HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160719
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
July 19, 2016
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Civic Building Options
P1
Page 1 of 23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Asset Project Manager,
Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
THROUGH: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: July 15, 2016
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2016
RE: Options for Aspen City Hall
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Three Aspen City Hall options are being presented today for
design direction from Council:
1) Galena Option – ‘One Roof Option’
2) Galena Alternate– ‘Galena Plaza and Armory’
3) Armory Reuse of Existing – ‘Four roof option, Armory, Rio, Galena, & Purchase’
The goal of today’s session is to find out if Council would like to change the direction given to
staff on November 16, 2015 to “take the Galena Plaza Option solution to detailed design”.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
THE GALENA OPTION
July 5, 2016 – Update on the Galena Option and Galena Reuse Option 2.0. Council requested
additional phasing and cost information on these options as well as the Galena Alternate.
March 7, 2016 – Worksession update on the Galena Option. Council requested to keep modest
and humble.
Nov 16, 2015 - Worksession. Confirmed - Move the city office project “the Galena Option” at
Galena Plaza forward to detailed design.
November 3, 2015 - The community was asked in an advisory vote if the Armory building
should be used as city offices, or for community use. Community use was preferred.
August 3, 2015 – Worksession - Programing of 51,900 sf at Galena Plaza including reuse of the
existing Armory for community use was approved to move to detailed design by a vote of 4-1.
July 14, 2015 – Worksession – Options of Armory Option, the Galena Option, and the Galena
Alternate conceptual designs. Council discussed each design and was in favor of the staff
recommendation for the Galena Option 3-2.
P2
I.
BACKGROUND:
• 2015 Final Facilities Master P
less than typical national
decreases from current departmental space
• 2014 Facilities Master Plan conduct
for 14,900 square feet (sf)
services.
• 2012 Aspen Area Community P
core, preservation of Histor
• Civic Master Plan 2006 adopted;
Hall space needs.
• Purchased Zupancis property in
the site (note: Aspen Police Department is approved by Council to proceed on
Zupancis site).
DISCUSSION:
The process that the City of Aspen
staff received from Council is a process that started in
through June 2015. At that time we arrived at three
long term, much needed solution. Council felt that the Galena Option and the Galena Alt
met the needs of the organization to provide the best public service possible with one question
lingering: whether or not the community liked the idea of the repurpos
fashion, to its historic use as a community hall. To gather a sense
November 3, 2015 voters were asked in an advisory
used as cit y offices, or for community use
Page 2 of 23
Facilities Master Plan program issued. Current space allocation per person is
national space standards and recommended departmental space actually
decreases from current departmental space:
lan conducted a detailed departmental analysis and showed need
square feet (sf) for the Aspen Police Department and 51,900
12 Aspen Area Community Plan is aligned with current Galena Option (services in
core, preservation of Historic assets, connections with parks).
Civic Master Plan 2006 adopted; recommended utilization of Galena site for bulk of City
upancis property in 2000 with the purpose of providing a public facility on
(note: Aspen Police Department is approved by Council to proceed on
City of Aspen has gone through to arrive at the decision and direction that
s a process that started in 2003 and has been ongoing at some level
time we arrived at three options (included as Exhibit B
long term, much needed solution. Council felt that the Galena Option and the Galena Alt
organization to provide the best public service possible with one question
whether or not the community liked the idea of the repurposing the Armory, in some
to its historic use as a community hall. To gather a sense community sentiment
asked in an advisory question: “Should the Armory Building be
y offices, or for community use?” Community use was preferred.
space allocation per person is
departmental space actually
ed a detailed departmental analysis and showed need
rtment and 51,900 sf for City
ption (services in
Galena site for bulk of City
2000 with the purpose of providing a public facility on
(note: Aspen Police Department is approved by Council to proceed on the
the decision and direction that
2003 and has been ongoing at some level
(included as Exhibit B) to address a
long term, much needed solution. Council felt that the Galena Option and the Galena Alt Option
organization to provide the best public service possible with one question
the Armory, in some
community sentiment, on
Should the Armory Building be
P3
I.
Page 3 of 23
The following is an excerpt from the Work Session memo dated July 29, 2015:
The common theme we have heard through the public outreach and internal process has
been the solution needs to be forward thinking and far reaching. We believe the solutions
that we have presented reach out 50 years and are flexible and have the ability to either
expand or contract our facilities. There is total of 3000 gsf planned for growth through
the year 2030. We are facing a loss of space for several of our busiest departments and
our Police department, and it is clear that doing nothing is not an option. To try to lease
space (if it is available) would cost more in lease costs and tenant improvements in 10 –
15 years than the cost to responsibly invest our dollars in owned facilities, utilizing all of
our currently held real estate assets in the downtown core area.
There a pros and cons outlined on the assessment criteria. Staff recognizes that the single
biggest detriment to any plan that includes use of the Armory in a configuration for
municipal offices would be the disruption of City operations and service for a period of
one to three years as we moved the operations out of the building, leased temporary
office space and remodeled the building and then moved everyone back in. Based on the
availability of space this would likely be in 6 – 10 locations throughout town. Staff feels
this is an unneeded burden on the community considering that we can accommodate a
solution that meets more of the core values on our other currently held land assets with
the added benefit of returning the Armory to its historic configuration. If the Galena
Plaza option is selected, the team will bring the issue of restoring the Armory to its
historic configuration for community benefit back to council in work sessions in July and
August to determine what this process would be.
This is a very important decision. The solution that staff has determined meets our needs
in the best way, delivering the most core values, with the least risk, and the most
efficiency’s for public benefit is the Galena Option. The assessment criteria below used
for scoring does not weight the categories i.e. the two year construction impacts to the
community are weighted the same as construction cost, yet it is a simple way for us to
gauge the values presented by internal and community stakeholders. Based on this
criteria as well as weighing what we heard in the process we have gone through to date,
we feel the Galena option presents the best solution for the community.
If council agrees, this option would be taken to the next phase of design which includes
by year end 2015, as outlined in our schedule, three public open houses, four stakeholder
meetings, and three more work session presentations to Council. We will also engage
Design Workshops facilitation group out of their Austin office to help us run two
community meetings in a meaningful way.
P4
I.
Page 4 of 23
A recent, very intentional RFP process on the future use of the Old Powerhouse recently resulted
in no applicant meeting all of the criteria needed to execute a lease agreement. With this new
development, staff felt it would be prudent to look at a possible option to use the space for
interim offices because a large portion of the costs in the original Armory option included
leasing space at market rate. Below are three options for council review.
GALENA OPTION DISCUSSION: (Current Council direction)
GALENA OPTION DESIGN
Galena Option Schematic Design was issued at the end of May 2016 and is currently in Detailed
Design Phase. Based on recent requests from Council for iterations, new program options, and a
Master Plan review, the Galena Option design has been placed on hold.
As of the end of June 2016, $697,000 has been spent on design, survey, estimating and outreach
for the Council approved Galena Option. This is within budget.
P5
I.
Page 5 of 23
Preliminary Galena Option site planning (Schematic Design)
GALENA OPTION PROGRAM:
The baseline program is on track for all departments and common spaces such as Council
Chambers, Sister Cities, shared meeting rooms, locker rooms, flex spaces, mail etc. The program
of 52,000 sf is met under one roof. There is an additional 6,000 sf of potential space that staff is
seeking future Council direction on for “non-programmed spaces” for ACRA and an Innovation
Lab.
GALENA OPTION CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
The Galena Plaza Option has the least impact on the community as it is one project, which will
be completed in 24 months. When complete, public services will move out of their current
locations into the new building. The Wheeler Opera House will also utilize the new programing
of the Armory and would eliminate the need for the Wheeler to build the anticipated Annex at
their site, likely eliminating an additional 20,000 + sf building in town.
GALENA OPTION FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Galena Option current budget is at $31.3 million, on budget for the base program of 52,000 sf
and still subject to ongoing value engineering efforts by the design team. The schematic design
has been priced by Shaw Construction and is a more developed cost estimate than other City Hall
option program estimates being presented today.
The Galena Option has the ability to incorporate additional programmatic elements of ACRA
and the Innovation Lab, each at 3,000 SF. Based on pro-rata square foot costs from the estimates
this 6,000 sf additional program comes in at $1.25 million each ($2.5 million total) potentially
adding 8% to the overall budget but potentially retaining City control of ACRA space and
incorporating a valuable space for staff and the community.
Per the City’s Finance Department, funding for one site at Galena at $31.3 million and would be
financed through a combination of cash ($20.7 million) and financing ($10.6 million). The
P6
I.
Page 6 of 23
annual debt service payment would be mostly from the Asset Management Plan Fund, supported
by departmental contributions.
LOCATION GALENA
OPTION
Armory – Repurposed to community 0
Purchase space 0
455 Rio Grande and 425 Rio Grande 52,000
TOTAL (GSF) 52,000
PROGRAM BUDGET 50% Detailed Design $31.3Million*
*Shaw Construction pricing of 50% Detailed Design and all other project costs
Based on the actual staff count of 136 and with a housing mitigation factor of 0.6, the Galena
Option full mitigation could be 81 Full Time Employees (FTEs). If the offset of the existing
11,000 sf at 425 and 455 Rio Grande is allowed, mitigation would be for 79% of the staff, or 64
FTEs.
Summary of current Detailed Galena Option budget
GALENA OPTION PROS AND CONS:
DC Design/ Consulting Fees 3,323,910
CP City and Planning Fees 285,901
UDC Utility and Development Costs 306,000
SSS Site Survey and Soils Report 67,500
MT Materials Testing/Inspections 190,765
ENV Environmental Concerns/ Hazmat Study 6,500
FIN Finance, Insurance, Design Contingency 323,950
BS Building Systems Infrastructure/ Owner misc. 350,000
FFE Furniture/ Fixtures and Equipment 1,485,750
SOFT COSTS TOTALS: 6,340,276
PTB Permits, Taxes, Bonds -
CON Construction Costs 22,494,209
22,494,209
OPC OWNER PROJECT CONTINGENCY 2,499,183
PROJECT TOTAL 31,333,668
HARD COST TOTAL:
Budget
Code ITEM Estimated Cost at
Completion
P7
I.
Page 7 of 23
PROS CONS
• Seamless transition of Public Service
• All core services under one roof
• Doesn’t discard $700,000 of sunk cost and
time to date
• Is consistent with the 2015 vote
• Will help to expand the Wheeler Opera
House operations reducing new
development need
• Aligns with the Civic Master plan
• Aligns with the Aspen Area Community
Plan
• Could push capital costs for the Armory to
another party outside the General Fund
• Relieves parking and traffic in the Core
• Could accommodate long term ACRA
offices in the Armory.
• Does not lease property at market rate
• Does not buy property tied with unknown
future risks
• Is offset by 11,000 sf of ACRA and Rio
(i.e. gross add is not 52,000 sf)
• Fiscally responsible with no tax increase
• Requires 42,200 sf of new building
• Moves services to the other side of Main
Street
• Adds traffic and heavy use to Rio Grande
Street
GALENA ALTERNATE DISCUSSION:
GALENA ALTERNATE DESIGN:
An initial Galena Alternate was presented to Council on June 23, 2015 alongside the Galena
Option and Armory Option. At the time this envisioned reuse of Rio Grande, however, the
Galena Alternate presented below reflects new space at 455 Rio Grande Place.
P8
I.
Galena Alternate - program locations
GALENA ALTERNATE PROGRAM:
ARMORY Special Events
Sustainability
GALENA City Manager
Chambers
RIO GRANDE Finance, H.R.
GALENA ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
Galena Alternative Option is two projects over three and one half years
moving once during that time frame.
GALENA ALTERNATE FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Galena Alternate program level budget
to change as site conditions and design details ar
budget range is $28.0 to $31.5 mil
Programmatic Budget of Galena
Page 8 of 23
PROGRAM: Galena Alternate – potential departmental location
Special Events, Transportation, Capital Asset, I.T., Environmental Health &
Sustainability, Housing
City Manager, Clerk, Legal, Com Dev., Engineering, Sister Cities
Chambers
H.R., Parking
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
Galena Alternative Option is two projects over three and one half years with public services
moving once during that time frame.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Galena Alternate program level budget is $28.6 million. These preliminary budgets are subject
to change as site conditions and design details are fully assessed and developed and as such the
budget range is $28.0 to $31.5 million.
Programmatic Budget of Galena-Alternate
potential departmental location
ronmental Health &
Sister Cities, Council
with public services
These preliminary budgets are subject
ssessed and developed and as such the
P9
I.
Page 9 of 23
LOCATION GALENA ALT
Armory – aesthetic renovation 19,000
Purchase space – NEW/PURCHASED 0
455 Rio Grande and 425 Rio Grande 33,000
TOTAL (Gross Square Footage) 52,000
PROGRAM BUDGET rough order of magnitude $28.6-31.5 Million*
*ROM unit pricing
Based on a 32,200 sf program, offset by the demolition of 11,000 sf this equals an assumed 40%
of the 136 City staff to be located in the new building at Galena, with a 0.6 mitigation factor, this
equates to an estimated affordable housing mitigation of 33 FTEs.
GALENA ALTERNATE PROS AND CONS
PROS CONS
• Cheaper than Galena Option
• Uses the Armory which some people like
(about 50% think the Armory should be
City Hall)
• Allows connection to a municipal plaza at
Galena
• Council would move to the Plaza
• Would eliminate the risk of a major
renovation of the Armory
• Aligns with the Aspen Area Community
Plan
• Align with the Civic Master Plan
• All core services at two addresses
• Long schedule, needs a temporary relocate
of Armory program for 12-18 months
during the refurbishment.
• Less energy efficient (tough to get energy
efficiency in the armory (brick walls, extra
foundations, extra windows)
• Unknown issues in the renovation of a 130-
year-old brick building could increase costs
• Will need 19,800 sf of temporary space to
renovate Armory for 8 - 12 months
• Armory gets a much needed minor
aesthetic interior remodel. We have not
budgeted more than that.
• Ignores the vote on the Armory
• Not seamless for Public Service and will
create more address during Armory
renovation.
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
ARMORY REUSE OPTION DESIGN
On July 5, 2016, staff presented an additional Amory Reuse Option which is attached and
referred to as the Armory Reuse Option. This option uses a refurbished Armory for City
Offices/City Hall and also more reuse of existing assets AFTER the Rio Grande Building,
ACRA space and Powerhouse are utilized for temporary use while the Armory is refurbished.
The overall program is described in the table below (comparable to the current Galena Option
which has a baseline 52,000 sf). This Option is budgeted at $43.1 million, at least 30% more
than the current budget for the Galena City Hall Option. This project could be phased as per
attached presentation Exhibit C.
P10
I.
Page 10 of 23
Reuse Option – program locations
ARMORY REUSE OPTION PROGRAM: Armory Reuse Option – potential departmental location
ARMORY City Manager, Legal, Clerk, Information Technology, Finance, Council Chambers
GALENA Community Development, Engineering, Capital Asset, Sister Cities
RIO GRANDE Housing, Parking
PURCHASED Human Resources, Environmental Health & Sustainability, Transportation, Special Events
ARMORY REUSE OPTION CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
The Reuse Option will be a minimum of seven construction projects spread throughout town
over a period of five years with public services moving twice during that time frame. This option
constructs 37,000 sf less of NEW buildings but that reduction of 37,000 of NEW construction
will be replaced with 37,000 sf of REMODEL projects. There will be a loss of six affordable
housing (8,000 sf) units. The reuse, permit and tap fees are 3% of the overall, at about $1.5
million. Smaller cost/phased building permits have a higher percentage of building permit fees,
but tap fees may decrease slightly given that some reuse areas and fixtures can offset costs. Final
calculations will be completed at permit submittal. Staff believes this is accounted for in the
budgets given.
ARMORY REUSE OPTION FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Per the City’s Finance Department, funding for the City’s reuse of the Armory, renovation of the
Rio Grande and a smaller building at Galena, plus purchasing existing square footage in town is
estimated to cost $43.1 million, $11.8 million more than the one site option, plus sunk costs of
$0.7 million. This option will require additional financing of +$12.5 million, increasing the
annual debt service payment to a total of $1.4 million, of which the Asset Management Plan
Fund would need to support over $1.0 million over the next 25 years. Based on the program
level information for the four spaces and temporary spaces, the budgeted cost range for this
option is $43.0 to $46.0 million at this time.
P11
I.
LOCATION
Armory - full remodel (+ small addition)
Purchase space – NEW/PURCHASED
455 Rio Grande – existing space REUSE
425 Rio Grande Place (current ACRA)
TOTAL (Gross Square F
PROGRAM BUDGET rough order of magnitude
*ROM unit pricing and current market pricing
** Gross Square footage impact 5
Based on 26,800 sf of new space (offset by the current space at 425 Rio Grande of 4,600 sf),
22,200 sf of construction would house approximately 43% of the 136 city hall occupants.
136 x 0.6 mitigation factor = the need for 35 FTEs to mitigate.
Phasing costs for the reuse op
relocation of the Armory occupants
space for two years and additional moving costs.
ARMORY REUSE OPTION PROS AND CONS:
PROS
• Uses the Powerhouse for interim offices
• Maintains the seat of government at the
Historic Armory
• Keeps government in the Downtown
• Can be phased
• Eliminates building 37,000 square feet of
new construction in town for City offices
(however the 37,000 sf will be remodeled
resulting in multiple, significant project
with full costs and impacts associated
with a renovation construction project
• Aligns with the Aspen Area Community
Plan
• Align with the Civic Master
Page 11 of 23
ARMORY R
OPTION
small addition) - REUSE 20,000
NEW/PURCHASED 8,000
existing space REUSE 5,500
Place (current ACRA) – NEW SPACE 18,500
Footage) 52,000 – 57,000**
rough order of magnitude $43.1-46.0 M
*ROM unit pricing and current market pricing
** Gross Square footage impact 5%-10% due to multiple locations
of new space (offset by the current space at 425 Rio Grande of 4,600 sf),
22,200 sf of construction would house approximately 43% of the 136 city hall occupants.
136 x 0.6 mitigation factor = the need for 35 FTEs to mitigate.
reuse option are approximately $2.1 million (5%) for the temporary
relocation of the Armory occupants and includes 1,900 sf for County staff who
and additional moving costs.
ARMORY REUSE OPTION PROS AND CONS:
CONS
for interim offices
overnment at the
Downtown Core
Eliminates building 37,000 square feet of
new construction in town for City offices
will be remodeled
significant projects
with full costs and impacts associated
with a renovation construction projects)
Aligns with the Aspen Area Community
Align with the Civic Master Plan
• Is $9-$15 million more expensive,
difficult to pay for over the next 10 years.
• Has CAM, HOA costs of purchase space
(not controlled by City and may increase)
• Involves buying space on non
property
• The interim operations during
implementation is very fractured and
disruptive.
• Four roofs (Galena, Rio, Armory,
Purchase) = confusing municipal
planning, disparate customer service,
difficult parking, loss of efficiency
• Eight roofs during temporary use
• Against the vote for armory community
use
ARMORY REUSE
OPTION
00
000
00
500
57,000**
Million*
of new space (offset by the current space at 425 Rio Grande of 4,600 sf),
22,200 sf of construction would house approximately 43% of the 136 city hall occupants. 43% x
(5%) for the temporary
who need to lease
expensive, is
difficult to pay for over the next 10 years.
Has CAM, HOA costs of purchase space
controlled by City and may increase)
buying space on non-City owned
The interim operations during
implementation is very fractured and
roofs (Galena, Rio, Armory,
Purchase) = confusing municipal
planning, disparate customer service,
difficult parking, loss of efficiency
roofs during temporary use
Against the vote for armory community
P12
I.
Page 12 of 23
• Loss of +/- $700,000 sunk costs to date on
Council approved Galena Option
• Large construction risk incurred with
Armory renovation
• There will be an increase in Gross Square
Footage due to multiple buildings i.e.
more stairs, elevators, corridors,
bathrooms, etc.
• Loss of 8000 sf of affordable housing
Possible Analysis of Non-Cash Items
To date, all cost analysis has focused on the cash cost of various alternatives. If desired, the
analysis can be expanded to include the effect of each alternative on the assets already owned by
the City of Aspen, often referred to as “balance sheet assets”. In this case the primary existing
assets to be analyzed would include land, buildings, and affordable housing “credits”.
If desired, staff can conduct a formal Cost/Benefit analysis for each of the alternatives being
considered that will include dollar estimates of the costs and benefits to each of these categories
of City-owned assets. Such an analysis will take quite a bit of time and will include values-
based discussions regarding such topics as the appropriate “value” to place on government-
owned property.
Land: Each of the alternatives will have a different effect upon the use of various City-owned
land parcels and the potential availability of these parcels for alternative use or sale.
Buildings: Each of the alternatives will have a different effect upon the use of existing City-
owned office buildings and the potential of each building for other uses.
Affordable Housing “Credits”: The City of Aspen currently has 75.95 affordable housing
“credits” that have resulted from its internal program of building affordable housing for City
employees. These “credits” are unrelated to the Affordable Housing Certificate Program and do
not have any cash value in the marketplace. Each of the alternatives will have a different effect
upon this inventory of “credits”.
Please note that no discussion has yet taken place regarding the requirement of the City to
mitigate for employees related to the proposed new office space. Similar public facilities such
as Pitkin County’s recent 27,165 square feet of new space and Theatre Aspen’s new tent) were
not formally required to mitigate for affordable housing. Instead, these facilities were approved
with the requirement that the affordable housing mitigation would be for only the audited future
growth in employment. This approach to mitigation is allowed under the City’s Land Use Code
for Essential Public Facilities. The Code also allows Essential Public Facilities to be completely
exempted from affordable housing mitigation.
P13
I.
Page 13 of 23
For the purpose of this analysis, the following short narratives describe the main effects of each
alternative upon the land, buildings, and affordable housing “credits” assets currently owned by
the City of Aspen:
As a summary, the Galena Option can be said to use 29 more of the City’s
existing affordable housing “credits”, but also completely frees up the Armory
building for another use or sale.
Armory Reuse Option can be said to use 29 fewer of the City’s affordable
housing “credits”. It does not free up the Armory building for another use, but
does use less of the undeveloped Rio Grande area near ACRA’s current
location.
In conclusion, City Council can decide whether to expand the analysis regarding office space to
include assets that have already been acquired by the organization (so called “balance sheet
assets”). Staff would argue that these assets should not be a central consideration in City
Council’s decision, for the following three reasons:
1. The primary difference between the various options’ impact upon land and buildings
would be the potential for repurposing or selling the Armory building. (This is why we
had a public vote on the matter.) In some communities the proposal to sell the current
City Hall and put the proceeds toward a new building would seem perfectly rational.
Staff doubts that this approach would ever gain support in Aspen. Therefore, the
analysis would require estimating the value to the community of making the Armory
available for other community uses. Such an analysis would likely conclude that the
value to the community would be substantial, if unquantifiable.
2. The differential impact, currently calculated at 29 credits, of the “Galena Option” vs. the
“Armory Reuse Option” upon the City’s inventory of Affordable Housing “credits”, can
be viewed in two different ways. In a simple analysis the credits could be estimated to
be worth the same amount as the formal Housing Credit Certificates currently available
for sale in Aspen.
On the other hand, the City’s inventory of Affordable Housing credits has no marketplace
value and is expected to grow at a faster rate than they will be used. From this
perspective, the potential savings in the City’s inventory of Affordable Housing credits
does not actually translate into any future cost savings and can therefore be viewed as
having no real dollar value that should be calculated in the analysis of the options
currently being considered by City Council.
This discussion assumes that the City of Aspen is treated differently than the recent
approvals for space expansion by Pitkin County and Theatre Aspen which were only
required to mitigate based on future audits, or is not considered for total exemption from
affordable housing mitigation under the “Essential Public Facility” clause. Very little of
the City’s inventory of Affordable Housing credits would be used under either of those
mitigation requirements.
P14
I.
Page 14 of 23
In summary, the City is creating affordable housing for its own employees because it is a
wise action to take for the employees and the organization as a whole, not because the
“credits” will be needed to offset future development.
3. Perhaps most importantly, no matter which option for meeting the City’s office
space needs is chosen, the actual cash cost for each option must be funded. While
the relative impacts upon the land, buildings, and Affordable Housing credits is useful
and relevant to Council’s decision, they do not alter the estimates for how much each
alternative will require in cash and debt financing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff request Council reaffirm the decision made on November
16, 2016 to pursue the Galena Option, or give new direction.
However, staff observation of data is that the baseline Galena Option best addresses all public
services at one address, has least impact on public service and the organization during
implementation, is $9 – $12 million less expensive, allows the Armory to be returned for
Community use (consistent with the November 2015 vote), has a shorter schedule and does not
use any lease or purchased space, both requiring ongoing rental and/or HOA, CAM dues.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P15
I.
Page 15 of 23
EXHIBIT A
Galena Option Galena Alternate Armory Reuse
Parking
Reduces parking and traffic in
core
Doesn’t reduce parking and
traffic in core
Doesn’t reduce parking and
traffic in core
Construction
More new construction by
COA– Less new construction
likely by others
Less new construction by COA-
More new construction likely by
others
Least new construction by
COA- Most new construction
likely by others
Shorter Construction on one site Longer Construction on 2 sites Longest Construction on 4 sites
Construction activity affects
fewer people
Construction activity affects
more people
Construction activity affects
most people
Less square feet needed for
building appropriate facilities
due to building/design
efficiency
More square feet needed for
building appropriate facilities
due to building/design
efficiency
Most square feet needed to
building appropriate facilities
due to building/design
inefficiency
Fewer building systems and
spaces to build and maintain
More building systems and
spaces to build and maintain
Most building systems and
spaces to build and maintain
Allows for best future flexibility Allows for less future flexibility Allows for least future
flexibility
Civic
Most effectively activates
underutilized city assets
(parking garage/plaza)
Activates underutilized city
assets (parking garage/plaza)
Least effectively activates
underutilized city assets
(parking garage/plaza)
Completes “civic blocks” and
consolidates public services
Completes “civic blocks” and
maintains some city activity on
Hopkins
Some government is on Hopkins
and secondary in “civic blocks”
Potentially allows Powerhouse
and Armory to be used as public
functions
Potentially, partially allows
Powerhouse and Armory to be
used as public functions
Potentially allows Powerhouse
to be used as public functions
after construction phase
Efficiency
Best building/space efficiency Less building/space efficiency Least building/space efficiency
Best energy efficiency Less energy efficiency Least energy efficiency
Best staff efficiency Less staff efficiency Least staff efficiency
Cost
Less cost assumed for
LEED/WELL design and
construction
Less cost assumed for
LEED/WELL design and
construction
Less cost assumed for
LEED/WELL design and
construction
$31.3 Million $28.6-31.5 Million $43.1-46.0 Million
EXHIBIT B – Memo from 2015
P16
I.
Page 16 of 23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager
Thru: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: July 29, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2015
RE: Civic Space Relocation Project (CSRP) – Conceptual Design
Presentation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council select one of the options to
move forward into schematic design and ongoing public process and approve the
programing for the Police Facility.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In a work session on July 14, 2015, staff presented
the Armory option, the Galena option, and the Galena Alternate option conceptual
design. Council discussed each design and were in favor of the staff recommended
selection of the Galena Option 3-2. In an effort to get more unanimity council requested
that the team come back with the following information on the Galena and Armory
option on August 3rd.
• Additional architectural views of each option
• Story pole and staking at Armory and Galena Plaza side of Galena option.
• More comprehensive Architectural presentation on each option, including review
of Architectural 3D model.
• Presentation of costs
• Presentation on the Public service aspects of each option.
BACKGROUND: Finding a solution to the loss of downtown leases is a top priority for
City Council and is articulated in one of its top ten goals.
Goal 8 - Achieve direction from city council on a solution for the loss of
downtown Police and municipal office spaces. Champion: Scott Miller
Staff received direction From Council, as part of the Facility Master Plan Project,
in November 2014 to issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Architectural Design
teams and Program Manager/ Owners Agent for the “Aspen Building
Replacement Project”. The Aspen Building Replacement Projects Main Goal is to
provide a comprehensive solution for the Police and Municipal Facility by mid-
year 2018. The RFP will close on February 5, 2015 at which point the team will
make a recommendation to select the design team and the PM/OA, these
contracts will be on consent agenda late February 2015. The first milestone of
P17
I.
Page 17 of 23
that team will be to work closely with staff and the steering committee to
develop and present, to Council in the first quarter 2015, two conceptual level
plans for selection of the preferred option. Staff will check in with Council
throughout the year to keep them informed of the progress of the project as well
as review all decision points. Staff and the team will continue to do public
outreach at all phases of this project to keep the public informed. The preferred
option will be taken to design development level drawing and be submitted into
the Planning and Zoning approval process by September 2015, this will give us a
clear direction, cost information and schedule for a solution to our Police and
Municipal facilities by end of year 2015. The team is targeting mid 2018 for
completion of a solution.
Staff started the Facility Master Plan Process in early 2014. As part of the project our
team inventoried all of the City facilities and carried out an overall space analysis. During
this, the need for space in the downtown core became apparent. Prior to and during this
effort several things happened that have made the downtown core need for office space
more crucial than ever:
• The City and County executed an agreement that the Police would move out of the
County owned space at the Courthouse and County Community Development
would move out of the City owned Armory sometime in 2018. Eventually, this
building is going to be for exclusive court use.
• The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority would move out of the County
owned Courthouse Plaza Building. The County is preparing to renovate this
building to accommodate their increasing space needs.
• The Aspen Daily News Building (City Hall Annex) was sold and the new owner
asked that the Building, Engineering, City Manager, and Canary initiative relocate
by the end of 2015 to allow for redevelopment.
• The team identified the inappropriate use of the basement of the Yellow Brick as
City offices due to access and security concerns in a child care facility.
This equals a loss of about 24,000 gross square feet (gsf) of the overall 50,000 gross
square feet that the City presently operates out of in the downtown core.
In early 2015 the team verified all programing for building design criteria and assessed
space needs. After careful consideration with the staff, City Manager’s office and Human
Resources, the team dialed back its space assumptions to be more appropriate for our
unique Aspen market. This led us to a reduced standard, about 30% smaller than common
office space planning standards used in the US. This “Verified Program” (attached) is the
space plan we are using for design which includes 14,900 gsf for Police and 51,900 gsf
for City office program. The team has challenged themselves through careful, efficient,
design to reduce this by another 5%.
During the fall of 2014 the team held several open houses and presented various options
to the public and Council on how to use all of our currently held assets to come with a
space needs solution. This process started with identification of a “kit of parts” then
P18
I.
Page 18 of 23
development of four option that programed all of our needs into solutions utilizing these
assets. In this process we reached out to the staff, public, and Council to find out what the
important values we needed to bring forward in solutions. We found the following:
• Plan City Hall under one roof
• Utilize all of our currently owned assets
• Must be a sustainable solution, we should be leaders in this area
• No tax increase
• Far reaching
• Police should have an appropriate facility
• Police facility should be planned at 540 Main
• City should own not lease facilities as there is a major cost advantage
The program design team took all of the criteria and presented four options to Council in
November 2014 and the request of council was to select two preferred options to form the
basis of design moving forward. This meeting set the first milestone as conceptual level
design on the two selected options along with more public outreach followed by a
presentation to council for selection of the preferred solution to move into schematic
level design.
During the open houses the following core values featured as a common thread in both
internal and external outreach:
• A minimum of a LEED Gold certification; the City should be leaders in
sustainable practices.
• Humble yet exemplary solution is very important to the community
• The Police facility should be at 540 Main St. and we should work collaboratively
with Pitkin County to maximize efficiency with the development of their public
safety building.
• We should be innovative and creative to produce the best result in the smallest
box.
• We should be collaborative with the community
• We should solve the problem with our currently held assets
• We should own not lease
• Most participants preferred Galena Plaza Option
• Some people felt sentiment to the Armory Option and felt that it spoke to who we
are.
• There is momentum in the community to return the Armory to its historic
configuration for community benefit.
Below is an outline of the remaining options:
P19
I.
Page 19 of 23
P20
I.
Page 20 of 23
DISCUSSION:
P21
I.
Page 21 of 23
The common theme we have heard through the public outreach and internal process has
been the solution needs to be forward thinking and far reaching. We believe the solutions
that we have presented reach out 50 years and are flexible and have the ability to either
expand or contract our facilities. There is total of 3000 gsf planned for growth through
the year 2030. We are facing a loss of space for several of our busiest departments and
our Police department, and it is clear that doing nothing is not an option. To try to lease
space (if it is available) would cost more in lease costs and tenant improvements in 10 –
15 years than the cost to responsibly invest our dollars in owned facilities, utilizing all of
our currently held real estate assets in the downtown core area.
There a pros and cons outlined on the assessment criteria. Staff recognizes that the single
biggest detriment to any plan that includes use of the Armory in a configuration for
municipal offices would be the disruption of City operations and service for a period of
one to three years as we moved the operations out of the building, leased temporary
office space and remodeled the building and then moved everyone back in. Based on the
availability of space this would likely be in 6 – 10 locations throughout town. Staff feels
this is an unneeded burden on the community considering that we can accommodate a
solution that meets more of the core values on our other currently held land assets with
the added benefit of returning the Armory to its historic configuration. If the Galena
Plaza option is selected, the team will bring the issue of restoring the Armory to its
historic configuration for community benefit back to council in work sessions in July and
August to determine what this process would be.
This is a very important decision. The solution that staff has determined meets our needs
in the best way, delivering the most core values, with the least risk, and the most
efficiency’s for public benefit is the Galena Option. The assessment criteria below used
for scoring does not weight the categories i.e. the two year construction impacts to the
community are weighted the same as construction cost, yet it is a simple way for us to
gauge the values presented by internal and community stakeholders. Based on this
criteria as well as weighing what we heard in the process we have gone through to date,
we feel the Galena option presents the best solution for the community.
If council agrees, this option would be taken to the next phase of design which includes
by year end 2015, as outlined in our schedule, three public open houses, four stakeholder
meetings, and three more work session presentations to Council. We will also engage
Design Workshops facilitation group out of their Austin office to help us run two
community meetings in a meaningful way.
P22
I.
Page 22 of 23
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Armory Option Galena Option Galena Alternate
Construction $48.4 mil $45.8 mil $40.6 mil
Risk Contingency $3.0 mil $0.5 mil $0.7 mil
Owner Costs $5.9 mil $2.0 mil $3.7 mil
TOTAL $57.3 mil $48.3 mil $45.0 mil
P23
I.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Plaza Option. Selection of this option includes returning the Armory to historic
configuration for community benefit,
of this need to be decided in t
discuss Council’s vision on this
city offices can remain in the Armory
recommendation includes the decision to have the Police facility as outlined at 540 Main
to allow collaboration and efficiencies with the County public safety facility at the
adjoining location. Once we set the additional programing in schematic design on the
site, the Police facility will move to its own track for completion of design and
construction.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 23 of 23
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the Galena
Plaza Option. Selection of this option includes returning the Armory to historic
configuration for community benefit, with the notion that the process, cost and specifics
be decided in the future. Staff will schedule a work session
s vision on this this process. We have time to develop this process as the
can remain in the Armory while the Galena option is designed and built.
ncludes the decision to have the Police facility as outlined at 540 Main
to allow collaboration and efficiencies with the County public safety facility at the
adjoining location. Once we set the additional programing in schematic design on the
lice facility will move to its own track for completion of design and
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Staff recommends City Council approval of the Galena
Plaza Option. Selection of this option includes returning the Armory to historic
the process, cost and specifics
a work session in August to
We have time to develop this process as the
option is designed and built. This
ncludes the decision to have the Police facility as outlined at 540 Main
to allow collaboration and efficiencies with the County public safety facility at the
adjoining location. Once we set the additional programing in schematic design on the
lice facility will move to its own track for completion of design and
P24
I.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 1
CIVIC SPACE
RELOCATION PROJECT
UPDATE
Aspen City Council Work Session
July 19, 2016
P
2
5
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 2
TODAYS GOALS
Present three options for City Office long
term solution, to recieve Council direction
DESIGN
BUDGET
FUNDING
P
2
6
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 3
Galena Option :
Currently at start of Detailed Design
Currently designed to program at 52,000 SF
Budget $31.3 mil base program
P
2
7
I
.
SITE LOCATION MAP - ALL CITY OFFICES AT GALENA
JULY 2016
MAIN STREET
HOPKINS STREET
RIO GRANDE PLACE
RIO GRANDE PARK
PROPOSED
CITY OFFICES
POWERHOUSE
BUILDING
PITKIN
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COMMUNITY BANKS
OF COLORADO
PITKIN
COUNTY
COURT-
HOUSE
ARMORY
517 HOPKINS
PITKIN
COUNTY
JAIL
PITKIN
COUNTY
SHERRIFF
BUILDING
PROPOSED
COUNTY
ANNEX
OBERMEYER
BUILDING
HOTEL
JEROME
PROPOSED
POLICE
STATION
GALENA
PLAZA
BLEEKER STREET
S
M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
GALENA
52,000 SF GALENA
P
2
8
I
.
GALENA OPTION
JULY 2016
ASPEN CITY HALL AT GALENA
52,000 SF
P
2
9
I
.
RIO GRANDE PARK AERIAL VIEW
JULY 2016
ALL CITY OFFICES AT GALENA
WEST WING
EAST WING
RIO GRANDE PL.NEW
STAIRS
GARAGE
ACCESS
GALENA
PLAZA
LIBRARY
30’-35’ SETBACK FROM RIO GRANDE PL. CURB
P
3
0
I
.
VIEW FROM MAIN STREET - ALL CITY OFFICES AT GALENA
JULY 2016
GALENA PLAZA
ENTRY AND
CITY HALL LOBBY
SISTER CITIES EXISTING RIO GRANDE
GARAGE ELEVATOR
AND STAIR
(CITY OFFICES EAST
WING BEYOND)
LIBRARY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
P
3
1
I
.
GALENA PLAZA VIEW
JULY 2016
ALL CITY OFFICES AT GALENA
EAST WINGWEST WING
GALENA PLAZA
P
3
2
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 4
Galena Alternate:
CRQFHSWXDO only
Reuse of Armory basic renovation 19,000 sf
plus 33,000 sf new construction at Rio
Grande
Program 52,000 SF
$28.6 to $31.5 mil
P
3
3
I
.
SITE LOCATION MAP - GALENA ALTERNATE
JULY 2016
MAIN STREET
HOPKINS STREET
RIO GRANDE PLACE
RIO GRANDE PARK
PROPOSED
CITY OFFICES
POWERHOUSE
BUILDING
PITKIN
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COMMUNITY BANKS
OF COLORADO
PITKIN
COUNTY
COURT-
HOUSE
ARMORY
517 HOPKINS
PITKIN
COUNTY
JAIL
PITKIN
COUNTY
SHERRIFF
BUILDING
PROPOSED
COUNTY
ANNEX
OBERMEYER
BUILDING
HOTEL
JEROME
PROPOSED
POLICE
STATION
GALENA
PLAZA
BLEEKER STREET
S
M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
GALENA ALTERNATE
33,000 SF GALENA
19,000 SF ARMORY
52,000 SF
P
3
4
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE
JULY 2016
ASPEN CITY HALL AT GALENA
33,000 SF
ASPEN ANNEX AT THE ARMORY
19,000 SF
P
3
5
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE
WEST WING
EAST WING
RIO GRANDE PL.NEW
STAIRS
GARAGE
ACCESS
GALENA
PLAZA
LIBRARY
35’-40’ SETBACK FROM RIO GRANDE PL. CURB
RIO GRANDE PARK AERIAL VIEW
JULY 2016
P
3
6
I
.
VIEW FROM MAIN STREET - GALENA ALTERNATE
JULY 2016
NO CHANGE FROM MAIN STREET VIEW
P
3
7
I
.
GALENA PLAZA VIEW
JULY 2016
NO CHANGE ON GALENA PLAZA
GALENA ALTERNATE
EAST WING
GALENA PLAZA
WEST WING
P
3
8
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 5
Armory Reuse Option:
CRQFHSWXDO only
Reuse of Armory full renovation 19,000 sf
plus 1,000 sf addition
8,000 sf purchased space
5,500 reuse at 455 Rio Grande
18,500 sf new space at 425 Rio Grande
Program 52,000 SF
$43.1 to $46.0 mil
P
3
9
I
.
SITE LOCATION MAP - ARMORY REUSE OPTION
JULY 2016
MAIN STREET
HOPKINS STREET
RIO GRANDE PLACE
RIO GRANDE PARK
PROPOSED
CITY OFFICES
POWERHOUSE
BUILDING
PITKIN
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COMMUNITY BANKS
OF COLORADO
PITKIN
COUNTY
COURT-
HOUSE
ARMORY
517 HOPKINS
PITKIN
COUNTY
JAIL
PITKIN
COUNTY
SHERRIFF
BUILDING
PROPOSED
COUNTY
ANNEX
OBERMEYER
BUILDING
HOTEL
JEROME
PROPOSED
POLICE
STATION
RIO
GRANDE
BUILDING
GALENA
PLAZA
BLEEKER STREET
S
M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
18,500 SF GALENA
5,500 SF RIO GRANDE
20,000 SF ARMORY
8,000 SF 501 HOPKINS
52,000 SF
P
4
0
I
.
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
JULY 2016
ASPEN ANNEX AT RIO GRANDE
5,500 SF
ASPEN ANNEX AT GALENA
18,500 SF
ASPEN ANNEX AT THE ARMORY
20,000 SF
501 HOPKINS
8,000 SF
P
4
1
I
.
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
WEST WING
COMMUNITY
BANKS
EXISTING
RIO GRANDE
BUILDING
RIO GRANDE PL.NEW
STAIRS
GARAGE
ACCESS
GALENA
PLAZA
LIBRARY
35’-40’ SETBACK FROM RIO GRANDE PL. CURB
NO CHANGE TO MILL STREET PARKING LOT
WESTERN SQUARE FOOTAGE IS REDUCED
RIO GRANDE PARK AERIAL VIEW
JULY 2016
P
4
2
I
.
VIEW FROM MAIN STREET - ARMORY REUSE OPTION
JULY 2016
GALENA PLAZA
ENTRY AND
CONNECTION TO
OFFICE BELOW
SISTER CITIES AND
PUBLIC MEETING
ROOM
LIBRARY EXISTING
RIO GRANDE
BUILDING
EXISTING RIO GRANDE
GARAGE ELEVATOR
AND STAIR
P
4
3
I
.
GALENA PLAZA VIEW
JULY 2016
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
EXISTING RIO GRANDE BUILDING REMAINS
GALENA PLAZA
WEST WING
P
4
4
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 6
FUNDING
Galena Option
Cash $21 mil and finance $10 mil
Galena Alternate
Cash $21 mil and finance $8 - $10 mil
Armory Reuse Option
Cash $21 mil and finance $22 - $24 mil
P
4
5
I
.
MAIN STREET
HOPKINS STREET
RIO GRANDE PLACE
RIO GRANDE PARK
PROPOSED
CITY OFFICES
POWERHOUSE
BUILDING
PITKIN
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COMMUNITY BANKS
OF COLORADO
PITKIN
COUNTY
COURT-
HOUSE
ARMORY
517 HOPKINS
PITKIN
COUNTY
JAIL
PITKIN
COUNTY
SHERRIFF
BUILDING
PROPOSED
COUNTY
ANNEX
OBERMEYER
BUILDING
HOTEL
JEROME
PROPOSED
POLICE
STATION
GALENA
PLAZA
BLEEKER STREET
S
M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
MAIN STREET
HOPKINS STREET
RIO GRANDE PLACE
RIO GRANDE PARK
PROPOSED
CITY OFFICES
POWERHOUSE
BUILDING
PITKIN
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COMMUNITY BANKS
OF COLORADO
PITKIN
COUNTY
COURT-
HOUSE
ARMORY
517 HOPKINS
PITKIN
COUNTY
JAIL
PITKIN
COUNTY
SHERRIFF
BUILDING
PROPOSED
COUNTY
ANNEX
OBERMEYER
BUILDING
HOTEL
JEROME
PROPOSED
POLICE
STATION
RIO
GRANDE
BUILDING
GALENA
PLAZA
BLEEKER STREET
S
M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
MAIN STREET
HOPKINS STREET
RIO GRANDE PLACE
RIO GRANDE PARK
PROPOSED
CITY OFFICES
POWERHOUSE
BUILDING
PITKIN
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COMMUNITY BANKS
OF COLORADO
PITKIN
COUNTY
COURT-
HOUSE
ARMORY
517 HOPKINS
PITKIN
COUNTY
JAIL
PITKIN
COUNTY
SHERRIFF
BUILDING
PROPOSED
COUNTY
ANNEX
OBERMEYER
BUILDING
HOTEL
JEROME
PROPOSED
POLICE
STATION
GALENA
PLAZA
BLEEKER STREET
S
M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
CITY OFFICES
JULY 2016
GALENA
52,000 SF GALENA
GALENA ALTERNATE
33,000 SF GALENA
19,000 SF ARMORY
52,000 SF
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
18,500 SF GALENA
5,500 SF RIO GRANDE
20,000 SF ARMORY
8,000 SF 501 HOPKINS
52,000 SF
P
4
6
I
.
CITY OFFICES
JULY 2016
ALL CITY OFFICES AT GALENA
GALENA ALTERNATE
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
GALENA SITE
GALENA SITE
GALENA SITE
EXISTING RIO GRANDE SITE
ARMORY SITE
ARMORY SITE
501 HOPKINS SITE
P
4
7
I
.
RIO GRANDE PARK WEST VIEW
JULY 2016
ALL CITY OFFICES AT GALENA
GALENA ALTERNATE
ARMORY REUSE OPTION
WEST WING
WEST WING
WEST WING
EAST WING
EAST WING
EXISTING
RIO GRANDE
BUILDING
RIO
GRANDE
PARK
RIO
GRANDE
PARK
RIO
GRANDE
PARK
RIO
GRANDE PL.
RIO
GRANDE PL.
RIO
GRANDE PL.
ON STREET
PARKING
ON STREET
PARKING
ON STREET
PARKING
COURTHOUSE
(BEYOND)
COURTHOUSE
(BEYOND)
COURTHOUSE
(BEYOND)
COMMUNITY BANKS
COMMUNITY BANKS
COMMUNITY BANKS
P
4
8
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 7
DECISION POINT
Council confirm decision of Nov 16, 2016
for the Galena Option, or provide staff
direction on another option
P
4
9
I
.
Civic Space Relocation Project
July 19, 2016 Page 8
Discussion and
Questions?
P
5
0
I
.
GALENA OPTION - PLAZA LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND
SISTER CITIES LOCATED
WITHIN FLOOR PLATE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
1
I
.
GALENA OPTION - MIDDLE LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
2
I
.
GALENA OPTION - RIO GRANDE LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
3
I
.
GALENA OPTION - BASEMENT LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
4
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - GALENA - PLAZA LEVEL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND
SISTER CITIES LOCATED
WITHIN FLOOR PLATE
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
5
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - GALENA - MIDDLE LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
6
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - GALENA - RIO GRANDE LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
7
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - ARMORY BUILDING - THIRD FLOOR
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
5
8
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - ARMORY BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
P
5
9
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - ARMORY BUILDING - FIRST FLOOR
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
0
I
.
GALENA ALTERNATE - ARMORY BUILDING - BASEMENT
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
1
I
.
REUSE OPTION - GALENA - PLAZA LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
2
I
.
REUSE OPTION - GALENA - MIDDLE LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
3
I
.
REUSE OPTION - GALENA - RIO GRANDE LEVEL
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
4
I
.
REUSE OPTION - ARMORY BUILDING - THIRD FLOOR
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
5
I
.
REUSE OPTION - ARMORY BUILDING - SECOND FLOOR
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
6
I
.
REUSE OPTION - ARMORY BUILDING - FIRST FLOOR
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
7
I
.
REUSE OPTION - ARMORY BUILDING - BASEMENT
NOTE: PLANS INCLUDE BUT DON’T INDICATE COMMON SPACE
ASPEN CITY HALL19 July 2016
P
6
8
I
.