the Owner, Architect, and any other person or entity sought to be joined. Consent to mediation or legal action involving an additional person or entity shall not constitute consent to mediation or legal action of any claim, dispute or other matter in question not described in the written consent or with a person or entity not named or described therein. The foregoing agreement to mediate and other agreements to mediate with an additional person or entity duly consented to by parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. (Paragraphs deleted) ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION § 9.1 If the Owner fails to make payments to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination or, at the Architect's option, cause for suspension of performance of services under this Agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend services, the Architect shall give seven days' written notice to the Owner before suspending services. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of services. Before resuming services, the Architect shall be paid all sums due prior to suspension and any expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. § 9.2 If the Owner suspends the Project, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect shall be compensated for expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. § 9.3 If the Owner suspends the Project for more than 90 cumulative days for reasons other than the fault of the Architect, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than seven days' written notice. § 9.4 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner upon seven (7) days written notice to Architect in its sole discretion. The Architect may terminate this Agreement only in the event of substantial non-performance by the AIA Document B10111 — 2007 (formerly 8151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 14 t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No. 3604317011_1 which expires on 01/1312017, and is not For resale. User Notes: (1266042934) Owner. In the event the Architect proposes to terminate this Agreement, the Architect shall notify the Owner in writing stating with specificity the alleged non-performance and further stating that the proposed termination shall be effective if the non-performance remains uncorrected for a period not less than 15 days following said notice. § 9.5 The Owner may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice to the Architect for the Owner's convenience and without cause. § 9.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due. (Paragraph deleted) § 9.8 The Owner's rights to use the Architect's Instruments of Service in the event of a termination of this Agreement are set forth in Article 7 and Section 11.9. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS § 10.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located, except that if the parties have selected arbitration as the method of binding dispute resolution, the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern Section 8.3. § 10.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. § 10.3 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns and legal representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except that the Owner may assign this Agreement to a lender providing financing for the Project if the lender agrees to assume the Owner's rights and obligations under this Agreement. § 10.4 If the Owner requests the Architect to execute certificates, the proposed language of such certificates shall be submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to the requested dates of execution. If the Owner requests the Architect to execute consents reasonably required to facilitate assignment to a lender, the Architect shall execute all such consents that are consistent with this Agreement, provided the proposed consent is submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to execution. The Architect shall not be required to execute certificates or consents that would require knowledge, services or responsibilities beyond the scope of this Agreement. § 10.5 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Architect. § 10.6 Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials or toxic substances in any form at the Project site. § 10.7 The Architect shall have the right to include photographic or artistic representations of the design of the Project among the Architect's promotional and professional materials. The Architect shall be given reasonable access to the completed Project to make such representations. However, the Architect's materials shall not include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of the specific information considered by the Owner to be confidential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Architect in the Owner's promotional materials for the Project. § 10.8 If the Architect or Owner receives information specifically designated by the other party as "confidential" or "business proprietary," the receiving party shall keep such information strictly confidential and shall not disclose it to any other person except to (1) its employees, (2) those who need to know the content of such information in order to perform services or construction solely and exclusively for the Project, or (3) its consultants and contractors whose contracts include similar restrictions on the use of confidential information. § 10.9 Owner irrevocably assigns to Architects all rights to claim Section 179D federal tax credits under Energy Policy Act of 2005 as amplified and clarified in IRS Notice 2008-40. Owner shall cooperate with Architect to AIA Document B101- — 2007 (formerly B151 TM — 1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIAO Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 15 of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) establish Architect's eligibility for these federal tax credits. Architect shall be responsible for the costs of the independent third party energy study and certification. ARTICLE 11 COMPENSATION § 11.1 For the Architect's Basic Services described under Article 3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of, or basisfor, compensation.) A. As delineated in the attached Exhibit A: Proposal Letter, dated November 30, 2016 B. Format for Fixed Fees Assigned to Specific Future Projects: *New Building: 6%u x Construction Cost Estimate *Simple Additions: 7% x Construction Cost Estimate *Additions with Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate *Remodeling: 7.5% x Construction Cost Estimate * "Gut" Job Renovations: 8.5% x Construction Cost Estimate C. Furnish and Equipment Services (if requested) Fixed Fee Based on 6% of the Furnishings Cost Documented by Wold § 11.2 For Additional Services designated in Section 4.1, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of, or basis for, compensation. If necessary, list specific services to which particular methods of compensation apply.) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.3 For Additional Services that may arise during the course of the Project, including those under Section 4.3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: (Insert amount of, or basis for, compensation.) 1.25 x (salary plus overhead) § 11.4 Compensation for Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in Section 1 l .2 or 11.3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect times 1.25. § 11.5 Where compensation for Basic Services is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of the Cost of the Work, the compensation for each phase of services shall be as follows: Schematic Design Phase fifteen percent ( 15 %) Design Development Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Construction Documents forty percent ( 40 %) Phase Bidding or Negotiation Phase five percent ( 5 %) Construction Phase twenty percent ( 20 %) Total Basic Compensation one hundred percent ( 100 %) § 11.6 When compensation is based on a percentage of the Cost of the Work and any portions of the Project are deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for those portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are performed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 11.5 based on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent estimate of the Cost of the Work for such portions of the Project. The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not the Construction Phase is commenced. Init.AIA Document B101 T"' — 2007 (formerly B151 TM — 1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 16 of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/3012016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale. User Notes: (1266042934) § 11.7 The hourly billing rates for services of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, if any, are set forth below. The rates shall be adjusted in accordance with the Architect's and Architect's consultants' normal review practices. (If applicable, attach an exhibit of hourly billing rales or insert them below.) Employee or Category Rate § 11.8 COMPENSATION FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES § 11.8.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: .1 mileage based on Federal rates in connection with the project and Owner requested out-of-state travel; .2 Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web sites, and extranets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project, including government agency review and permit fees; .4 Printing, reproductions, plots, standard form documents; .5 Postage, handling and delivery; (Paragraphs deleted) .8 Architect's Consultant's expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect's consultants; .9 All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses; .10 Site office expenses; and .11 Other similar Project -related expenditures. .12 Expense of computer aided design and drafting equipment time when used in connection with the Project. § 11.8.2 For Reimbursable Expenses, the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants and be billed at actual cost to Architect plus ten percent ( 10 %) ofthe expenses incurred. § 11.9 COMPENSATION FOR USE OF ARCHITECT'S INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE If the Owner terminates the Architect for its convenience under Section 9.5, or the Architect terminates this Agreement under Section 9.3, the Owner shall pay a licensing fee as compensation for the Owner's continued use of the Architect's Instruments of Service solely for purposes of completing, using and maintaining the Project as follows: § 11.10 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT § 11.10.1 An initial payment of zero ($ 0.00 ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice. § 11.10.2 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid sixty 60 ) days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Insert rate of monthly or annual interest agreed upon.) Local rate of interest as set by Minnesota Statute Section 549.09. AIA Document B101 TM — 2007 (formerly B151 T'" — 1997). Copyright© 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 17 t under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31:11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) § 11.10.3 The Owner shall not withhold amounts from the Architect's compensation to impose a penalty or liquidated damages on the Architect, or to offset sums requested by or paid to contractors for the cost of changes in the Work unless the Architect agrees or has been found liable for the amounts in a binding dispute resolution proceeding. § 11.10.4 Records of Reimbursable Expenses, expenses pertaining to Additional Services, and services performed on the basis of hourly rates shall be available to the Owner at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows: ARTICLE 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT § 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. § 13.2 This Agreement is comprised of the following documents listed below: .1 AIA Document B101T"L2007, Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Architect .2 AIA Document E201TM-2007, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit, if completed, or the following: .3 Other documents: (List other documents, if any, including Exhibit A, Initial Information, and additional scopes of service, if any, forming part of the Agreement) This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER (Signature) (Printed name and title) ARCHITECT (Signature) Joel L. Dunning I AIA, LEED AP Partner (Printed name and title) AIA Document 13101 T°' — 2007 (formerly B151 TM —1997). Copyright © 1974, 1978, 1987, 1997 and 2007 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights Init. reserved. WARNING: This AIA° Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution 18 of this AIA° Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible 1 under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 16:31.11 on 11/30/2016 under Order No.3604317011_1 which expires on 01/13/2017, and is not for resale User Notes: (1266042934) Stantec Engineering Proposal ()�' Stantec December 14, 2016 File: 193803464 Attention: Kirk McDonald City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651 ) 636-4600 Fax: (651 ) 636-1311 Reference: City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal Dear Kirk, This letter provides the scope of work and estimated cost to provide civil engineering and landscape architecture services for the site work related to a new city hall building being constructed at the existing city pool site. Project Understanding The City of New Hope is planning for a new city hall and police department building to be located at the existing Milton C. Honsey Pool site. Wold Architects and Engineers are proposing to provide the architectural services for the building design and construction. Stantec can provide the site civil engineering and landscape architecture services for the following elements related to the city hall construction: • Site Development (Police Parking) • Parking Lot Rebuild (between existing pool and city hall) • Storm Water Management • Soil Remediation • Driveways to City Hall • Sanitary Sewer and Water Services • Landscaping • Existing Pool Demolition This scope of work does not include work to complete the future master park and pool planning, design, and construction. Design with community in mind (�J December 14, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 2 of 3 Reference: City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal Stantec Engineering Scope of Services We will provide site civil engineering services for the design and construction phases of the project. These services include the following: Preliminary Survey/Field Investigation o Additional survey and field investigation is required adjacent to the existing pool and fire station. Most of the city hall site area to the north of the existing pool was preliminary surveyed in the spring of 2016. Design o Prepare plan sheets and technical specifications for the site work outside of the new city hall building limits. Generally, the plan sheets prepared for the site work outside of the new city hall building limits will include the following: • Existing Conditions Plan • Site Demolition/Removals Plan • Temporary Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Site Plan • Grading Plan • Utility Plan • Storm Water Management Plan • Site Details • Landscaping Plan • Survey o Assist the building contractor with stakeout files and control. • Construction Inspection/Management o Provide onsite inspection and management during construction to ensure contractor is constructing the site improvement in accordance with the design plans, specifications, and city standards. Record Plan/Base Map and Infraseek Update o Provide final as -built or record plan drawings of the site work and utilities. The city base map within CAD will be updated as well as the city's asset management program, Infraseek. Stantec Engineering Fees The total estimated fees for our services is $117,370. This is approximately 11 % of the city hall site work related construction costs. The table on the following page shows a breakdown of the anticipated services. December 14, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 3 of 3 Reference: City Hall Civil Site Work Engineering Proposal Stantec Engineering Service Proposed % Construction Estimated Cost Prelim Survey/Field Investigation 0.50% $5,335 Design 4.00% $42,680 Survey 0.50% $5,335 Construction Inspection/Management 4.00% $42,680 Record Plans/Base Map & Infraseek Update 2.00% $21,340 Total 11.00% $117,370 If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (651)604-4808. Sincerely, STANTEC Christopher W. Long, P.E. The undersigned hereby consents to the Contract as noted above and attached to Stantec Consulting Services Inc. City of New Hope Cc: Joel Dunning, Ben Beery - Wold Architects & Engineers; Jeff Sargent, Susan Rader, Bernie Weber- New Hope; Adam Martinson, Kellie Schlegel, Tyler Johnson, Dave Ahrens - Stantec. Design with community in mind 9/19/16 Task Force Recommendation City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION The Citizen Task Force was formed to objectively review facility options for the New Hope Police Station and City Hall. At the September 21, 2015 City Council meeting, the Task Force recommended to the City Council that a new facility should be built at Civic Center Park to replace the existing facility but with no specific site location recommended. Following that recommendation and guidance from the City Council, the Task Force met to review several options developed by Wold Architects and Engineers and Stantec Engineering for the location of the building on the site. The site options reviewed were as follows: - Option 0: Addition/Remodel - option to remodel and add onto the existing building was reconsidered. - Option 1: Park Site - new building west of the existing building - Option 2: Existing Site - new building in the same location as the existing building - Option 3: Pool Site - new building on the existing pool site - Option 4: Parking Lot Site - new building on the existing parking lot site The Task Force recommends the following: 1. The new Police Station and City Hall facility should be located on the existing pool site (Option 3). 2. The pool should be rebuilt elsewhere on the site. 3. A planning committee should be created to investigate which amenities are needed for Civic Center Park, including the pool, and their location on the site. The Citizen Task Force recommendation is based on the following rationale: 1. There is poor soil to the west of the existing building and under the parking lot which makes building on those areas of the site more expensive. Park features such as skate parks, play fields, etc. would be better suited for these areas because they do not require subgrade foundations. 2. An open house on November 17, 2015 highlighted concern from the neighbors that a site near Zealand Avenue be strongly resisted. 3. City staff & police considered moving offsite to an interim location so that the existing building's location could be utilized, but felt that temporarily relocating police would be difficult. 4. The existing pool site would collocate City Hall, police and fire departments into a campus, which is beneficial to citizens (centralized services) and to the city for collaboration between departments and shared site circulation. 5. Moving the Police Station and City Hall to the existing pool site would help create an open and contiguous park space for future redevelopment of Civic Center Park. 6. The existing pool and pool buildings are in need of significant repairs or replacement and are included in the city's Capital Improvement Plan budget for 2018. The funds which are set aside to update the existing pool could instead be put toward a new pool that is more integrated with the overall park and could potentially better serve the citizens of New Hope. 7. Taking into consideration the future cost of repairs needed at the pool, building a new Police Station and City Hall facility at the current pool site is the least expensive new building option excluding any park improvements. 82520162:38:57 PM H:\G-NewHope\1620265DMasterplan\02_ARCHtCBizenstasklorcereporKbens Task ForceReport.rvl Page 6 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Five site options, developed based on internal adjacency criteria, were reviewed based on best placement of the building on the site. Estimated construction costs, total project costs, and site layouts were developed for each option. The task force recommends a new building on the existing pool site and the following site plan and cost study reflect the recommendation. The diagrams and cost analysis for the Pother site options considered can be found in Appendix A. 825/20162: UB PM K\C[-New Fbpe\162026 SD Master p1ana2J1RCKH1zens [ask force repoMCil tens Task Force Reporl.rN Page 7 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 SITE PLAN OPTION 3 - Pool Site q, .. w o ;, , n c A•. f �S r k Ree, ti ' ;�...1 R ,...._,.-t ` .'. F,.,�:a_,rr.+..i..�.-,�Fl�-•° �,.r r G . i � . � }}j�' sarx r n t:i ll, F `I h OT, { r 5 i vi k .. • ii-�f �- ry..'�.•e' cl.. a - p. ° e . , °' r _ /r ry ' r it I l �! �� ' • Fawn rwrw �w-wr.w� N, .. �� _. •• � ._�� � W,I,. �`' ' ��.. � of y A �� ..., - - a _ ^ •IiIM '•FO ADVANTAGES ® Creates campus of city buildings. ® Limits construction on poor soils. ® Park Area is contiguous with good access from parking. •. Disrupts few park amenities. ® City Hall staff and police could remain operational during construction in the existing building. DISADVANTAGES Pool would need to be relocated and no pool would be available for a minimum of 2 summers. Depending on how and where the pool is replaced and what the new pool looks like, it could raise the cost of the overall project. Sallyport location is not ideal. 625/2016 236:56 PM H:WMew Flope1162026 SD Maslerplan102 ARMQitizens task force reporMlizens Task Force Report.M Page 8 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 3 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 semen Option 3 Pool Site Polio ICi Fill $0.00 Building Construction $13,680,000-00 Buildino Demolition Site Development Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuiltl 365,000.00 Stormvwater Mgy $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $75,000.00 Construction Contin. enc _ $684,000.00 Subtotal Corrifuction $1.5,554,000.00 Tema Relocation Rent Costs Jernp Tenant Improvements $0.00 --$D-nn Ternp Technol Costs Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technolgg Allowance $165,000.00 PrOWD(dinGency $780,000.00 Fees, Testing, Printina $1,560,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,879,000.00 semen ,t $0.00 nent ement dl Replacement $100000.00 'remiurn 0 uments 30,000.09 $20,979,000.00 Page 9 iL SITE PLAN OPTION 0 - ADDITION/REMODEL City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 ADVANTAGES ® Cost Difference, though there is not a large cost difference between a new building and renovation. Keeps street frontage of existing building. ® Utilizes existing building instead of demolishing it. DISADVANTAGES • Existing building needs a lot of maintanence (see September 21, 2015 report) ® Renovation will not accomplish all goals/needs. ® The new building would be on poor soils which raises overall cost. • Some disruptions to city departments during construction. • Short relocation of City Hall during remodel. • Areas of remodeling are limited to the existing column bays and floor to floor heights, likely resulting in less than ideal space layouts. 6/26/2016 23656 PM H:\CI44ew Flope\162026 SD Mas1erp1anNO2jARCFKCVRens lask force reportGlti ens Task Force RePM M Page 11 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 0 j'otential Park Improvements Option 0 Addition/Remodel Police I City Hall $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,080,000.00 Building Demolition $50,000.00 Site Development Police_ Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater Mgmt $300,0M.00 Soit Remediation $250.000.00 Construction Contingency _ $654,00Q.00 Subtotal Construction 14 899.000.00 Tern, p Reloation Rent Costs $0.00 Temp Tenant Improvements $0.00 Temp Technology Costs $0,00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technology Allowance $165,000.00 Pro.mect Contingency$740,000.00 Fees,_Testing, Printing $1,490,000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $18,114,000.00 j'otential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $0,00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parkin Lot $0,00 BasketballNolleyball Replacement Pool Replacement Premium Total Park Improvements $500,000.00 Total $18,614,000.00 825/2016 238:58 PM H:\CI-New Flop6162026 SD MaslerplanW_ARCKfilzens lask force reporWIlvens Task Fora Reporl.rA Page 12 $ p i SITE PLAN OPTION 1 - PARK SITE City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 ESTIMATED SOIL '•S _ +� ,�{ — _ -. •.r �+ s y - CORRECTION DEPTH '. �' l4 �' �� .-3ri ,�$„" _ -s•= '_�o-••y- < ` f \ /���* Yr yt..' o/ .fir ., 1520' t 11ff���� 11..�� •�r �. }I' 4 t - "� 8i. C� i,l F.it4 l IffLOCA1tD 0 v r —_. `1 li 4 y SHELTER A- �, ..{ +o• y �^: r 1 a y .t: k{ .� � �� b� • I; � t }}, i\S .1 517 �% if r-- tC k Vit 1J.t'• rFr ay '. i I do �, Y I Isp 7 � � e } _Sym j. ♦ J2I # ,�f 1 . Ij .- ,y ,"� +A x.F �� ."yr Y � { � i 1�}� 1�+� I 5 Y J-�i_�• t 5 Y ♦awl � _ Ln�`� i1 ' r ✓4 t++ ,�(( may. � - � �' 1 �r s a tla i � e -1kJi r-� t f ",4"-�,.' l �"`^- i1�, 1 �5,, � t1 ,r•'�C '�J�'J�.�+�';"�! NAN ,- ADVANTAGES ® Likely far enough from Zealand Ave to not disrupt neighbors. ® City Hall/Police could remain in the existing building until new building is complete. DISADVANTAGES ® Displaces many park amenities. Building blocks park from parking. • Poor soils significantly raise overall cost. 825/2016 2:38:59 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD Masterplan\02_ARCH,CA¢ens task lorce repotWthns Task Force Reporl.M Page 13 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 1 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT Potential Park Improvements Option 1 Park Site Police /City Hall $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition $150.000.00 Site Development (Police Parkin) $200,000M Parking Lot Rebuild 365 000.00 Stormwater M mt 300.000.00 Sail Remediation 600 000.00 Construction Contingency 684.000.00 SuMotal Construction 15 979 000.00 Temp RolwationR 0.00 T Tenant Improvements $0.00, Temp Technology Costs $0.00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165.000-00 Technology Allowance $165,000.00 c $800-000.00 Fees Testing,Printing 16 0 00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $19,3649000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $100,000,00 Park Shelter Replacement $150,000.00 Park Parking Lot BasketballNolleyball Replacement Pool Replacement Premium Total Park Improvements Total $20,239,000.00 8/25/2016 236:59 PM H:AGI-Jew Hope\162026 SD MaslerplanW2_ARCH Dens task lorce reporKltlzens Task Force Reporl.M Page 14 September 19, 2016 �i SITE PLAN OPTION 2 - EXISTING SITE .. f� Jr 1 i! [I � �_ ki x �w, �. rte-' ��' �• City of Now Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 E5TIMAi@pSK C�ffC11DH19EP1H �{ - 1x15 15.27 270 .. . 1 ADVANTAGES • Limits construction on poor soils Keeps prominent street frontage. Blocks park access less than some other options. Disrupts few park amenities. DISADVANTAGES ® City Hall and Police would need to relocate for duration of project. 8125/2016 2:36:59 PM R\C14,19w 1-1ope\162026 SD Mas1erp1an\02_ARCH\CiJ1zens task force reporKitbu Task Force Report rvt Page 15 '7— ADVANTAGES c City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 2 Potential Park Improvements Option 2 Existing Site Police / City Hall $500,000.00 Building Construction $0.00 Building Demolition $150,000.00 Site Development Police Parkin $200,000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation 250 000.00 Construction Contingency 4 ,000.00 Subtotal Construction 15 629 000.00 Temp Bolocation Rent Costs $1,350,000.00 Temp Tenant Improvements 000.00 $450,000.00 Temp Technol Costs $200,000.00 Furniture Allowance $6551000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technology Allowance _ _ 165 000.00 E[Qjvct Contingency $780,000.00 Fees Testing, Printing Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $20,954,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 Park Shelter Replacement $0.00 Park Parkin Lot $0.00 BasketbaliNolleyball Replacement Pool Replacement Premium Total Park Improvements $500,000.00 Total $21,454,000.00 6/15/20 1 6 2:36:59 PM H:\CI-Jew Flope\162026 SD Maslerplan\o2_ARCH (tens [ask Ina reporKithns Task Force RepoA.M Page 16 I SITE PLAN OPTION 4 - PARKING LOT SITE City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 ADVANTAGES • Police department and City Hall could remain operational during construction. • Pool site is not affected. DISADVANTAGES • Building is on poor soils. • Cuts off access to pool. • Cuts off parking flow to farmers market. • Public lobby faces inward on the site and is not viewable from street. 8/25/2016 2.39:00 PM H:\CI-New Hope\162026 SD MaslerpW02—ARCH\Cllizenstaskforcerepor-KillzensTaskForceHeporl.M Page 17 ESTIMAATED sD E COHPECnCNDEPrH • �-- io-ls• — 15M City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET - OPTION 4 Potential Park Improvements Option 4 Parking Lot Site Police / City Hall $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,680,000.00 Building Demolition $150,000.00 Site Development (Police Parking) 200 000.00 Parking Lot Rebuild $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 Soil Remediation $450,000.00 Construction Contin enc $684,000,00 Subtotal Construction $15,829,000.00 T $0.00 Ternp Tenant Improvements $0.00 Ternp Technology Costs $0.00 Furniture Allowance $655,000.00 Equipment Allowance $165,000.00 Technology Allowance_ $165,000.00 Projet� Contingency Fees, Testing, Printing $790,000.00 1580 000.00 Total Police/City Hall Building Proj. $19,184,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement 100 000.00 Park Shelter Replacement $150,000.00 Park Parking Lot $ BasketballNolleyball Replacement 0.00 Pool Replacement Premium $0.00 Total Park Improvements $750.000.00 Total $19,934,000.00 0252016 2:39:00 PM R\044ew Flope\162026 SD Maslerplan\02—ARCHOWs task force reporACi tris Task Force Report.M Page 18 City of New Hope SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT September 19, 2016 COST WORKSHEET Potential Park Improvements Option 0 ,Addition/Remodel Option 1 Park Site Option 2 Existing Site Option 3 Pool Site Option 4 Parking Lot Site Police 1 City Hall $500,000.00 $50,0000,00 $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 Building Construction $13,080,000,00 $13,680,000.06 $13,680,000.00 $13,680,000.00 $13,680 000.00 Building Demolition $50,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $250,000.00 $150,000.00 Site, Develo ment Police Parkin __$200,000.00 $200,000.00 200 000.00 $200,000.00 00 000.00 Parkino Lot Rebuild $365,000,00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 $365,000.00 Stormwater M mt $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Soil Remediation250 000.00 $600,000.00 $250,000JOR $75,000.00 $450,000.00 Construction Contingeflcy $65400 $21,454,000.00 $20,979,000.00 $19,934,000.00 Subtotal Constr=tjon 14,899.000AO15 979 000.00 $15 629 000.00 $15,554 000.00$15,829,000.00 Temp Tenant Improvements Temp Technology Costs $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.001 FurnOure Allowance $655,000.00 $655,000.00 $655,000.00 $655,000.00 $655,000.00 E ui ment Allowance _ $165,000.00 $165MO.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 Technotog Allowance $165,000.00 $165,000.00 $1654000.00 $165,000.00 $165,000.00 Project Contingency $740,000.00 1 $1.490,000M $800,000.00 $1,600 000.00 $780,000.00 $1,560,000.00$1,560,000.00 $780,000.00 $790,000.00 $1,580,000 ' 00 Fees. Testin-Q, PrinfinQ Total Police/City Hall Building Proi. 1 $18,114,000.00 $19,364,000.00 $20,954,000.00 $18,879,000.00 $19,184,000.00 Potential Park Improvements Theater Replacement $500,000.00 $50,0000,00 $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 Skate Park Replacement $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 Park Shelter Re lacement $0.00— $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 Park Parking Lot BasketballNollevball Replacement Pool Replacement Premium $0.00 $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 X100,000.00 2.000 00000 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 _ $0.00 Total Park Improvements $500,000.00 $875,000.00 $500,000.00 $2,100,000.00 $750,000.00 Total $18,614,000.00 $20,239,000.00 $21,454,000.00 $20,979,000.00 $19,934,000.00 6/15/2016 2:39:00 PM H:\CI-NawHope\162o26SDMaslerplan\D2—ARCH\CAizenslaskforcereporKilizensTaskForceReporl.M Page 19 ESTIMATED SOIL CORRECTION DEPTH r ;7 15-20' 2 ti 20'+ ------------ . 77 E�0 5- 7tall v. X A -37 s el '.� > V<� N i i i i i i i i i Am Z�41 41-� 1*011 Ilk I*- SOIL BORINGS - EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA CITY HALL SITE IpJc u. DATE: 8/26/2016 PROJ. NO.: 193803464 FIGURE 4 k1 sitantec ft EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE City Hall Financing City of New Hope Jason Aarsvold — Ehlers June 22, 2016 Overview • City Hall Bonding Estimates for Project Alternatives • Tax Impacts EHLER NrLEADERS IN PUIILIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — Option 0 — Addition/Remodel Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 Delivered 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $18,345,000.00 $505,000.00 $18,850,000.00 Total Sources $18,345,000.00 $505,000.00 $18,850,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%0) 146,760.00 4,040.00 150,800.00 Costs of Issuance 81,749.60 2,250.40 84,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 18,114,000.00 500,000.00 018,614.000.00 Rounding Amount 2,490.40 (1,290.40) `x.00 Total Uses $18,345,000.00 $505,000.00 $18,850,000.00 - EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts —Option 0 —Addition/Remodel TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS .-Option 0 - Addition [Remodel Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Property Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax Increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 61.37 $ 5.11 150,000 23,740 126,260 107.98 9.00 Residential 185,000 20,590 164,410 140.61 11.72 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 247.81 20.65 400,000 1,240 398,760 341.02 28.42 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 85.39 $ 7.12 200,000 - 200,000 185.02 15.42 CorrunerciaVl ndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 298.87 24.91 400,000 - 400,000 412.73 34.39 500,000 - 500,000 526.59 43.88 1,000,000 - 1 1,000,000 1,095.87 91.32 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — Option 1 — Park Site Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 Delivered 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Surrrnary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds - $19,605,000.00 $885,000.00 $20,490,000.00 Total Sources $19,605,000.00 $885,000.00 $20,490,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 156,840.00 7,080.00 163,920.00 Costs of Issuance 83,242.31 3,757.69 __$70.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 19,364,000.00 875,000.00 (�- 20,239,000.00 Rounding Amount 917,69 (837.69) 80.00 Total Uses $19,605,000.00 $885,000.00 $20,490,000.00 EHLER LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — Option 1 — Park Site TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS --Opt on 1 -Park Site Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly IM of ft2perty Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 66.70 $ 5.56 150,000 23,740 126,260 117.36 9.78 Residenfial 185,000 20,590 164,410 152.82 12.74 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 269.34 22.44 400,000 1,240 398,760 370.66 30.89 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 92.81 $ 7.73 200,000 - 200,000 201.09 16.76 CommerciaUlndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 324.84 27.07 400,000 - 400,000 448.59 37.38 500,000 - 500,000 572.34 47.70 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,191.09 1 99.26 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. EHLERSA LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — Option 2 -Existing Site Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 De l ive red 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $21,210,000.00 $510,000.00 $21,720,000.00 Total Sources $21,210,000.00 $510,000.00 $21,720,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 169,680.00 4,080.00 173,760.00 Costs of Issuance 85,933.71 2,066.29 9911,2012, Deposit to Project Construction Fund 20,954,000.00 500,000.00 21,454,000.00 Rounding Amount 386.29 3,853.71 4240.00 Total Uses $21,210,000.00 $510,000.00 $21,720,000.00 - ------ %EHLERS'•' LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts — Option 2 — Existing Site * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. E H L E_R_ S __ �,�-_�_ --- _--------_- _----- ------------.--- ------__._.-_. - LEADERS INPUBLIC FINANCE TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - Option 2 - Existin Site Estimated Market Value Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly Type of Prop2Lty Market Value Exclusion lftrkket Value Tax Increase* Tax increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 70.71 $ 5.89 150,000 23,740 126,260 124.42 10.37 Residential 185,000, 20,590 164,410 162.01 13.50 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 285.53 23.79 400,000 1,240 398,760 392.94 32.74 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 98.39 $ 8.20 200,000 - 200,000 213.18 17.77 CommerciaVi ndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 344.37 28.70 400,000 - 400,000 475.56 39.63 500,000 - 500,000 606.75 50.56 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1 1,262.691 105.22 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. E H L E_R_ S __ �,�-_�_ --- _--------_- _----- ------------.--- ------__._.-_. - LEADERS INPUBLIC FINANCE Bond Estimate — Option 3 — Pool Site Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 06/01/2017 1 Delivered 06/01/2017 Abatement CIP Portion Portion Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $19,115,000.00 $2,125,000.00 $21,240,000.00 Total Sources $19,115,000.00 $2,125,000.00 $21,240,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%) 152,920.00 17,000.00 169,920.00 Costs of Issuance 79.195.86 8.804.14 RR MOM Deposit to Project Construction Fund 18,879,000.00 2,100,000.00 C 20,979,000.00 Rounding Amount 3,884.14 (804.14)--TzlR100 Total Uses $19,115,000.00 $2,125,000.00 $21,240,000.00 Total project costs include only the "additional" costs associated with a new pool at this location to provide a comparison of alternatives. These costs are over an above what would be required for renovation of the pool at the existing location. tih'+7.rr E H LE FSS �[•''' LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts - Option 3 - Pool Site TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS - option 3 - Pool Site Estimated Market Vake Taxable Proposed Annual Proposed Monthly jype of PropRrty Market Value Exclusion Market Value Tax Increase* Tax increase* $ 100,000 $ 28,240 $ 71,760 $ 69.16 $ 5.76 150,000 23,740 126,260 121.68 10.14 Residental 185,000 20,590 164,410 158.45 13.20 Homestead 300,000 10,240 289,760 279.25 23.27 400,000 1,240 398,760 384.30 32.02 $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 96.23 $ 8.02 200,000 - 200,000 208.49 17.37 CommerciaVi ndustrial 300,000 - 300,000 336.80 28.07 400,000 - 400,000 465.10 38.76 500,000 - 500,000 593.41 49.45 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,234.93 1 102.91 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Tax Impacts - Summary TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS • Summary of Options * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. _ EHLER LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Estimated Market Value Proposed MONTHLY Tax Increase* O tion © - Remodel Option 1 - Park Option 2 - Existing Option 3 - Pool Type of PropeftZ Market Value Exclusion $ 100, 000 $ 28,240 $ 5.11 $ 5.56 $ 5.89 $ 5.76 150,000 23,740 $ 9.00 $ 9.78 $ 10.37 $ 10.14 Residential 185,000 20,590 $ 11.72 $ 12.74 $ 13.50 $ 13.20 Homestead 300,000 10,240 $ 20.65 $ 22.44 $ 23.79 $ 23.27 400,000 1,240 $ 28.42 $ 30.89 $ 32.74 $ 32.02 $ 100,000 $ - $ 7.12 $ 7.73 $ 8.20 $ 8.02 200,000 - $ 15.42 $ 16.76 $ 17.77 $ 17.37 CommerciaVindustrial 300,000 - $ 24.91 $ 27.07 $ 28.70 $ 28.07 400,000 - $ 34.39 $ 37.38 $ 39.63 $ 38.76 500,000 - $ 43.88 $ 47.70 $ 50.56 $ 49.45 1,000,0001 - $ 91.32 $ 99.26 $ 105.22 $ 102.91 * The figures in the table are based on taxes for new bonded debt only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes. Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker') program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net tax effect of the bond issue for many property owners. _ EHLER LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE September 13, 2016 File: 193803464 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Fax: (651) 636-1311 Attention: Kirk McDonald, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Reference: 2015 New Hope Swimming Pool Study Summary Dear Kirk: As requested, this letter provides as a brief summary of the New Hope pool assessment completed and presented to the council in April of 2015. A pool condition assessment report and study of the potential improvements to the shallow pool and overall pool improvements was presented. Pool Condition Assessment Summary A condition assessment report (attached) was created based on a physical walkthrough inspection of the existing Milton C. Honsey Outdoor Pool and support buildings. Pool operating personnel were also interviewed to develop a hands-on understanding of operating and/or performance issues with the existing pools and their support facilities. The main pool was originally constructed in 1965 and is leaking. While a major renovation 18 years ago replaced the pool deep well and pool mechanical systems, piping, decking and above grade pool amenities, approximately 85% of the pool shell is still original and over 50 years old, which is well past normal expected life. Outdoor municipal pools in the northern climates are typically designed for a life expectancy of about 30-40 years. Potential Shallow Pool Improvements Four options for development of the shallow pool were presented. The options ranged from a minimal program of simply reconstructing the pool as with a new ADA pool access ramp, to a medium program using a larger capacity more diverse age range shallow water pool, to high level program using a combination shallow water/splash pad pool designed to increase capacity, user age diversity and user safety. The total project cost for the preferred Option A was estimated at $1,026,243. Option A included a 4,100 square feet shallow water pool with 70 foot long zero depth entry, water play amenities, expanded turf picnic area and deck with chase lounge Design with community in mind September 13, 2016 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 2 of 3 Reference: 2015 New Hope Swimming Pool Study Summary seating with one new shade structure. Some enhancements to the existing mechanical building are included to accommodate the new pool mechanical systems Potential Overall Pool Improvements In addition to evaluating shallow water pool improvements, a cursory study and concept plan for two options for improving the existing main 50 meter pool were developed. Both concepts included a basic 6 lane 50 meter lap pool, two lanes less than the existing pool, with a diving well similar to the existing pool. Also included was an ADA access ramp, some enhanced multipurpose water play areas, a reduced deck to accommodate sun turf as well as one option which included a receiving pool for two family style body slides. Modern water play amenities, including a climbing wall and floating obstacle course, were included to allow the traditional 50 meter pool to better accommodate recreational activities when not used for lap swimming or competitive events. The support buildings were essentially left intact, but included a minor renovation budget for primarily refreshing the interior wall finishes, replacing building mechanical systems and lights. The general building shells for the support buildings, while dated, are in reasonable condition for their age. The bath house, main pool and shallow pool mechanical buildings are about 25 years old and the concession building is about 18 years old. The concept plans prepared for the overall improvement options included the desired Shallow Water Pool Option A from above, and were essentially limited to the area within the existing pool fencing. Option 2 was the preferred improvement concept (see concept sketch attached), and the total project cost was estimated at $5,578,000. Understanding the improvements may be scheduled for later in the future, such as 2019, we recommend budgeting $6,500,000 to account for inflation, possible scope changes, and other project contingencies. If you have any questions or require further information please call me at (651)604-4808. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. sem/ Christopher W. Long, P.E. Design with community in mind Bonding Options and Tax Impacts *Includes 0.50% cushion over current market rates ' • • Scenario erm BondingInterest IL • . 100% Rate* Debt Levy • 1 1$196,000 • Option 1 - 2017 and 2018 BQ 20 Years 3.17% $1,426,645 $27,692,728 $12.81 Option 3 - 2017 non-BQ 15 Years 3.15% $1,771,145 I[- I I I $25,947,356 I I $15.90 Difference 1 1 -0.02% 1 $344,500 1 -$1,745,372 1 $3.09 *Includes 0.50% cushion over current market rates *Includes 0.50% cushion over current market rates $3,074.60 $3,196.40 1.80 $3,074.60 $2,862.75 11.8 Memo To: Kirk McDonald, City Manager From: Jason Aarsvold and Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers Date: August 28, 2017 Subject: Calling for a Public Hearing — Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to Finance the Police/City Hall Facility The plan to finance the new Police / City Hall facility involves issuing General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Bonds. As part of the bond issue process, the City will adopt a 5 -year CIP for the bonds, separate from the City's existing CIP. This CIP includes the potential for the City to issue bonds over more than one year for the project to provide maximum flexibility. For the City Council to use this authority, it must follow a specified set of procedures that includes holding a public hearing on the CIP and issuance of the bonds. Notice of such hearing must be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least 14, but not more than 28 days prior to the date of the public hearing. In addition, the bonds are subject to a so-called "reverse referendum." If a petition signed by voters equal to at least five percent of the votes cast in the City in last general election is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing regarding the bonds, the bonds may not be issued unless approved by the voters (by a majority of those voting on the question). The proposed action at the August 28th City Council meeting is to pass a resolution calling for the required public hearing in accordance with the CIP bond process. Notice will be published on September 7, 2017 and the public hearing will be held on September 25, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. The draft public hearing notice indicates bonds may be issued in an amount up to $25,000,000. This is a not to exceed amount, not the amount that will actually be issued. The higher not to exceed amount provides flexibility if costs are higher than anticipated. As currently planned, the bond issue will be at, or below, $20,000,000. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Minnesota phone 651-697-8500 Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois fax 651-697-8555 4-11 f-. R/Vl_Gr7 1171 \AwN.ehlers-inc.com 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1122 Kirk McDonald Police / City Hall Financing August 28, 2017 Page 2 At the September 25th, 2017 meeting, the City Council holds the, Public Hearing on the bonds and on the CIP and adopts a resolution giving preliminary approval for their issuance and approving the CIP by at least a 3/5ths vote of the governing body membership. The full schedule for the bond issue process is attached for review. Please feel free to contact either of us with any questions at 651-697-8500.