Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-13-2014 - 2 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Space Study Follow-Up to November 12, 2013 BOCC Work Session DEPARTMENT: Asset Management Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A) Board-Adopted Framework for Jeff Thompson, 919-245-2658 Iterative, Continuous Space Study Wayne Fenton, 919-245-2628 B) Executive Summary from Follow Up Report to November 12, 2013 Space Study Report Available Electronically C) Follow Up Report to November 12, 2013 Space Study Report http.//orangecountync.gov/AssetMq mt/index.asp D) Work Session PowerPoint Presentation http.//orangecountync.gov/AssetMq mt/index.asp PURPOSE: To receive and discuss follow up to the space study presented at the Board's November 12, 2013 work session and to provide guidance and recommendations to the County Manager and staff in anticipation of the FY2014-15 goals, planning, and budget processes. BACKGROUND: During the May 21, 2013 regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners received a space study update report for review and comment. The abstract for this item can be found at http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/130521.pdf, Item 8-b. The Board requested that these presented space study initiatives: 1) return for the Board's review and continued discussion in anticipation of the Board's annual planning, prioritization, budgeting, and decision making processes; and 2) be delivered within a framework conducive to iterative, continuous study over time. The Board adopted study framework is illustrated in Attachment A entitled "Board-Adopted Framework for Iterative, Continuous Space Study". The framework is founded in the original 2001 framework and guiding principles as well as the major space study framework update in 2005. 2 As part of this framework, the County engaged ECS Carolinas, LLP of Raleigh, NC to work with County management and its departments in developing baseline information and ongoing analysis and benchmarking tools in the areas of space utilization and facilities assessment. This information was provided to the Board at its November 12, 2013 Work Session. The abstract for this item can be found at http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/131112.pdf Attachment C, "Follow Up to November 12, 2013 Space Study Report" is provided electronically (hard copies available upon request) and responds to the Board's request that staff provide/return with additional information regarding: • Options, costs and considerations for use or disposition of financially stressed facility assets • Options, costs and considerations for use of available unused/underutilized space • Availability and use of storage space by County departments and agencies, and identified needs Attachment B is the Executive Summary from the Report provided at Attachment C. Attachment D entitled "Work Session PowerPoint Presentation" is also provided electronically and outlines the talking points of the work session presentation. Hard copies of the presentation are available upon request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to receipt of this report. There may be financial impacts related to Board decisions regarding the long-term occupancy and use of referenced facilities. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive and discuss the space study follow up information and provide guidance to the Manager and staff in anticipation of the FY2014-15 Capital Investment Planning process. 3 Attachment A Space Study Framework (BOCC adopted on June 18, 2013) 1. Purpose: The purpose of this space study framework is to provide staff a Board adopted set of guidelines to systematically inventory, assess, and manage County facility needs on a continuous basis. Specifically, the framework addresses: a. Space inventory(facility report updated May 2013) b. Projected space requirements through 2020 (short term; extended from original target of meeting needs up to 2010 in 2005 space study update) c. Projected space needs that may fall beyond 2020 time frame (long term; extended from original target of meeting needs up to 2010 in 2005 space study update) d. Identified space issues that may affect quality of service to County customers e. The systematic gathering, review and management of departmental space needs that impact services (i.e. service trends, locational needs, technology, growth and/or contraction) f. The presentation of options and recommendations to the Board that prioritize, optimize, manage, and ultimately meet County space needs in a reasonable and useful manner 2. Guiding Principles: a. Board Adopted in 2001: • Co-location of departments with similar functions and/or those that serve the same customer base • Consolidation of County operations to as few sites as may be practicable in an attempt to gain operational efficiency and customer access • Owning facilities in which County operations are located, as opposed to leasing, except where there exists a compelling business reason to do so b. Additional Guiding Principle Board Adopted in 2005: • Building and maintaining facilities and spaces according to sustainable practices and high performance building standards (Board adopted Environmental Responsibility Goals) c. Suggested Principle for Board Adoption in 2013: • Evaluation of the relative cost and benefit of facilities use where those facilities are stressed—"fully and/or practically depreciated". This principle is necessary in order to manage the facility to its highest and best use while planning and providing for the potentially displaced space need. 4 3. Basis of Study: The study will include a review of the use of all County buildings, along with a description of the space needs of each County department and other users of County buildings (e.g. District Attorney). These assessments will serve as a fundamental work product and will form the basis for the scope of the study: a. Management and Staff Assessment and Input. The Metrics of this Assessment are as follows: i. Management evaluation and comment ii. Staff evaluation, collected and documented by the user questionnaire established in 2001 b. Physical Assessment and Inventory. The Metrics of this Assessment are as follows: i. Physical report (staff and consultant) ii. Maintenance and utility report (staff) iii. Identification of stressed and under-utilized assets iv. Valuation of stressed and under-utilized assets through a Net Present Value Calculation (staff) c. Departmental Space Needs Programming housed within stressed or under- utilized assets (staff and consultant) 4. Scope of Study: The scope of the study will be based upon the before-mentioned Basis of Study data, analysis, and conclusions and will be framed by: a. Space needs required no later than 2020; as well as beyond 2020— based upon: i. management and staff assessments, ii. facility assessments, iii. identified stressed or underutilized assets, iv. identified Board, management, and departmental needs; b. Board adopted strategic planning initiatives 5 5. Options and Recommendations: The criteria and decision factors for recommended space study action that are suggested for Board adoption are as follows: a. Making decisions based upon the before-mentioned guiding principles: • Consolidation • Centralization • Ownership • Sustainable building operation and programming • Cost and benefit analysis b. Minimizing under-utilized spaces c. Formulating reasonable, defensible courses of action for stressed facilities d. Providing exceptional facilities for County service delivery e. Meeting longstanding, publicly supported needs f. Recognizing, anticipating, and planning for growth (and contraction)trends 6. Timeline and Horizon: Staff will recommend space need prioritization, scheduling and funding sources to the Board for comment and adoption each fall prior to the annual Capital Investment Planning process. This space study framework is recommended to be fully updated every 5th year,with annual status reports to be presented to the Board each fall before the budget season. These updates may serve as a vehicle to recognize and address the trends and strategic directions and receive Board guidance outside of the budget process. This space study framework will be used for a systematic study of County facility space needs in 2013. 6 Follow Up to November 12,2013 Space Study Attachment B Executive Summary At the request of the BOOCduringthe November 12, 2013 work session,Asset Management Services("AMS') staff: • Fbviewed options for use of unused and under-utilized space in several County buildings, including the financially stressed Environment and Agriculture Center(EAC); • Identified options for future use of the spaces, and • Developed cost est imates for the work necessary to prepare spaces for use. Each space has a number of options for future use,with varying associated costs for each. AMSalso developed more specific recommendations and options for the Board's review concerning storage space utilization. RressedAsset/Under=Utilized Space. The EACon Fbvere Fbad was identified as stressed asset by ECS Carol inas in the evaluation previously performed for the County. If thisfacility isto remain in use beyond the next four to five years, significant improvementswill be required, estimated at $1,433,000(Plus upfit costs if layout isto be modified -see table below). Another facility where significant investmentswould be required for occupancy by staff is the former Cedar Grove school/future Cedar Grove community center, if classroom wings were to be occupied. Should the Board decide to retain these wings, basiccostswill be incurred for any future use, in order to meet building and fire code requirements. However, additional investment would be necessary if staff were to be relocated to the facility, due to current Iimitson the septicsystem. Underutilized but very"healthy' space existsat the Government Service Annex, currently used to house elections equipment. This space could be upfit for use as offices rather than storage, as is currently the case for much of the building. Storage is not the highest and best use of this fad lity; it would serve much better as an office building, and could support office and collaborative uses in its current state. Investment will be required beyond the next four to five yearsto replace the existing WACsystem, and to address issues associated with the building being partially within the flood plain, if it isto remain in use. Smilarly, other underutilized but healthy spaces exist at the Whitted Center(approximately 2,565 assignable square feet)and Link Center(approximately 4,680 assignable square feet). Both would require basic renovations to create office and/or multi-functional space. The tables below provide an overview of options for the Board to consider regarding potential uses of these facilities(equipment and/or staff)and associated cost estimatesfor each. The Board may choose to: 1) Continue to maintain t he exist i ng fad I it i es and uses"as is" and commit the resources to maintaining them, even in an inefficient manner; or 7 2) Entertain maximizing the utility of the available spaces at their highest and best uses, or 3) Arriving at a blended strategy of both#1 and#2 above. Input, guidance and direction provided by the Board at the February 13, 2014 work session will be used to identify associated costs for years six through ten of the aPfor preferred options, and to begin the necessary planning to develop these options. Table 1 Department F;blocation Options Department laelocation Options(Available assignable square footage) Cedar Whiffed Link Assignable trove Ctr GSA CSC Blackwood Farm EAC Current Square Oocupant +/-12,128 10,960 Location Footer Count SF 2,565 SF 4,875 4,680 SF 7BD SF SF DEAPR support S/cs&Dir EAC 3,741 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Natural&cultural Res EAC 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Sail&Water EAC 717 5 Yes No Yes No Yes N/A Cooperative Ext EAC 4,968 10 Yes No Yes No Yes N/A Farm 8/c Agency EAC 1,532 4 Yes No Yes No Yes N/A Bections* GSA 1 4,875 1 4 1 No No N/A Yes No Yes * Bectionsassignable square footage at GS4 includesstorage space dedicated for election equipment and supply storage. Table 2 Estimated Coststo Develop Available dace Location Upfit Max $Total Other oosts Estimated $/SF SF Septicsystem WAC Roodplain RDof Paving $Total Cedar Grove $30.00 21,000 $608,700 $600,000 $1,208,700 Link GSC $175 4,680 $819,000 $819,000 Whitted Center $80 2,565 $205,200 $205,200 GSA $80 4,875 $390,000 $350,000 $400,000 $1,140,000 $6,000,000(Yr 6- Blackwood Farm 10) $6,000,000 EAC* $80 10,960 $876,800 $663,000 $560,000 $210,000 $2,309,800 *9iould EACbe reconfigured for interior use(office, multi-purpose,controlled storage, etc.). Systematic County storage programming and utilization. The Board may recall that County storage practices are de-centralized and somewhat inefficient relative to overall space utilization within the County. Snce the November 12, 2013 report to Board,AMSstaff surveyed County departments regarding their current storage practices, the regulatory requirementsfor retention of their department's records, and other storage needs and preferences. Thirty-six surveys were completed by twenty-one departments(multiple surveys were submitted for departments with multiple divisions and/or that have multiple locations). The following information was summarized from the completed surveys. 8 • Fifteen departments make use of the"off-site" conditioned storage lockers located at the EACon Fbvere Fbad for records storage; • Three departments store items in the unconditioned space at 510 Meadowlands Fbad; • Twenty departments indicated that there are regulatory requirementsfor records retention for records for their departments; • Fifteen departments indicated that they routinely retain records beyond the required retention period for their department/agency, primarily for historical reference and institutional memory; • Eighteen departments indicated that electronic storage of at least some of the recordsthey are required to retain is acceptable(would have additional unbudgeted cost implications for ITscanning project); • Seventeen agencies indicated that off-site storage of required records isacceptable; • Several departments currently use office space for storage of records, equipment, etc. Fboommendationsl Next Steps Asset Management Services staff is preparing a written policy for presentation to the Board for review and potential adoption for storage of records and other items requiring storage that will ensure: • F=requently accessed records and other items needed to be housed " locally" will be stored within departments; infrequently accessed records and items will be efficiently stored in designated off-site storage locations; • Designated office space is not used for records or equipment storage; • Fbgulatory requirementsfor records retention are met; • County needs and wishesfor the identification and retention of recordswith historical significance are maintained beyond regulatory requirements,where applicable; • Fbcordsthat will not be maintained for historical reference are routinely destroyed and/or recycled at the end of the required retention period.