Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2004-03-22 Item 4C - Council - Council Chambers Remodel and UpgradeOriginal Sponsor: Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: Recommendations: Sponsor: Committee: Administration: Cost Impact (if known): Fund Source (if known): Meeting Date 2/2/04 Meeting Date 3/22/04 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor's review 1 Council review I 3/22/04 FI I I,'I bin H I I I I I I :PSI ON CAS Number: 04-011 I Original Agenda Date: February 2, 2004 Agenda Item Title: Council Chambers Remodel Council Present update and obtain Council's decision on desired final option. $103,496 $503,330 303 Fund Admin. Attachments Information Memo dated March 17, 2004 plus Attachments A -E Utilities Committee Minutes from March 2, 2004 Meeting I TEMN O. c Public Works In early 2003, Council was briefed on a plan to correct audio, display, presentation, seating and equipment problems in the Municipal Court/Council Chambers. Subsequent Council and Committee meetings resulted in changes to the Project proposal. Council will be briefed on final options and will be requested to decide on an option that best fits the needs of the City. j z 11, Action Revise Upgrade Proposal and remand to the Finance and Safety Committee. INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet G From: public Works Direct ?l Date: March 17, 2004 Subject: Council Chambers Unorade Project ISSUE Obtain Council decision on the proposed Council Chambers Upgrade Project. BACKGROUND In early 2003, Council was briefed on a plan to correct audio, display, presentation, seating and equipment problems in the multi purpose facility that serves primarily as a Municipal Court and Council Chambers. The Upgrade Project incorporated the needs of the Court, City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, and the general public. Subsequent Council and Committee meetings resulted in changes to the Project proposal. During the March 2, 2004, Utilities Committee Meeting, Staff was requested to present to the Committee of the Whole, alternatives listed below. DISCUSSION Before deciding on an option, it is important to consider the following factors: As briefed in earlier presentations, funds for the upgrade project would be provided by the 303 Fund. Note that there are many competing projects in the 303 Fund Project Listing. The costs for the projects underway, and those in the design/planning phase, exceed the 303 Funds budgeted amount. Through negotiations with COMCAST, it is possible for the City to obtain additional funds to offset the project costs. Use of the funds would be restricted to capital equipment related to establishment of a city information channel and government cablecasting. In consideration of the funds, the City would be required to relieve COMCAST of its responsibility to provide the necessary equipment for local government cablecasting. The amount of funding provided by Comcast would be passed through to subscribers. Note that this additional funding from COMCAST is only possible with Options 1 and 2 The Municipal Court is the primary user of the multi- purpose facility. In most cases, the Court Staff uses the facility 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. A critical piece of equipment used by the Court (analog recording system) is antiquated, unreliable and wholly inadequate for recording testimony. Additionally, the facility is not outfitted with ADA accommodations and does not have a jury box. The multi purpose facility has not had a significant upgrade since it was opened approximately 20 years ago. The sound system is marginal at best, furniture is worn and mismatched, and the carpet needs to be replaced. At the Utilities and Finance and Safety Committees, Staff was, requested to evaluate the following six (6) options: Option 1: Approve the Upgrade Project that includes the basic minimum requirements, ADA accommodations and a few recommended enhancements. Estimated cost: $503.330 (see Attachments A B). Layout of the major components is depicted in Attachment C. This option is the most expensive but will solve existing problems and meet the needs of the Court, Council, City Staff, Planning Commission, and the public Option 2: Same as Option 1 but eliminate ADA accommodations, upper "lip" for dais and labor premium. Option 2 was developed to show the estimated cost of the complete project without the ADA requirements, the "lip" and the anticipated labor premium. The labor premium was removed with the assumption that the Municipal Court will be successful in finding an alternate location to conduct court proceedings. Estimated cost: $389.699 (see Attachments D E). Option 3: Purchase the Digital Recording System, upgrade the sound system, replace the carpet, and replace the furniture. Estimated cost: $103.496 This option provides a partial solution but will not solve concerns by all users. For example, the display and presentation system that facilitates professional multi -media presentations will continue to be an issue. The Court will not have a jury box, and ADA accommodations will not be included in the project. However, this option will provide the Court, City Clerk and the Planning Commission with a reliable digital recording system that facilitates better recording and faster retrieval of information. Furthermore, the new carpet and furniture will enhance the aesthetics of the facility. Option 4: Same as Option 3 but eliminate carpet replacement. Estimated cost: $90,193. Modification of Option 3 above, was requested by the Utilities Committee. Option 5: Purchase only the Digital Recording System. Estimated cost: $8.976 This option provides only a temporary solution to current problems. According to the vendors, the Digital Recording System is a state -of -the -art equipment but must have a well functioning audio system. The existing audio system is plagued with crackling and humming noise. If the audio system is not upgraded, the quality of recording will be degraded. Option 6: Do nothing and indefinitely postpone. Total cost: $0 This is not a viable option. The Court, Planning Commission, and the City Clerk need reliable audio recording and playback equipment. As noted above, Council has a range of options. Of the six options, Options 5 and 6 are not viable; therefore not recommended. Options 1, 2, 3 and 4 offer the best alternatives for the City. RECOMMENDATION Present to the Committee of the Whole for discussion and selection of final option. attachments: A. Technology /Equipment Requirements Cost Estimate for Option 1 B. Construction, Design, Furniture Cost Estimate for Option 1 C. Council Chambers Diagrams for Option 1 D. Technology /Equipment Requirements Cost Estimate for Option 2 E. Technology /Equipment Requirements Cost Estimate for Option 2 (P.JkeJ* Maio -Could CWm*c't Upgrade Project-Willits-COW) Council Chamber Upgrade Project Construction Design and Furniture Attachment A Option 1 Council Chambers Upgrade Project Technology / Equipment and Labor Cost Estimate Attachment B Option 1 City of Tukwila Council Chambers Upgrade Project Diagram 1 Attachment C Council Chambers Upgrade Project Diagram 2 Attachment C-1 Council Chambers Upgrade Project Construction Design and Furniture - Less Labor Premium Upper Dias and ADA Accomodations Attachment D Option 2 Council Chambers Upgrade Project Technology / Equipment and Labor Cost Estimate - Less Labor Premium Upper Dias and ADA Accomodations Attachment E Option 2 Utilities Committee March 2, 2004 Present: Pam Carter, Chair; Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Bob Giberson, Gail Labanara, Lucy Lauterbach 1. Solid Waste Rates The City currently has a franchise agreement with Sea Tac Disposal for garbage pickup. Their contract calls for annual rate adjustments to the service portion of their bill based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In April their rates will increase 1.31%. For the most common size garbage can for residences, the increase will be about $.08 per month. Pam C asked that the price for the most commons sized receptacles be included in public information. For a large commercial container, the price will go up about $.80 /month. Frank said they will publish the information about the rates in the Hazelnut and on the Web. The garbage contract expires in April, 2005, and there may be some issues about whether to keep the same hauler; and what to ask of them if we do keep them. Pam C asked about the complaints about the company, and Jim and Frank said their customer relations person was good. Pam L raised the issue of some apartments not having recycling. With our large apartment population, it would be beneficial if we could include recycling at most apartments. Staff will ask Rebecca Fox about this, and she can report at the next meeting what has and what could be done. Information: reschedule recycling issue. 2. Council Chambers Upgrade This issue has already been to a COW and then to Finance and Safety. Finance asked for four options to be developed, from doing nothing to doing the whole project. The project has been pared down from the "Cadillac" version first proposed, and it now includes adequate but not fancy retrofits. Even so, doing it all costs $503,329, which takes a large part of the 303 fund budget. Pam L said she had four questions, and if they could be answered satisfactorily, she could support doing the entire project. Her questions clarified what was included in the project. Pam C had questions about several of the descriptions in the detail sheet, as they were unfamiliar to her. The Committee also tried to find the difference in cost of putting in an ADA ramp or using a portable lift, since the former required moving a door and other modifications. Staff said the total cost of the ramp and its requirements for moving the door, and the cost of a lift were roughly similar. The Committee asked about the ledge on top of the dais, and were told it costs about $13,000. They opted to take it out. Gail told the Committee that removing $20,000 items would not affect the larger picture when the cost is $500,000. Pam L said she could support doing Option 4. Staff explained that Comcast would pay up to $100,000 for capital improvements. However, the cost would be passed on to subscribers at $.75 /month until it was paid off. Pam L said she didn't want to charge subscribers. Dennis said he was concerned about the possible budget implications of Eyeman's most recent initiative and declining city revenues. He proposed doing Option 3, which is the digital recording system, plus new audience chairs. The carpet shouldn't be replaced until the electronics are put in. If the other items in Option 4 were then held until next year, the city will be in a better place to know what its finances were. If finances are good, the project could be finished, and if they are poor, the City could live with the improvements made this year. Recommend Option 3 with furniture and the 303 active and design list to COW.