Administration Building Needs Assessment JUNE 13, 2016 EXISTING - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

administration building needs assessment
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Administration Building Needs Assessment JUNE 13, 2016 EXISTING - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Town Hall Meeting with the Habersham County Board of Commissioners Administration Building Needs Assessment JUNE 13, 2016 EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION Detailed Evaluation Performed in 2015 Engineering


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Town Hall Meeting with the

Habersham County Board of Commissioners

JUNE 13, 2016

Administration Building Needs Assessment

slide-2
SLIDE 2

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

slide-3
SLIDE 3

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Detailed Evaluation Performed in 2015
  • Engineering Evaluation

– Site/Civil – Architectural – Structural – Mechanical – Plumbing – Electrical

  • Code Compliance Review

– International Building Code – Life Safety Code – ADA Requirements

slide-4
SLIDE 4

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Site Assessment

– Site traffic challenges from Washington Street – Site circulation for traffic – 30 feet of grade change from top to bottom

slide-5
SLIDE 5

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Site Assessment

– Challenge with grade change and accessibility – Deteriorated pavement and sidewalks beyond repair – Accessibility is not compliant with Code requirements

slide-6
SLIDE 6

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Site Assessment (continued)

– Storm water drainage is not compliant with development regulations – Storm drain and sewer manhole tops – Handicapped parking is not within regulations

slide-7
SLIDE 7

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Building Exterior

– Roof slopes not sufficient to drain

  • Potential failure of structure

– Water is penetrating roof parapets allowing water to infiltrate building

slide-8
SLIDE 8

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Building Exterior

– Exterior Stairs are deteriorated and failing – Brick veneer has cracked and moved on portions of the building – No permanent access to roof and roof equipment as required by Code

slide-9
SLIDE 9

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Building Interior

– Significant water infiltration and mold growth was found

  • n the top floor
slide-10
SLIDE 10

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Building Interior

– Stairs do not have Code compliant guardrail and handrails – Existing elevator

  • peration and

signage is not Code compliant

slide-11
SLIDE 11

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Energy Code Compliance

– Roof insulation does not meet Code – Insulated windows do not meet Code

slide-12
SLIDE 12

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Structural Evaluation

– Exterior stair structure is extremely deteriorated – Brick veneer does not have relief joints at floor levels or expansion joints

slide-13
SLIDE 13

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Structural Evaluation

– Modifications to interior masonry walls will be costly and difficult – Openings in the floor slab will require additional structural reinforcement – Placement of floor openings would need to be evaluated and limited to areas between joist ribs and beams – Large floor openings would be costly

slide-14
SLIDE 14

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Structural Evaluation

– Façade modifications at exterior windows would require significant structural evaluation

slide-15
SLIDE 15

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Mechanical Evaluation

– Inconsistent return air to mechanical units – Outside air does not appear to balancing dampers to adjust air flow – Access to courtroom HVAC equipment is difficult for maintenance and repair

slide-16
SLIDE 16

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Mechanical Evaluation

– Second floor data room heat load is overloaded with equipment – Existing equipment is approaching normal serviceable life span, 20 years – Cooling tower installation is non‐conventional and will cause premature failure of the equipment – Ductwork is extremely rusted – Water system expansion tank is installed in a location that is problematic for system operation and should be replaced and relocated – The HVAC water cooling system does not have a back floor preventer and the water pressure is below the amount needed to operate the system

slide-17
SLIDE 17

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Mechanical Evaluation

– There is no apparent make up air for the emergency generator inside the building, this is a Code violation – HVAC water loop piping is routed across the roof and have a threat of freezing in winter – Outside air should have a pre‐treatment unit to remove humidity before entering the building

slide-18
SLIDE 18

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Plumbing Evaluation

– Existing piping is pre‐existing from original construction so galvanized water piping is causing staining in fixtures, sanitary lines are cast iron and recommended replacement would be in order – Plumbing fixtures do not meet the requirements for ADA

slide-19
SLIDE 19

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Plumbing Evaluation

– The current cabinet and hose fire protection does not meet the Code requirement for fire protection. A complete new system with a potential fire pump will be required throughout the building

slide-20
SLIDE 20

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Electrical Evaluation

– Power pole is located in the parking area is appears to have been struck on numerous occasions, recommend relocation of power pole.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Electrical Evaluation

– Several portions of the building have circa 1960 light fixtures while the remainder have 1990 fluorescent fixtures – Power outlets and light switches are not in compliance will ADA height requirements – Electrical panels and breakers are at the end of their serviceable life and should be replaced – Power generator installation has Code violations, fire‐ rated room, ventilation

slide-22
SLIDE 22

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

  • Electrical Evaluation

– Lighting control systems do not meet Code – Fire alarm system is not Code compliant, a fully addressable system is required – All data and wiring will need to be removed and replace with a major renovation with structured cabling trays

slide-23
SLIDE 23

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

slide-24
SLIDE 24

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION A: Existing Administration Building /Site Major Renovation OPTION B: Alternate Site – Adjacent to New Courthouse OPTION C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway OPTION D: Existing Administration Site Demolition and Re‐Build OPTION E: ADDITIONAL New Alternate Site: Jacob’s Way

slide-25
SLIDE 25

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION A: Existing Administration Building /Site Major Renovation

slide-26
SLIDE 26

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION A: Existing Administration Building /Site Major Renovation

PROS ‐ Located Downtown with High Visibility ‐ Minimized Public Perceived Cost Impact CONS ‐ Expensive Option ‐ Extreme Grade Change Across Site ‐ Occupancy Challenge During Construction ‐ Building Character Improvements Costly

slide-27
SLIDE 27

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION B: Alternate Site – Adjacent to New Courthouse

slide-28
SLIDE 28

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION B: Alternate Site – Adjacent to New Courthouse

PROS ‐ Located Adjacent to New Courthouse ‐ Currently Developed for Improvements CONS ‐ Need Street Improvements to Stanford Mill Road ‐ Not Highly Visible ‐ Grade Change Requires Retaining Walls

slide-29
SLIDE 29

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway

slide-30
SLIDE 30

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway

PROS ‐ Easy Road Access ‐ Highly Visible CONS ‐ Need for Connection to City Sewer ‐ Outside of City Limits

slide-31
SLIDE 31

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION D: Existing Administration Site Demolition and Re‐Build

slide-32
SLIDE 32

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION D: Existing Administration Site Demolition and Re‐Build

PROS ‐ Located Downtown with High Visibility ‐ Opportunity to Change Character of Building CONS ‐ Difficult Site Access ‐ Accessibility Challenges ‐ Expensive Option ‐ Disruption of Occupancy during Construction

slide-33
SLIDE 33

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION E: ADDITIONAL New Alternate Site: Jacob’s Way

slide-34
SLIDE 34

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION E: ADDITIONAL Alternate Site: 4306 Toccoa Highway

PROS ‐ Easy Road Access ‐ Highly Visible ‐ Most Cost Effective Option CONS ‐ Need for Connection to City Sewer ‐ Outside of City Limits ‐ Grade Change Requiring Retaining Walls

slide-35
SLIDE 35

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Option A: Existing Administration Building /Site Major Renovation Site Improvements $459,900 Building Improvements $6,586,875 Total Option A Improvements $7,046,775

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Option B: Alternate Site – Adjacent to New Courthouse Site Improvements $472,500 Stanford Mill Road Improvements $500,000 Building Improvements $5,000,000 Total Option B Improvements $5,972,500

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Option C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway Site Improvements $270,000 Sewer Extension Connection $750,000 Building Improvements $5,000,000 Total Option C Improvements $6,020,000

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Option D: Existing Administration Site Demolition and Re‐Build Site Improvements (including demolition) $602,250 Building Improvements $6,250,000 Total Option D Improvements $6,852,250

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Option E: ADDITIONAL Alternate Site: Jacob’s Way Adjacent to Aquatic Center Site Improvements $526,500 Sewer Extension Connection $150,000 Building Improvements $5,000,000 Total Option E Improvements $5,676,500

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Questions?