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

SLIDE 1

Town Hall Meeting with the

Habersham County Board of Commissioners

JUNE 13, 2016

Administration Building Needs Assessment

SLIDE 2

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

Building Interior

– Significant water infiltration and mold growth was found

n the top floor

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

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

Energy Code Compliance

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

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

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

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

Structural Evaluation

– Façade modifications at exterior windows would require significant structural evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION A: Existing Administration Building /Site Major Renovation

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION B: Alternate Site – Adjacent to New Courthouse

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

OPTION D: Existing Administration Site Demolition and Re‐Build

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

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

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

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

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

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

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

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

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

Administration Building Needs Assessment

EXISTING BUILDING EVALUATION

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

– International Building Code – Life Safety Code – ADA Requirements

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

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

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

– Roof slopes not sufficient to drain

– Water is penetrating roof parapets allowing water to infiltrate building

– 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

– Significant water infiltration and mold growth was found

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

signage is not Code compliant

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

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

– Façade modifications at exterior windows would require significant structural 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

– 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

– 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

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

– 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

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

OPTION A: Existing Administration Building /Site Major Renovation

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

OPTION B: Alternate Site – Adjacent to New Courthouse

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

OPTION C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway

OPTION C: Alternate Site – 4306 Toccoa Highway

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

OPTION D: Existing Administration Site Demolition and Re‐Build

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

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

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

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?