Loading...
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 .