Receive an update on Capital Project Planning for the reuse of the Historic Courthouse's third floor and long range planning for reuse of the County Administration Center; approve conceptual space plan; and provide further direction to staff. (No general fund impact) (Pistochini) (Est. Time: 15 min)

Receive an update on Capital Project Planning for the reuse of the Historic Courthouse's third floor and long range planning for reuse of the County Administration Center; approve conceptual space plan; and provide further direction to staff.

The Historic Courthouse consists of three floors, and was originally constructed in 1919.  It was substantially remodeled several times since, most recently in 2020.  During this remodel, only the first two floors were reconstructed, leaving the third floor vacant.  The third floor is 10,635 square feet, of which approximately over 6,500 square feet is available for renovation as the remaining space consists of restrooms, hallways, and the historic courtroom.

The vacant third floor represents a unique opportunity to relocate County offices out of the County Administration Center to the Historic Courthouse, which will address additional space needs for County offices.  County staff reviewed the space needs of several county departments, and believe that relocating the Board Offices and the County Administrator's Offices to the Historic Courthouse presents the best fit for the space.  Staff is seeking Board approval of the attached conceptual space plan (Att. A), so that staff can begin to work on specification requirements to secure design and construction professionals.

In a typical capital improvement project, the County uses a design-bid-build ("DBB") method to secure architects and construction contractors.  In this model, the County will contract first with design professionals who work with the County to design the building systems and layout of the space, producing construction documents that a construction contractor will then bid on to build and prepare the complete project plans and specifications. This process keeps the architect and the construction contractor separate from each other, providing a sort of check and balance, but could contribute to certain inefficiencies in time and cost.  Additionally, in DBB, the lowest cost construction contractor's bid wins the contract.  For a project this complex, this may result in an inexperienced contractor winning the contract award and thus leading to project difficulties. 

An alternative to DBB is Design Build, which may be used for projects over $1,000,000.  For Design Build projects, the County develops specifications and then does a solicitation to secure a joint design-builder team to both design and build the project.  The process is supposed to be faster than DBB and allows the County to award a contract based on "best value" rather than the low bid price.  Best value is determined by evaluation of objective criteria that relate to price, features, functions, life-cycle costs, experience, and past performance of the design build team.  Design Build is considered to be a faster project delivery method because the Design Build team are one work group that works together, which may reduce in time for project design and allowing for flexibility in revising the design to address construction challenges.  However, the County's ability to engage in designing the project is reduced compared to DBB.  The Design Build process is strictly governed by state law, and the County will likely need to obtain a design professional prior to conducting a solicitation to assist with performance specifications given the complexity of the project involving a historic building.  Additionally, there is a Skilled & Trained Worker apprenticeship requirement that is similar to but not fully conforming with the County's local joint apprenticeship committee requirement. 

Staff are seeking feedback from the Board regarding preferences in the bidding method and whether to pursue DBB or Design Build.  While staff believe that Design-Build may reduce the timeline for this project and reduce overall project risk, staff need to continue to work through the state law requirements and will return to the Board with future action items required under state law to secure a design professional, review and potentially revise the conflict-of-interest policy to address design-build, obtain approval of other procurement and contracting related items, and adopt project specifications/requirements. 

Given the complexity of these issues, staff are recommending the creation of an ad hoc committee for the historic courthouse project. This will help staff receive input and feedback from board members throughout this project timeline.  Additionally, given the public interest in the use of the historic courtroom, the preservation of the historic courtroom and adjacent hallway, and the redesign of the courthouse grounds, staff recommend establishing a community advisory committee to report to and provide feedback to the ad hoc committee.  Staff can present the committee charter as an item for approval at the next Board meeting that incorporates the Board's feedback on this topic.

General Services staff worked with the County Administrator's Office and the County Counsel's Office. General Services also discussed with the existing historic courthouse tenant, the Probation Department, on their unique security requirements that impact public access.