HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-25-2012 - 1 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 25, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center Project Update
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environment, PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Agriculture, Parks &
Recreation (DEAPR) & Asset
Management Services (AMS)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
A) June 12, 2012 NHSC Project - Status David Stancil, DEAPR, (919) 245-2522
Report Marabeth Carr, DEAPR, (919) 245-2516
B) NHSC Development Option Jeff Thompson, AMS, (919) 245-2658
Comparison Wayne Fenton, AMS, (919) 245-2628
C) September 25, 2012 NHSC Michael Talbert, Assistant County
Community Meeting #2 Summary Manager, (919) 245-2308
PURPOSE: To receive an update from staff on efforts related to the Northern Human Services
Center (NHSC) as well as to provide feedback and direction on:
1) a summary and outcome of the public meeting held on September 25, 2012;
2) a potential recommendation for the "Option 2" development path for the project;
and
3) a potential recommendation to engage a professional design firm for the project
through a request for qualifications ("RFQ") process.
BACKGROUND: In June 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved the FY2012-17
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that included $250,000 in FY 2012-13 for deconstruction and
demolition of the Northern Human Services Building (NHSC) in preparation for the future use of
the site. The Board also approved $2.0 million in FY 2014-15 for construction of a new facility
at the site.
The Board may recall that staff held a public meeting to receive input on the function,
appearance, and characteristics of this proposed new facility. Attachment A, a June 12, 2012
memorandum entitled "Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) Project - Status Report",
presents the summary provided to the Board in a work session prior to the summer break. The
community meeting concluded with public consensus on the types of uses the proposed facility
should include within its space plan. However, there were mixed opinions regarding either
building a completely new facility or retaining components of the original facility. A "adaptive re-
use" development model would incorporate components within a design that would retain more
of the character and cultural significance of the original facility.
2
Staff held an additional public input session on September 25, 2012. The focus of that meeting
was to gather input and consensus on a development path of an approximate 10,000 square
foot facility that would follow a new construction path ("Option 1") or the "adaptive re-use"
construction path ("Option 2"). Attachment B, entitled "NHSC Development Option
Comparison", compares and contrasts these two options.
In summary, while both options are similar in total cost, Option 1 allows for more design and
space planning flexibility. Option 2 maintains the important social, cultural, and historic
elements within the design, but would restrict some space planning and use flexibility.
The September 25, 2012 public meeting produced a strong preference for Option 2, the
"adaptive re-use" path. Attachment C is a September 25, 2012 NHSC Community Meeting #2
Summary which provides the salient outcomes of that meeting.
In addition to the preference for Option 2, the public meeting group embraced staff's suggestion
that an informal resident design and review advisory group be presented to the Board for
approval.
If the Board approves staff moving forward with the project as recommended at the November
8, 2012 regular meeting, the development timeline would be as follows:
TASK PROPOSED END BY
BEGINNING DATE
DATE
BOCC Action: Receive ro'ect u date 10/25/12 10/25/12
BOCC Action: Decision on Mana er recommendations 11/8/12 11/8/12
NHSC fully vacated 12/31/12 12/31/12
Project design RFQ process; Board approval of Designer 3/1/13 6/20/13
Contract
BOCC Action: Approval for Designer Professional Services 6/20/13 6/20/13
Agreement (est.)
Pro�ect schematic desi n 6/20/13 10/20/13
BOCC Action: A roval of Schematic Desi n est. 10/20/13 10/20/13
Project final design, bid document preparation 11/1/13 1/31/14
Project Bid - abatement, deconstruction and adaptive re-use 2/1/14 4/28/14
construction (est.)
BOCC Action: Bid Award, Budget Approval for Construction 6/20/14 6/20/14
(est.)
Construction, Commissionin , O enin est. 8 months duration 7/1/14 3/1/15
3
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving this update and
providing feedback to staff.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the Northern
Human Services Center project update and provide direction to staff on the following:
1. the summary and outcome of the public meeting held September 25, 2012;
2. a potential recommendation for the "Option 2" development path for the project; and
3. a potential recommendation to engage a professional design firm for the project through
a request for qualifications ("RFQ") process.
4
ATTACHMENT A �
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Clifton, County Manager '
FROM: Michael Talbert, Assistant County Manager '
Pam Jones, Asset Management Director
David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation Director
DATE: June 12, 2012
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) Project - Status Report
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on the NHSC project,
results of the March community input session, and planned next steps. The Board
may find this information of use as it completes deliberation on the FY 2012-13
Budget and the 2012-17 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The Manager's
Recommended CIP includes $250,000 in FY 2012-13 for preparation of the NHSC
site for future use, which may involve full or partial deconstruction/demolition of
the existing 1950 structure, and $2.0 million in FY 2014-15 for construction of a
new facility at the site.
Background
As brief background, the former Northern Human Services Center is located at 5800
NC 86 North, approximately seven miles north of Hillsborough in Cedar Grove
Township. The land for the school was conveyed by the Vincent family in 1946, and '
the school was constructed in 1950 (with a 1957 kitchen addition) as the African-
American school for this part of the county.
With school integration in the late-1960's, the Orange County Board of Education
consolidated schools, and the building and eight-acre property was transferred to
Orange County in August 1976. This deed included a stipulation that the property ',
must be used "for a public purpose" or ownership would revert back to the Board of
Education. By the mid-1980's, the facility was in use for a variety of County � ,
purposes, which over the years have included, but are not limited to social services,
a branch library, Durham Tech classes, a variety of child care services and Head
Start programs and a variety of recreation classes and programs.
5
Over the past 15 years, a number of studies were undertaken to determine possible
uses for the building. None of the potential uses, however, fared favorably when
compared to the cost and effort that would be needed to bring the building up to a
suitable standard of operating efficiency. Estimated costs to complete the needed
work in 2001 ranged between $2.1 and $2.4 million. By today's construction costs,
the estimated investment would likely go well beyond $3 million. While portions of
the building have been closed off to help minimize the approximately $100,000
annual operating expenses, the construct of the building systems limit what can be
done in this regard.
One of the primary concerns of the existing facility is septic capacity. Although
additional land for expansion was purchased across the highway from the main
building, the designed facilities carried an anticipated cost well over $500,000, so
the project was suspended.
In 2001, county voters approved a bond referendum which included funds for a
park on 40-acres previously-acquired behind the structure. The Cedar Grove Park
was constructed and opened in 2008. The last County functions left the facility in
2010, and the only remaining uses are the Cedar Grove Day Care (scheduled to
vacate the building by January 1, 2013), storage of equipment by County
departments, and a former classroom used as the park office by the Cedar Grove
Park manager.
In 2011, as part of capital planning deliberations, $250,000 was earmarked for FY
2012-13 for deconstruction/demolition of the facility, and in 2012, based on Board
discussions, an additional $2.0 million was included in the Manager's Recommended
2012-17 CIP for FY 2014-15 as a placeholder for a new facility. As a part of these
discussions, the Board asked that staff solicit public input on the plans for the
facility prior to final decisions.
Community Input Session - March 19
As a precursor to a public input session, staff from the County Manager's office,
Asset Management Services and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation invited a small group of community representatives who had been
active in the previous park planning effort to an informal pre-meeting, to receive
feedback on how to best solicit community input. This information was used to
develop a Public Input Session that was held on March 19, 2012.
A summary of this meeting is provided as Attachment 1. Flyers were mailed to all
property owners within one mile of the NHSC, distributed to area stores and
churches, and advance notice was posted on the marquee sign outside the building.
6
Over 50 persons attended this input session, held in the cafeteria of the NHSC. �
Representatives completed a survey about preferences for the future uses at the
site. There were mixed opinions about whether to try and retain the '
cafeteria/gymnasium "center mass" of the facility and retrofit it with new restrooms ',
and upgraded facilities, or to memorialize and document the existing facility before ,
taking it down for a new community facility. However, there was strong consensus '
on the types of activities and uses that residents favored for this location, including: ,
• Large meeting room for community meetings, family reunions,
• Stage area for performances,
• Warming (catering) kitchen, '
• Rooms for classes, summer camps and gams or some indoor athletics, and '
� A cellular phone tower that improved area phone reception
Respondees were unanimous that they would personally use a facility along these '�,
lines.
Follow-up Discussions and Proposed Next Steps ',
After tallying survey results and a dot-voting exercise conducted at the meeting,
staff inet on two occasions to discuss how to proceed. A report to the Board of ',
Commissioners on the activities to date, and another community input session were
deemed to be the most prudent next steps. ',
From the first input session, it was clear that residents have a strong sense of place ,
and community in being from Cedar Grove, and an attachment to some level of
service provision in the community. It was also clear that many present desired
additional information - both about the current status of the existing structure, and '
about °what could be" in the way of a new facility. A "vision" of what could be
seemed to be one key piece that meeting attendees desired to be able to see and
discuss.
In that light, staff proposes the following course of action: '
1. That this status report be shared with the BOCC as final CIP decisions are '
considered to provide an opportunity to provide feedback. (June), ,
2. That a letter be sent to the public input sessions participants thanking them
for their assistance and attendance, and identifying these next steps and '
timetable. (June), '
3. The staff work on developing visual images of both the current
gymnasium/cafeteria (identifying and acknowledging both the opportunities
and unique architectural features of the existing building, and the deficiencies
of a 62-year old building with outdated facilities and infrastructure); and a
7
vision of an alternative building and how it might be laid out and function.
(summer),
4. That staff hold another community input session - starting with a tour of the
existing facility (augmented by the good and bad images outlined above),
and then a visual/graphic oriented meeting showing both current facility
opportunities and challenges, and a visual of a possible future facility.
Attendees would be invited to participate in hands-on design and discussion
of what features of the old structure are most important, how they could be
retained, and what kind of layout an alternative future facility might have.
(September)
5. The results of this input session would be shared with the Board this fall,
along with a staff recommendation on a course of action and an opportunity
for residents to speak their feeling about the options and proposed course of
action. (October), and
6. Board decision on the course of action for the new facility, and
implementation of same as per the directed schedule. (October).
In conclusion, staff was impressed and heartened to see the strong opinions and
feedback provided in the March session. It is clear that Cedar Grove residents feel
passionately about their community, and desire a place for community events to
occur. It is hoped that this memorandum and this possible course of action will lead
to a mutual agreement on the best way to meet the community's needs going
forward.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
8
ATTACHMENT B
Northern Human Services Center Development Option Comparison
Option 1 Option 2
New Construction, 10,000 square foot pre- Removal of classroom wings, adaptive
engineered metal building, standing seam re-use of 10,000 square foot center
roof, masonry and/or block accented portion; new roof and building systems;
exterior walls; standard interior upfit standard interior upfit
Abatement, Removal $220K- $250K $175K- $225K
Design, Construction, Equipment $1.3M - $1.5M $1.36M - $1.58M
Contingency $300K- $350K $309K- $366K
Schematic Budget Estimate $1.82M -$2.10M $1.84M -$2.17M
Schematic Budget per square foot $182 -$210 $185 -$217
Considerations:
Development and Construction Cost Lower Low to Mid-Range
Design Flexibility Higher Lower
Programmed Use Flexibility Higher Lower
Unforeseen Conditions Lower Higher
Original Structure's Use? No Yes
Estimated Future Operating Costs Low to Mid-Range Low to Mid-Range
9
ATTACHMENT C
,
Northern Human Services Center (Old Cedar Grove School) ,
Project
Community Meeting #2
September 25, 2012
Summary
31 persons and five staff were present for the meeting
• A building tour was held at 6:00 to look for important architectural features
and share stories or information about the school and its history.
• After the tour, the group discussed the locations and topics discussed and
seen in the building. Some of the notes and points were:
o The building was last used as a school in 1969
o There were weekly Friday plays put on by classes at the school
o Often had Dances and Talent shows in the Gym
o Lunches cost .25 a day or $1 a week
o There was a May Pole in the front yard
o There was a small playground behind the school
o The old ballfield was the location for the school's playing field
o Interest in retaining the look of the school
o Interest in reusing bricks, steel poles of the existing school - or
purchasing some items from the school if sections are deconstructed.
o Interest in purchasing salvaged items
• Staff presented pros and cons of different building options:
o The current Capital Investment Plan includes $250,000 for building
deconstruction, and $2.0 million in FY 2014-15 for a new facility of
some type (to be determined)
o Option 1 - New Pre-engineered 10,000 sf building, with masonry wall
accents (Schematic Budget estimate - $1.93 million)
o Option 2 - Adaptive Reuse of Central Portion of Current Structure
(10,000 sf), remove classroom wings, some reworking and additions
(Schematic budget estimate - $1.96 million).
o Examples and pros/cons of each were shared.
• The group then discussed preferences, important features or desired
components, and a design and review advisory group
• The group had a strong preference for Option 2 (adaptive reuse of central
portion of building - cafeteria, gym, principals office area). Only two persons
indicated preference for Option 1.
• It was noted that some work would be needed to bring the remaining
1950/1957 structure up to building code, including new restrooms.
• The group validated the top preferences for building uses from March:
o Meeting room for community meetings, family reunions, etc
o Space for indoor athletics activities (gym or gym-like room)
o Stage for performances
o Warming kitchen
o Rooms for classes, summer camps
10
I
o Cellular tower to improve area phone service '
• Additional uses the group indicated would be preferred included:
o Some type of room with computers and internet access (as the library '
branch used to have). ,
o Some classrooms - could a few of them be retained? '
o Support for an Emergency Services base station - as long as it did not '
take space away from the proposed center
• There was a question about the naming of the facility and the future of the '
new playground built with the park (if the classroom wings were taken
down).
• There was interest in having residents serve on an informal design and ,
review advisory group. Eight members volunteered to serve on this informal '
group to help advise on designing the new building as it moves forward. �'
Conclusions '
1. Staff will make a summary of this meeting and the group's ,
recommendations.
2. The recommendations, along with the proposal to create the informal design
and review advisory group, will be shared with the Board of County
Commissioners at a worksession this fall. '
3. Once direction has been received from the Board, a proposed course of '
action would be developed for Board approval. '